B&W Portfolio Issue

[KenR]

I just received my August 2009 (Issue 68) of B&W magazine which is a special portfolio issue. Perhaps it's just me, but there were only a dozen or so photographs in the entire magazine that I thought were worth publishing. Most of the rest were over manipulated, out of focus or just plain cliches (as in put a mask on the nude and it becomes art.) Does anyone else feel the same way about this trend?

 

[eddym]

Yup.

 

[phaedrus]

I feel the same thing with regards to mainstream publications, too. I think enforcement (conscious or not) of the smallest common denominator is to blame. But maybe I'm just out of step with the art world, and one man's cliché is another man's fine art.
Once in a while, a piece of work grips you and changes your perspective, but I don't expect that from magazines. More from books, e.g. I am looking forward to Eggleston's "Paris" exhibition catalog. Or from exhibitions and portfolio viewings, e.g. in Arles this summer.

 

[markbarendt]

B&W isn't the only one either. Makes me wonder if the publishers just aren't putting that much effort into looking or if it's cost cutting or something.

Professional Photographer resorted to cartoons for a series on the business of photography rather than what, hiring a photographer?

 

[nsurit]

There were several that I really liked and many that I said, "Wonder what that is all about." Hmm, guess there are some who would ask that question about some of my work. Perhaps my assessment might have more meaning if I knew the universe of work from which these were selected. Bill Barber

 

[winger]

Those of us who weren't selected were told they are planning to put up a web gallery showing all the work that was submitted. I haven't looked through my issue, yet, so I can't comment on the chosen ones.

 

[ChuckP]

It also seemed that way to me. A lot of the soft, dreamy stuff. So much that I noticed the amount of it. Straight photos are still probably 50 % but I suppose that is what I expect to see. Maybe not all bad but just a change. This issue is really "Pay To Play" as we say in IL. Photographers pay to enter the contest. So the magazine actually makes money from the work as opposed to having to pay people to show their work in the magazine.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I didn't care for this issue myself. Could have been better.

Jeff

 

[jovo]

This issue is really "Pay To Play" as we say in IL. Photographers pay to enter the contest.

Yes, photographers do pay to enter, but the fee is very, very reasonable IMHO, and would be easy to justify given the time and expertise employed by the editor in judging every submission.

I was curious to see how the new editor would fare after Henry Rasmussen's departure. I was totally mystified by the distinction made between "merit" and "excellence" awards. I, as usual, was more impressed by more of the merit portfolios than I was by any of the excellence awardees. I was also put off by the recurrence of gimmicks rather than good "seeing" in too many of the chosen portfolios.

It's also worth griping about the fact that the chosen photographer's web sites are often almost entirely color work, and the b&w stuff is just what's there after being desaturated.

No 'puggers in this issue that I recognized.


Oooops....I hadn't bothered to notice that the contest judge for this issue WAS Henry Rasmussen! No wonder there wasn't a sea change in the selectees! :0

 

[Bruce Watson]

This is why I let my subscription lapse several years ago. I wasn't learning enough to make it worth it. The editors don't seem able or willing to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Alan W]

I tore the plastic off my copy and looked inside to find plenty of digitally enhanced "dreamscapes" that I just don't like.Maybe I'm not "Arty" enough,maybe it's time to spend my money on something else......