Is this a good photo?

[blansky]

No, I didn't know who the photographer was, and I still haven't looked at any more of his work. I'm familiar with Eggleston's work, and maybe it reminded me of that, though it seems different (gentler? - kind of). So I didn't 'add in' anything apart from what I felt when I looked at the picture.


In fact, I find it quite hard to explain, because it's not immediately an intellectual thing, but quite a visceral thing. But it's about how meaning is conveyed through imagery, (to me anyway), I'll TRY to put it into words....

First, there's the fairly ordinary-looking suburban-looking house, nothing particularly amiss - but then you look again and it seems as if some of the windows may be boarded up, it's hard to tell. The sills look a bit wrecked. It's a bit distant, and I feel I can't work out what's going on there. It's very different from the house you posted, which seemed to have everything in it's place, very "there" and readable. I know this was an illusion, given the context, but that's not the point at the moment.

There's something about the surroundings that's unsettling, I can't quite place them (this could be cultural). The grass looks neat in places, but then it becomes on the the edge of wildness. The road, also, is not neat and well maintained, it's little more than a rough track. Again, the roads seem to be great swathes through everything, or rather very much a part of the picture, possibly taking you places (where?) possibly cutting you off from something (the houses?). Taking precedence over the houses. This reminds me very much of Eggleston - that child beside the highway...(if I'm remembering rightly). It seems no accident there's a sign-post and an intersection, quite central to the photograph.

It seems there are lots of questions - about belonging, about stability ........those cars tucked into the bank I find oddly threatening...(who do they belong to? Why isn't the red car parked in the driveway?) I wouldn't like to go and explore that house, there's something about it, it's not as it first seems...

But I didn't "think" all this, I just felt a kind of disquiet (or just questioning?) creep in as I was looking at it. I find it an interesting image, in fact. But you have to look at it, give it time, lose yourself in it a bit. Not take it at face value. If you do give it time, maybe your story would be a different one...

Now if anyone says that's a load of c***p after I've tried hard to express verbally something quite emotionally-felt I'll be really p***** off.
Cate

That's what makes a horse race.

I watch Midsomer Murders every Sunday, and what I find sinister or ominous is those night scenes in the rain of those quiet country lanes leading up to those dark old mansions and cottages. Creepy.

Suburbia and this picture don't even hit my radar.


Michael

 

[JBrunner]

or maybe a pepper...

Show me a can of spam in a way I never saw it before, like Edward showed me his pepper, and you've got something, IMO. Otherwise its a can of spam, or a pepper, or some cars parked on a street. Content is irrelevant. Show me something.

 

[JBrunner]

JBrunner, I must admit that you have made me aware of my fondness for these collages of faded crappy house shots. If you live in the country, it's always a bit sad to see the houses for sale, because they are hardly glamorous, and the pictures are badly taken, usually overexposed etc.

But like the Shore photo, I don't think I would have any fascination for such photos taken in isolation. I find that the one that was singled out at the beginning of this thread to be of little interest. Some photos work as part of a series/reportage, some photos work as a standalone object. There has been much debates about the serial/standalone issue in photo, given that the serial makes you closer to cinema. Still, I like Shore, and I find his best pieces stand alone.

You should take a closer look at it

 

[don sigl]

Making money has very little to do with Art. And having success selling uninspired mediocre dribble has much less to do with Art than it does with good marketing, promotion and connection. To each his own, but talking up a good intellectual argument for a book of snapshots doesn't make it anything more than a book of snapshots.
Focusing on the cash ususally leads to compromise.

 

[Harrigan]

I think that part of the meaning of the image comes from the fact that it is profoundly undramatic, non-heroic, and anti-Romantic. Shooting at the golden hour would work against that aspect.



i think this is what the image is about to me. you dont have to shoot some super dramatic ripping red sunset to evoke meaning with images. this image is not about drama, super composition or color enhancing filters in fact quite the opposite. its profoundly undramatic, well put.

 

[removed account4]

maybe i missed this ... but aren't most the landscapes ( "grand or notgrand" )basically the same thing - a photograph of a mundane scene ? i tend to "get" this photograph more than i do lanscapes, color or black and white.

at least with the original photograph that was posted, one can see what the "world" was like - cars that were driven, what the utility poles were like, how badly the roads were kept up ( or still are ) what prefab or not prefab houses looked like, what curbing looked like ... i could go on and on. i am not saying that i am in love with this photograph, or understand where shore is coming from. as a record of what "there" was like it isn't bad.

 

[Markok765]

I think that part of the meaning of the image comes from the fact that it is profoundly undramatic, non-heroic, and anti-Romantic. Shooting at the golden hour would work against that aspect.



i think this is what the image is about to me. you dont have to shoot some super dramatic ripping red sunset to evoke meaning with images. this image is not about drama, super composition or color enhancing filters in fact quite the opposite. its profoundly undramatic, well put.

