The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...
johnvanr wrote:
...I find it hard to distinguish between meaningless and meaningful photography as a general notion, just as I find it hard to distinguish between craft and art...Granted, nowadays we’re inundated with so many images that lack rhyme and reason and we see relatively less worthwhile imagery, but that’s probably not so much a function of photography but of the changed nature of publishing and the lack of middlemen who curated what was published.
Not a bad place to start. In the introduction to his Story of Art, E.H. Gombrich famously writes, "There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists." This places the artist, with his or her individual intentions and skills, as the central focus of artistic creation. I think the same thing goes for meaning (and meaninglessness) in photogarphy. That is say, the important thing the meaning and intent of the photographer. Then, that which is "curated" becomes a part of the art world.
airfrogusmc wrote:
I believe in any photograph there needs to be more there than the obvious. Something deeper...I do know there is no right or wrong way to do any of this. Finding your own voice is what is important in my opinion...Here's some of my thoughts on the subject. Leica did a piece on my work a few years back. Also an interview...
Allen - in the interview you stated: For my personal work over the past 8 or 9 years I found myself seeing in values, tones, shapes and those spontaneous relationships and when they all seem to come together. I like this idea of immediacy and, in my concept statement of the ten-image EXPOSED II series that I linked above, I wrote: The basic ideas…are seeking visual narrative and immediacy between light and shadow; getting away from the realm of words while finding signs as signifiers. All is “here,” all is “now,” all is connected. All about concentration and emptiness.
These feelings become concentrated in a series of ten photos, with the increased ambiguity that reflects contemporary life. In the first image: the light amid the dark shadows, the woman’s glance, her hand and the man’s repose; in the third image: the mother and daughter (in university uniform) closing up shop for the night, with shadow and light on their respective faces; dead chickens (second image) and dead fish (eighth image); and ending with the colossal sculpture of the dying Buddha going into nothingness (parinirvana), while the fine lines of the folds of his robe call back to life. My feeling is that the images must, and do, speak for themselves and “expose” a meaning to the viewer like a poem does, without explication. (I'll follow post these ten images in the next post.
BTW, I love your shot of the Gustave Caillebotte painting being photographed by a woman with a smartphone.
Re: The opposite of "meaningless street photography"...
johnvanr wrote:
...I find it hard to distinguish between meaningless and meaningful photography as a general notion, just as I find it hard to distinguish between craft and art...Granted, nowadays we’re inundated with so many images that lack rhyme and reason and we see relatively less worthwhile imagery, but that’s probably not so much a function of photography but of the changed nature of publishing and the lack of middlemen who curated what was published.
Not a bad place to start. In the introduction to his Story of Art, E.H. Gombrich famously writes, "There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists." This places the artist, with his or her individual intentions and skills, as the central focus of artistic creation. I think the same thing goes for meaning (and meaninglessness) in photogarphy. That is say, the important thing the meaning and intent of the photographer. Then, that which is "curated" becomes a part of the art world.
airfrogusmc wrote:
I believe in any photograph there needs to be more there than the obvious. Something deeper...I do know there is no right or wrong way to do any of this. Finding your own voice is what is important in my opinion...Here's some of my thoughts on the subject. Leica did a piece on my work a few years back. Also an interview...
Allen - in the interview you stated: For my personal work over the past 8 or 9 years I found myself seeing in values, tones, shapes and those spontaneous relationships and when they all seem to come together. I like this idea of immediacy and, in my concept statement of the ten-image EXPOSED II series that I linked above, I wrote: The basic ideas…are seeking visual narrative and immediacy between light and shadow; getting away from the realm of words while finding signs as signifiers. All is “here,” all is “now,” all is connected. All about concentration and emptiness.
These feelings become concentrated in a series of ten photos, with the increased ambiguity that reflects contemporary life. In the first image: the light amid the dark shadows, the woman’s glance, her hand and the man’s repose; in the third image: the mother and daughter (in university uniform) closing up shop for the night, with shadow and light on their respective faces; dead chickens (second image) and dead fish (eighth image); and ending with the colossal sculpture of the dying Buddha going into nothingness (parinirvana), while the fine lines of the folds of his robe call back to life. My feeling is that the images must, and do, speak for themselves and “expose” a meaning to the viewer like a poem does, without explication. (I'll follow post these ten images in the next post.
BTW, I love you shot of the Gustave Caillebotte painting being photographed by a woman with a smartphone.
Sep 29, 2025 at 10:38 AM
Previous versions of Mitch Alland's message #16899060 « The opposite of "meaningless street photography"... »
