"How America's Most Cherished Photographer Learned to See" / Stephen Shore with Peter Schjeldahl

[Helge]

I don't think that is incredibly rare at all.
Perhaps its a Canadian thing, but it is not overly important to me whether the photographs I take and am interested in and are happy with, which I then choose to present to the world, resonate with or are enjoyed by any particular individual or group of individuals.
I've enough experience to know that if my photographs are satisfying to me they are likely to satisfy some other people, but I'm not worrying about it. I do enjoy it though.
I have worked doing photography that is intended to satisfy the needs of others, and quite enjoy that and have had some success doing that.
But it isn't necessary to me that others appreciate my photography. I have other means in my life of engaging with people, so there are other ways I can choose to help meet their needs.

Exactly. That was my poorly expressed point.
It’s perfectly possible to take photos that aught to be interesting for technical and/or intellectual reasons. Or at least you think so.
And you can’t bring yourself to admit it, but deep down you know it’s crap.
Kill your darlings. Be self critical. Even if only for your own sake.

 

[MattKing]

Exactly. That was my poorly expressed point.
It’s perfectly possible to take photos that aught to be interesting for technical and/or intellectual reasons. Or at least you think so.
And you can’t bring yourself to admit it, but deep down you know it’s crap.
Kill your darlings. Be self critical. Even if only for your own sake.

No, not at all.
What other people think of my photographs has almost nothing to do with whether they are good, bad or indifferent. It only relates to what they need or want.
Popularity or acceptability may intersect with quality, but only as a matter of coincidence.
If your measure of satisfaction is someone else's approbation, than that is fine for you, but it's not for me.
I am self critical, but I really don't care if I'm measuring my results against the same criteria as others might be.
Of course, I'm not driven to sell my art. If I were, I would be much more likely to use other people's criteria to measure it. But not necessarily - photographers like Steven Shore no longer have to do that a lot, because other people have become interested in how he sees things. So they are coming to him, instead of him coming to them - so to speak.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

It’s perfectly possible to take photos that aught to be interesting for technical and/or intellectual reasons. Or at least you think so.
And you can’t bring yourself to admit it, but deep down you know it’s crap.

It's also possible to take photos that aught to be interesting for emotional reasons—because they correspond to our ideas and conceptions about beauty: beautiful people, beautiful landscape, beautiful still life, with beautiful lighting—, which in the end turn out to be crap because meaningless, mundane, commonplace, and therefore eminently forgettable.

I think why a photograph, or group of photograph, is interesting is a complicated matter. Add to that that why a person may find a photograph, or group of photograph interesting is also a complicated matter. The sum of these "complications" is, in my opinion, why we should avoid easy answers and simple formulas when discussing photography—or any other art, for that matter.

photographers like Steven Shore no longer have to do that a lot, because other people have become interested in how he sees things. So they are coming to him, instead of him coming to them - so to speak.

Indeed. And we have no way of knowing whether or not he's "satisfied" with this latest work—whether he considers accomplished, whether he considers that he totally achieved what he had in mind, whether he answered all the questions he had about the process.

Sometimes artists reach a point in their process where they have to throw the work "out there". Not to see what people think or get the public's approval, but to take some distance. Not saying that this is the case here, haven't talked to the guy, but Shore is one of those artists that would have the luxury to do so. For all we know, ten years from now he might look back at these and say, "Nah, that wasn't quite it."

 

[Helge]

No, not at all.
What other people think of my photographs has almost nothing to do with whether they are good, bad or indifferent. It only relates to what they need or want.
Popularity or acceptability may intersect with quality, but only as a matter of coincidence.
If your measure of satisfaction is someone else's approbation, than that is fine for you, but it's not for me.
I am self critical, but I really don't care if I'm measuring my results against the same criteria as others might be.
Of course, I'm not driven to sell my art. If I were, I would be much more likely to use other people's criteria to measure it. But not necessarily - photographers like Steven Shore no longer have to do that a lot, because other people have become interested in how he sees things. So they are coming to him, instead of him coming to them - so to speak.

You chose your own judges to a large degree. And chose them wisely.
Not everyone’s opinion is worth listening to.

It's also possible to take photos that aught to be interesting for emotional reasons—because they correspond to our ideas and conceptions about beauty: beautiful people, beautiful landscape, beautiful still life, with beautiful lighting—, which in the end turn out to be crap because meaningless, mundane, commonplace, and therefore eminently forgettable.

Of course. What I wrote was in the context of the discussion. Not a general blanket statement.

 

[MattKing]

Not everyone’s opinion is worth listening to.

I would word this slightly differently: "Not every opinion is worth giving any weight".
Sometimes, even people who rarely offer things of value say something really useful.
I prefer to consider these things individually.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I’ve found that criticisms of my work fall basically into two categories; either they are emanating from a prior bias so can be treated as irrelevant and easily disregarded, or they sting and make me mad because there is a truth in them I have to face...these can lead to new tangents and better photography.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I’ve found that criticisms of my work fall basically into two categories; either they are emanating from a prior bias so can be treated as irrelevant and easily disregarded, or they sting and make me mad because there is a truth in them I have to face...these can lead to new tangents and better photography.

Murray, it could also be a nice shot. Why not enjoy the atta boys? Positive reinforcement is good.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Murray, it could also be a nice shot. Why not enjoy the atta boys? Positive reinforcement is good.

I'll take a pat on the back anytime! It was negative/critical comments I was referring to.

 

[Helge]

I would word this slightly differently: "Not every opinion is worth giving any weight".
Sometimes, even people who rarely offer things of value say something really useful.
I prefer to consider these things individually.

Even a stopped clock…

 

[IMetodiev]

Like with Martin Parr's work, I've found Shore to require a bit more background before you start appreciating it for what it is