"Great" photographers are nothing more than photographers with marketing sense. A claim that a certain person pioneered any one field or aspect of photography must be tempered with the understanding they were only the first to be widely recognized for it, hence the credit is given to them merely from the unknowledge of countless other photographers, perhaps doing the same type of work.
---
As to the P&S - I don't see the deal. Some people like small cameras, good for them - so do I. It's just a means to an end.
Some people (as expressed by this thread) may not like that end - welcome to the subjective world of photography I still don't know how people seriously argue that person X is so much better than whoever - be it this chap here with the P&S or AA or whoever else (I don't know of a lot of famous photographers nor do I really care to).
...and it becoming the most expensive photo ever sold.
Oh wait...
It's especially difficult to judge large works like this until they're seen in person, because of the scale, although I do like it even at web size. Of course, I'm not saying that such a work would be worth $4 million dollars to me, but I'd like to see it in person and judge for myself. I was surprised how much I enjoyed an Eggleston exhibit in person.
cputeq wrote:
"Great" photographers are nothing more than photographers with marketing sense. A claim that a certain person pioneered any one field or aspect of photography must be tempered with the understanding they were only the first to be widely recognized for it, hence the credit is given to them merely from the unknowledge of countless other photographers, perhaps doing the same type of work.
That's true with music and art (come to think of it, probably most things in life,) although the artist him/herself doesn't necessarily need to be great at marketing and social skills if someone who has those skills believes in them and takes that on themselves, like an agent. Most artists that I know don't have the organization to be marketing gurus themselves.
douglasf13 wrote:
That's true with music and art (come to think of it, probably most things in life,) although the artist him/herself doesn't necessarily need to be great at marketing and social skills if someone who has those skills believes in them and takes that on themselves, like an agent. Most artists that I know don't have the organization to be marketing gurus themselves.
True, I'm sure this mind-blowing concept could be applied to lots of other fields also
My point is that the photographer, in whatever fashion they've chosen, have made themselves stand out from a sea of other photographers, and I would argue that rarely is it technical skill that lends itself to this "standing out".
Could be that at a time everyone's turning right, someone turns left and is deemed PURE GENIUS because of it -- I just say perhaps it wasn't because that person was the FIRST to turn left, but that someone shouted loudly enough that they'd done so, and all of a sudden they're a visionary.
Just my opinion of course - I think most popular/famous photography is just a gigantic helping of pretentiousness with a visual display included as a distraction, so one doesn't think the speaker/writer of aforementioned pretentiousness is a blithering dolt.
At least for me, it seems the "interest to pretentiousness" ratio is an inverse relationship. For me, an interesting photo stands on its own and doesn't need a paragraph telling me why I should like it. The more I have to read why this "is", the less I tend to like it (with exceptions of course)
For me, the photograph is a communication between the photographer and the viewer ... with the image being "I want to show this to you". It kinda takes the place of "Hey, come over here and see this." or "Hey, look at that." or "Hey, have you ever seen this." or "Hey, you should think about this." While the "this" could be anything from a portrait to the moon to a "blob of blue" ... I can be good with just about anything.
But, I'm still grappling with taking images with the intent of having no purpose or point. It just seems rather oxymoronic to intentionally create a visual message without a message. To each his own, certainly ... but why are people so hyped up over a visual message without a message ... I simply don't see the "genius" in such an endeavor.
cputeq wrote:
True, I'm sure this mind-blowing concept could be applied to lots of other fields also
My point is that the photographer, in whatever fashion they've chosen, have made themselves stand out from a sea of other photographers, and I would argue that rarely is it technical skill that lends itself to this "standing out".
Could be that at a time everyone's turning right, someone turns left and is deemed PURE GENIUS because of it -- I just say perhaps it wasn't because that person was the FIRST to turn left, but that someone shouted loudly enough that they'd done so, and all of a sudden they're a visionary.
Just my opinion of course - I think most popular/famous photography is just a gigantic helping of pretentiousness with a visual display included as a distraction, so one doesn't think the speaker/writer of aforementioned pretentiousness is a blithering dolt.
