Certainly, if you think Stephen Shore's photograph of the parking lot you posted is a great photograph, we have a difference of opinion. Like I said at the outset, I guess I lack the requisite artistic sensibilities to appreciate it.
My experience is that there are a lot of great albums produced by great artists in the last 60 or so years and none have fillers.
From the NYT obit:
"Few critics could match Mr. Schjeldahl (pronounced SHELL-doll) for his intimate knowledge of New York’s art world, which he wrote about with undiminished enthusiasm for more than half a century."
Ah now I see. Maybe he used the NYT pronunciation to make it "easier".Well it’s a Scandinavian surname (albeit with a Germanic spelling in this case) and I suggested how a Scandi would say it. Of course everything has slipped, over your of the Puddle.
10 extra bonus points to anyone who can tell me who anointed Steven Shore America's Most Cherished Photographer and why. Certainly significant, but cherished? And most cherished?
Steven who ?
I guess I lack the requisite artistic sensibilities to appreciate it.
10 extra bonus points to anyone who can tell me who anointed Steven Shore America's Most Cherished Photographer and why. Certainly significant, but cherished? And most cherished?
Agree with all that. I think his work from the '70s, especially documenting the struggles of the rust belt, has aged well. And like Adams he seems to have a gift for depicting redeeming light and atmosphere, even when he's on a depressing assignment.It's about connexion—about connecting with the world, or, as he puts it in the article (and elsewhere): "While I may have questions or intentions that guide what I’m interested in photographing at a particular moment, and even guide exactly where I place my camera, the core decision still comes from recognizing a feeling of deep connection, a psychological or emotional or physical resonance with the picture’s content."
In that sense, he's close to Robert Adams.
Interesting that you put it that way. I don't think Stephen Shore's work is about art—i.e., that he's thinking about art or that he's trying to create an artwork. His work is about seeing, about being aware of the world that surrounds us, about paying attention (he devotes a fascinating chapter in his book Modern Instances: the Craft of Photography). It's a question of "communicating a perception of the world" as he says, quoting Walker Evans, and seeing what meaning, if any, comes out of it.
In many ways he's a traditionalist because a lot of his concern, from a technical point of view, is the same one as all painters who have done landscape for the last 2,000 years, that is, how do you organize three-dimensional space on a flat surface. Difference of course is that he's interested in what is there, about the landscape and about topography, and what meaning they convey (often from a cultural point of view).
It's not at all an intellectual stance, as people too lazy to read him tend to assume. It's about connexion—about connecting with the world, or, as he puts it in the article (and elsewhere): "While I may have questions or intentions that guide what I’m interested in photographing at a particular moment, and even guide exactly where I place my camera, the core decision still comes from recognizing a feeling of deep connection, a psychological or emotional or physical resonance with the picture’s content."
In that sense, he's close to Robert Adams. He wants you to look, to pay attention, to wonder what meaning (if any) lies within. So you can't really approach him with your "artistic sensibility," or, at least, very differently than you would a tableau by Monet, Van Gogh or Degas. It's a different kind of sensibility this kind of photography calls for. Going for "artistic" is like bringing a match to light an electric stove.
It's not that it's void of artistic intent: just the way he works with color—the sheer beauty of color and the way they play within the frame—is proof of that. It's just that there are other factors at work in our appreciation.
I would suggest that if you have to describe your photography to justify it's artistic merit, then you are talking bull shit.
And if you only see artistic merit only in what is immediately visible in a single photograph, then you are ignoring many of the contributions to art that photography (as compared to a single photograph) can make.
I would suggest that if you have to describe your photography to justify it's artistic merit, then you are talking bull shit.
Not really. You are just making a judgment about a single photograph.
And if you limit your appreciation to single photographs, you are greatly constraining the potential value of a photographer's work.
People have a great romance with nostalgia. I wonder if it was that at the time or has become so.
When I was growing up in the seventies the only time you heard Beetles music was on 4BH beautiful music which as you can imagine was directed at older people. Weirdly their still playing the same songs. When you get old you start liking the Beetles, thats why Im still young, cause I cant stand the Beetles.
How do you see for the present.
Who is limiting one's appreciation of a photographer's work to single photographs?
I would suggest that if you have to describe your photography to justify it's artistic merit, then you are talking bull shit.
I listen to Beethoven, Ravel, Benny Goodman, John Coltrane, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Ravi Shankar, Peter Gabriel, Kendrick Lamar and others.
I believe great music transcends time, and place.
That makes me neither young or old, but ageless.
And if you limit your appreciation to single photographs, you are greatly constraining the potential value of a photographer's work.
But getting through that fame+acclaim doorway needs more and Stephen Shore has done it through persistence, productivity, consistent vision within his chosen genre, and maintaining a profile in art photography circles. That's not easy, that takes work, and either dedication or genius or both. Shore's body of work is sumptuous and I respect it while not caring to look at it much.
People have a great romance with nostalgia. I wonder if it was that at the time or has become so.
When I was growing up in the seventies the only time you heard Beetles music was on 4BH beautiful music which as you can imagine was directed at older people. Weirdly their still playing the same songs. When you get old you start liking the Beetles, thats why Im still young, cause I cant stand the Beetles.
How do you see for the present.
Last time I checked, a reference to a list of music - or photography - that is meaningful to the party who lists them is more likely to be inclusive, than a rejection of diversity.Sorry that's just the usual populous old peoples music. You'll have to start wearing socks with your sandals.
World's crippled by lack of diversity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?