Is this a good photo?

Jim Chinn said:

Shore was considered one of the young stars of the photography scene and was singled out by John Szarkowski at MOMA as one of the pioneers who moved photography into the world of fine art. (IIRC he may have been the youngest photographer to ever get a show there) .

Click to expand...

I think he sold his first two prints to Edward Steichen at MoMA when he was 14....

I just put Shore's "Uncommon Places" on my Amazon wish list. I'm pretty ignorant of his work but it interests me now. Thanks for a most enlightening thread.

*yawn*

Jim Chinn said:

The different projects that Shore worked on were a narrative of travels he did in the early 70s and so I think you need to see the entire work to appreciate the individual images.

Photography, more so then any other medium, has a definite "past due date" at which images heavy on dated subject matter become less and less relevant or interesting as time goes by. For myself, the 70s were my junior and senior high school years and to view many of the images in the book were like applying an electric shock to my memory. For younger forum members, the images just as well be 100 years old. So as time passes, these images become more a simple document about a time in history. If you want a record of pure middle class America circa 1975, this is a good place to start.

Click to expand...

Although it may evoke a memory to you about the 70s, I don't see any nostalgia in this picture. You could drive through poor neighborhoods in most North American cities and see this exact picture today.

As someone who has never had the desire to photograph much in a "series" I could see how that this picture could lend itself to being a part of that series and be making a statement.

I do think that in still photography, as compared to documentary film making, the single image has to stand alone on its merits.

This picture in itself has no merit.


MIchael

I guess I'm an idiot. I certainly am no artist and my formal education was in Mathematics. I got a solid "C" in the one art class I did take...and that was a History class. I'm obviously not qualified to go flaunting some sort of Bullshit intellectual superiority...so, I must be an idiot because, I honestly really like this photo.

Here is a photo that, as presented, appears to be nothing more than an quick and dirty snap shot of the side yard of some ordinary suburbanite. Like mom used to take....but, mom didn't use an 8x10 Deardorff. She used a Kodak Instamatic that took pictures on 126 film. Mom didn't have any formal art training. Mom only read about Andy Warhol - she never worked with him. And mom certainly would never have taken a full year out of her life to travel cross country to make photographs of crap like this. Mom would have at least got Uncle Frank and Aunt Loise to stand in front of the big Lincoln with the kids!

I like the photo and most of Shore's later work. It reminds me of my own humanity. Grounds me in my insignificance. We tend to think so highly of ourselves. We live high and act with even more arrogance. In Uncommon Places Shore exposes American life as it really is. He yanks us off our high horse and rubbs our nose in the little stinky puddle we've made for ourselves.

The photo also reminds me that I am constantly surrunded by beauty. Often so subtle, it passes unnoticed. I must awaken my senses. Soften my heart, not be so callous and synical. Beauty surrounds us. We have become so numb to it that we can't find beauty in anything anymore unless it jumps up infront of us, bitch slaps us and blasts our eyeballs out of thier sockets with lurid, super saturated colors, perfect shapes and not so subtle sexual content.

All this negativity...saddens me.

It is the 3rd of June, 1976 - Fort Worth, Texas. It's not spring and yet not summer either. The freshness of spring has gone from the air. The oppressive heat of summer is hinted at by early afternoon. The kids are out of school. Our nation is already starting to celebrate its bi-centennial. The neighbors are gone on summer vacation and we're watching their house. None of us bother to lock our doors. There are power lines running through the yard, a peanut farmer in the white house and a hostage crisis that will change the course of politics in America and the middle east for years to come. We americans are still reeling from the "Energy Crisis" and our involvement in Vietnam. The neighbor's kid is home from college and parked his new, Japanese economy car on my side of the street. A house, a yard...a place to call home. More than even some Americans can hope for really. And yet, maybe this IS as good as it gets. Life can be like that.

Yawn. ...indeed.

BradS said:

Here is a photo that, as presented, appears to be nothing more than an quick and dirty snap shot of the side yard of some ordinary suburbanite. Like mom used to take....but, mom didn't use an 8x10 Deardorff.

Click to expand...

You are indeed a romantic.

I agree with your estimation of what this is. It is a quick and dirty snapshot of an uninspiring scene taken with an 8x10. In my opinion, as with other threads about large format, the proof is in the pudding, not with the mixing pan used.