At least for me, it seems the "interest to pretentiousness" ratio is an inverse relationship. For me, an interesting photo stands on its own and doesn't need a paragraph telling me why I should like it. The more I have to read why this "is", the less I tend to like it (with exceptions of course)
Yeah, I know plenty of talented artists and musicians who are very talented and never made a dime off of their art. I played in an underground bands for 10 years in L.A. and never came out ahead. The problem is, without promotion, how would one know where to look to find this work? I certainly don't love everything I see, but modern art museums have been the easiest way to find a consistent selection of things that I like. I rarely find pages on the internet where I find a lot of photography that I love, outside of maybe a few sites like iN-PUBLiC and Triangle Triangle, and, even with those sites, I'd rather see things in person or maybe a well done book.
The interesting thing about photography is there seems to be quite a mix of both scientific and artistic minds(or some combination of the two,) and, while one person loves looking at a highly detailed photo of a mountain, others would prefer a photo of a blue wall. That's why I haven't been to the Annenberg Space for Photography, yet. Outside of maybe their current exhibition, they haven't really had any exhibitions that interested me, but others love old Rock and Roll photos, sports personalities, etc.
p.s. I rarely get much from description cards in museums. In fact, I even prefer untitled photos for the most part.
: "Great" photographers are nothing more than photographers with marketing sense. A claim that a certain person pioneered any one field or aspect of photography must be tempered with the understanding they were only the first to be widely recognized for it, hence the credit is given to them merely from the unknowledge of countless other photographers, perhaps doing the same type of work.
That's true with music and art (come to think of it, probably most things in life,) although the artist him/herself doesn't necessarily need to be great at marketing and social skills if someone who has those skills believes in them and takes that on themselves, like an agent. Most artists that I know don't have the organization to be marketing gurus themselves....Show more →
True, I'm sure this mind-blowing concept could be applied to lots of other fields also
I sure we could all think of a few well-known visual artists who are much better at marketing than at their art. Among my neighbors are two true geniuses in other fields who would much rather spend their time perfecting their skill than telling people how great they are. They both work in relative obscurity, known only to a few fortunate friends.
Regardless of the debate, this thread got me interested and saw another documentary on Daido Moriyama from the 90s. Quite inspiring philosophically. Photography was directly reflecting his incessant search of his voice for the last 50 years. By the way, if one could shoot the way he did for 50 years and could survive, it is something. Still loving that grain.
Oh, and seeing him shooting with P&S film camera in the 90's, it is no surprise he is shooting similarly now. I don't know whether it is jpg or not though.
Persistence in search for his voice (even if not finding it for 50 years) ... now that makes more sense to me than intent of no intent or an intentionally message-less message in his images themselves. From that I can see people admiring his persona and thus aspiring to emulate. But it would seem that he has found iconic cultural popularity moreover than voice, message & talent, en route of his quest for the same ... at least from the snippet I've been introduced.
My guess is that he has become somewhat trapped by the popularity to remain in quest of his voice, forever portraying the lost rather than being the found. Given that multitudes of people identify with others that are artistically expressive of still trying to find their way / voice / etc., I can see how the throngs of following might have been derived. Otherwise, I'm still in the "I don't get it ... yet" camp.
To that end, I suppose I can possibly relate a bit, as I can't say I've found my voice yet either. I can kinda feel it going from an invisible gas to misty vapor that I hope will someday take on better form. But mine has quite a way to go before it becomes either a fluid or well structured solid. Yet I still feel as though it's "brewing" in me, if only I'll stay the course as it evolves at a glacial pace ... as if that makes any sense.
telyt wrote:
I sure we could all think of a few well-known visual artists who are much better at marketing than at their art. Among my neighbors are two true geniuses in other fields who would much rather spend their time perfecting their skill than telling people how great they are. They both work in relative obscurity, known only to a few fortunate friends.
Prized by their immediate community, based purely on their talents and the enrichment they offer.
My supermarket has a large shelf reserved for tinned spaghetti and baked beans and spam and I'm guessing that amongst some of you there will be those that like these things and even some that can tell us all the varieties that are possible.