One other thing missing in this conversation is the fact that every photographer takes crappy images. Every musician gives crappy performances and every author writes crappy books.

Some days you "have it" and some days you don't. Some of your works are magical and some are decidedly not.

What grates on me is the groupies, disciples and fans of certain photographers (and "artists" in general) will defend to the death the work of their chosen guru, as being infallable and always an inspiring work of art.

All "artists" go through stages of greatness, mediocrity and failure and never in any specific order. They go through periods of boredom of their greatness and try different things. Some work, some fail, and some maybe are "ahead of their time".

But are they all great, just because their name is attached?

I don't believe they are.


Michael

The kind of camera that it was taken with or that it was taken by an accomplished Photographer who made it that way on purpose has no bearing on my response to the image.
The subject matter doesn't touch me intellectually or emotionally and it offers me nothing of interest photographically.

blansky said:

It is a quick and dirty snapshot of an uninspiring scene taken with an 8x10.

Click to expand...

I could have sworn that it is from the Instamatic school of photography - printed by WalMart of course.

BradS said:

I like the photo and most of Shore's later work. It reminds me of my own humanity. Grounds me in my insignificance. We tend to think so highly of ourselves. We live high and act with even more arrogance. In Uncommon Places Shore exposes American life as it really is. He yanks us off our high horse and rubbs our nose in the little stinky puddle we've made for ourselves.

The photo also reminds me that I am constantly surrunded by beauty. Often so subtle, it passes unnoticed. I must awaken my senses. Soften my heart, not be so callous and synical. Beauty surrounds us. We have become so numb to it that we can't find beauty in anything anymore unless it jumps up infront of us, bitch slaps us and blasts our eyeballs out of thier sockets with lurid, super saturated colors, perfect shapes and not so subtle sexual content.... etc
.

Click to expand...

All you say captures why this photograph (and others in the series) are good and wonderful photographs. It is so much about being open, seeing and being aware.

blansky said:

All "artists" go through stages of greatness, mediocrity and failure and never in any specific order. They go through periods of boredom of their greatness and try different things. Some work, some fail, and some maybe are "ahead of their time".

But are they all great, just because their name is attached?

I don't believe they are.


Michael

Click to expand...

This photograph is, however, part of a body of work (and a good part) of the latter point you make - work which was ahead of its time, moving photography forward and influencing much of what was to come afterwards. It certainly wasn't a failure. Nor is it bad work being pushed by those who happen to like the artist, just because it is by him.

tim atherton said:

All you say captures why this photograph (and others in the series) are good and wonderful photographs. It is so much about being open, seeing and being aware.

Click to expand...

This is interesting. I wonder if the reaction to this image is different among a group of photographers because they are by nature constantly more visually aware of their everyday surroundings and therefore don't respond to a picture meant to inspire them to do so. They look past that message and view it by other standards.

For the uninformed like myself, how has this work, and work like it moved photography forward? Im asking this question in all honesty, and would appreciate any info you can give me, or where I may look further to learn more.

tim atherton said:

Horribly incorrect...! in fact Shore predates Eggleston slightly and in some ways Shore influenced Eggleston (though they are essentially contemporaries who both, later, influenced each other).

As for advertising photographer - Shore has been primarily an artist for his whole career - and this image is from "Uncommon Places" - one of the most influential early works of the New Colour photographers (and it's hard to remember how ground breaking and radical this book was when it was first published - it has influenced so many things since, we are used to the look and feel of it now, 30 years later). The advertising work came much later - his style and approach was being copied by so many others, why not do some yourself! - he is essentially hired to do a limited number of magazine and/or ad shoots because those clients want Shore's style.

Click to expand...

Pardon my coarseness! Not being blessed with your omniscience, I drew conclusions from the limited evidence at my disposal (principally the Bill Charles website with regard to an overview of SS's work) and the fact that the book "Uncommon Places" was published in 1982, seven years after "William Eggleston's Guide." Regardless of who actually came first, I would still have felt that SS's work is weak and derivative, lacking the human touches and humor of Eggleston, and would have found it impossible to believe that he ever made a full-time living from his "art." Without regard to the relative income generated by either, I feel very strongly that his commercial work has an energy and purpose which the "art" conspicuously lacks.

Regards,

David

Interesting post, BradS. Although as I said the photograph works for me (and therefore I 'like' it, even though I find it disturbing) it's interesting how it works for you too but on a different level. For you the suburban scene means something different, something a lot more positive that I didn't see, maybe because we're just different people, or maybe it's a cultural difference, and that adds to the sense of scariness about this photo for me (because I don't understand it in the same way you do). However, now I have another way of looking, and maybe my view might change (maybe not)...

What's good about looking at pictures and sharing responses is that our awareness grows. Though no photo will ever work for everybody.

Cate

michaelsalomon said:

For the uninformed like myself, how has this work, and work like it moved photography forward? Im asking this question in all honesty, and would appreciate any info you can give me, or where I may look further to learn more.

Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with the work of this photographer, and haven't checked out any of the links yet : I'm only going on my response to this particular photograph. So I may be wrong, or rather, not giving the answer that might be the received wisdom.

I'd suggest he is asking us to look in the mirror, at this certain time, and certain place, and see what we find there.....

Cate

David H. Bebbington said:

Pardon my coarseness! Not being blessed with your omniscience, I drew conclusions from the limited evidence at my disposal (principally the Bill Charles website with regard to an overview of SS's work) and the fact that the book "Uncommon Places" was published in 1982, seven years after "William Eggleston's Guide." Regardless of who actually came first, I would still have felt that SS's work is weak and derivative, lacking the human touches and humor of Eggleston, and would have found it impossible to believe that he ever made a full-time living from his "art." Without regard to the relative income generated by either, I feel very strongly that his commercial work has an energy and purpose which the "art" conspicuously lacks.

David

Click to expand...

No omniscience - it just happens to be an area I've worked in for a long time and know a bit about.

I would still have felt that SS's work is weak and derivative ? derivative of who? It's hard to be derivative when you are on of the pioneers...

Shore's work was show well before Uncommon Places was published. His first major show was at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1971, and then also at MoMA in 1976, the same year as Eggleston's first show there, from which The Guide came.

Eggleston has spoken of the impact and influence of Shore's work on his in those early days - and indeed, there was a huge amount of cross-pollination. You can see Eggleston in American Surfaces and vice versa.

Is this a good photo?


Michael

NO!
It IS a nice house ;-)

mono said:

NO!

Click to expand...

ROFLMAO!

Sure it is.

By the act of photographing a subject, you make it significant. But not everyone will like it and there's no real argument that anyone should like it.

It's a lot more cosy, a lot more ordinary. Not as well composed. Doesn't ask any questions, doesn't put me on the spot. Isn't as scary

Thanks, this has clarified why the original is not 'just a record shot'.

Cate

JBrunner said:

ROFLMAO!

Click to expand...

???

Sorry, I am not used to abbreviations!

mono said:

???

Sorry, I am not used to abbreviations!

Click to expand...

Rolling on floor laughing my a$$ off

I appologize for my fit of sarcasim. You are right of course, the camera and the size of the film have nothing to do with why this photo works for me. I have a copy of Uncommon Places. It is one of my favorite photo books but, I admit some of the photos contained there are not so good. The subject of this discussion does not, for me, fall into the category however.

The photo works for me. It works because, as my wife says, "It tells a story". It would still tell a story if it had been taken with a less sophisticated camera. But, it might not if mom had made the photo because, for intance, Mom might not have had the where-with-all to stand in this spot. She might not have recognized the geometry. Who knows.

I am shocked and dismayed that so many of us are so quick to dismiss the work of another. That, to me, is the height of arrogance. I expect that kind of behaviour here in my work place - where I am always surrounded by smart people who always seem to insist on convincing everybody within earshot that they're the smartest guy in the room.

I never expected fellow photog's to so voraciously dismiss the work of another photographer. Maybe, I am the one who just doesn't get it. After all, I sit under flourescent lights and pound out C++ code all day and you all are out there making a living as artists.

Stargazer said:

It's a lot more cosy, a lot more ordinary. Not as well composed. Doesn't ask any questions, doesn't put me on the spot. Isn't as scary

Thanks, this has clarified why the original is not 'just a record shot'.

Cate

Click to expand...

What if I told you that 4 people were killed in that house. Two of them children.


Michael