One of you will likely even advise us of their nutritional worth as a landscape hiker on the side of a distant mountain but in truth if you are there long enough ...you'd eat your own foot as long as there was ketchup in your pack.
...and it becoming the most expensive photo ever sold.
To return to this, I am a huge fan of Gursky, not necessarily every photo he has made, and in particular, this one doesn't really touch me. However, it is not what it seems. Gursky is not just a snapshot photographer, he works primarily conceptually, and after shooting, he processes the images to match what he intends. Here is a (badly compressed but) quite interesting movie about Gursky, made by a "fanboy", Ben Lewis:
Starting at about 21:10, you get to see the location where Gursky conceived the idea for "Rhein II", and hear the background for it.
You may not like Gursky's art, but it would be hard to deny that he deserves his success. This is not a random fluke, the guy works very hard at his vision, and has done so almost his whole life, and his luck is that it has struck a chord with buyers.
carstenw wrote:
Starting at about 21:10, you get to see the location where Gursky conceived the idea for "Rhein II", and hear the background for it.
There was an actual "idea" that had to be conceived for that shot? I'm trolling...
Some people see art where I see only crap, but it doesn't mean I'm right and they're wrong. Everyone has the right to evaluate "art" in their own way, and I'm not saying an artist is good or bad, because in the end it's all subjective.
However... when it's obvious that the "art" is only appreciated by people who are "initiated" and it's claimed that ordinary people are incapable of understanding the genius mastermind behind it, or when such "art" starts to be valued at millions of dollars, it's kind of begging to be made fun of. Especially as the initiated few are so protective of the idea that the crap they consider art is in fact the work of a genius, that they go to great lengths to defend it for the "artist", who BTW is laughing all the way to the bank.
RustyBug wrote:
Persistence in search for his voice (even if not finding it for 50 years) ... now that makes more sense to me than intent of no intent or an intentionally message-less message in his images themselves.
The genera as I understand it and as hundreds of others submerged in it have explained; it's not the intent of no intent messagelessly. It's the attempt to communicate stillness in harmony with one's surroundings - the message of non-intension (kinda). This is the zen thing I mentioned before. It's like being in a rapid river as opposed to observing it from the shore. From the shore it looks confused and turbulent, destructive and chaotic. But floating downstream in it things appear calm and fluid. This is a very large and very loud part of Japanese social consciousness and I see it expressed in the indigenous art here a lot. This is one reason why I think his work is so stereo-typical and average. The first time I experienced an awareness of this form of zen myself was about 30 years ago in the underground here in Japan. There were millions of black headed people all orderly going to or from somewhere all wearing essentially the same thing and moving in like manner (like a river) yet there was a unique beauty in whichever direction I looked. Standing still in it was an entirely different feeling than "going with the flow" so to speak like the river example of being on the shore or in it. To capture and share this experience needs a kind of mindlessness. You're not minding the subject nor the camera much just kinda going with the flow of what would otherwise appear chaotic and "sampling" the sights and energies as you go. Yeah, just basically randomly snapping snapshots as you tool around in the flow of things - indeed.
Once back at the computer with your digitized "experience" you sort for the ones which had some interesting composition, contrast, moment, or whatever and try to accentuate that feeling in post, and then publish. If the person is good at recognizing the key attributes during the sort and was competent in timing and direction during the shoot and additionally knowledgable of how to use PS like tools to accentuate then the communication of this conscious mindlessness (or mindless consciousness?) and flow within chaos can be very strong and profound. I dunno, maybe profound isn't the right word but it strikes certain human chords if you get me. Diado's stuff however is weak in all of those departments so to me it comes off as very average and unexceptional. I think it's a legitimate genera but just Diado isn't a very good example of it. And I guess that's why a lot of other people here didn't "get it" either - he's not accomplished at expressing the art of this genera even tho he may have received acclaim for it.
I still don't know how people seriously argue that person X is so much better than whoever - be it this chap here with the P&S or AA or whoever else (I don't know of a lot of famous photographers nor do I really care to).