I find it a boring, everyday "local street corner shot". Far to common. Nothing special about it IMHO.

 

[davetravis]

yea.. all those nobodies.. shore, sternfeld, eggleston, meyerowitz, atget, misrach, freiedlander, winogrand (they're just normal people walking around), evans, kertesz, klein, strand, doisneau. most of their work are just 'snapshot's of the world around them

Right!
Yea, some you mention are "somebody," but not all.
You see somebody, I see nobody.
"The famous are seldom great, and the great are seldom famous."
Wow, what a conversation over such a driffle of a photograph!
I love APUG!

 

[MattKing]

I've worked my way through this thread, and keep coming back to one thought.

Maybe the problem is as much with the question, as it is with the photo itself.

The question seems to imply that we only have two choices - "good" or "not good". I don't know whether that is in any way helpful.

Now if the question was "Is this an interesting photo?" I might have less trouble with the question.

I certainly think that the photo in question is one that is more likely to have subtle appeal, than to evoke a strong, instantaneous reaction.

I also think that it is more likely to be interesting in real life, than on the monitor, because any interest is likely to flow from the tiny details, rather than the general appearance of a very static scene.

On balance, and after looking at it a number of times, I think it is moderately interesting, but I don't think it would be the sort of photo that I would normally seek out.

I certainly understand why many others would find that the photo holds no interest for them.

It doesn't really matter to me that the photo and the photographer are both fairly well known, other than there may be a slight inclination to be more patient in coming to a decision about it - if others appreciate it, it may be worth a second look, in case something of value was overlooked on first impression.

I thank you for initiating this thread. The discussion has probably been more interesting than the photo itself.

 

[Harrigan]

I find it a boring, everyday "local street corner shot". Far to common. Nothing special about it IMHO.

exactly.

 

[tim atherton]

To each his own, but talking up a good intellectual argument for a book of snapshots doesn't make it anything more than a book of snapshots.
Focusing on the cash ususally leads to compromise.

Presumably the same goes for all the best art museums in the world? I'm assuming they just don't get it either?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

You should take a closer look at it

Yeah, 137 acres surely isn't a trailer house... But the effect is the same, nonetheless!

*Removes foot from mouth*

 

[bjorke]

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

Assuming this is true, what does it have to do with the photograph?

If you merely mean to reflect on the banality of suburbia against horror, well I don't think you quite hit it. Go back, shoot more. In some sustained way.

KB
(who used to live in a house in Topanga after the previous residents were eliminated in a full-family murder-suicide -- was a long cleanup job)

 

[removed account4]

You should take a closer look at it

now that is pretty funny

 

[Jim Chinn]

I guess for me one of the more interesting aspects of this whole exercise is that if one of us anonymously posted such a photo and asked for a critique, we would probably be lambasted.

But here we have an image by someone who has been crowned a landmark photographer by the powers that be, (or were) critics, curators and collectors from the 70s and 80s. As I have always said, artists don't decide what is Art, critics and collectors do.

Photography, more so then any other medium is about time and place and because it is so based in reality, a particular image can receed into irrelevance over time. When I look at the book Uncommon Places I see a time capsule from when I was growing up. A a slice cut directly out of 70s middle class suburbia. For me, the importance of the book is simply documentary more then anything else. Any deeper meaning that Mr. Shore had is totally lost on me and was probably lost for most viewers younger then me about 1980. For someone born after the time of his book, the images just as well be 100 years old with about as much importance as looking at prints from old wet plates of wild west mining towns circa 1880. Simple artifacts and ephemera.

Perhaps a relevant measure of how good an image is, is how well it holds its meaning or conveys a certain magic for the viewer many years after the image was made. If you use that measuring stick, the list is pretty small of photographers whose work will not be simply seen as records and curious artifacts from another time and place.

 

[roteague]

now that is pretty funny

Yes, it shows you how much this image is really worth.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

yea.. all those nobodies.. shore, sternfeld, eggleston, meyerowitz, atget, misrach, freiedlander, winogrand (they're just normal people walking around), evans, kertesz, klein, strand, doisneau. most of their work are just 'snapshot's of the world around them.
jim

I think the vital point here is that the people you mention (not of course "nobodies") had the ability to see something extraordinary in the commonplace and make an image of it which was compelling for the viewer. I think Shore shot himself in the foot with his title "Uncommon Places" - his pictures are of common places and do not in any way (at least to me) communicate whatever quality Shore felt made them uncommon. This is why I still feel his work is derivative - it is derived stylistically from ordinary snapshots and I see no evidence that Shore has managed to subvert this style or make it his own.

Regards,

David

 

[Christopher Colley]

Not really naming names or asking a real question here but I guess I just dont understand why for some people this photo is total rubbish yet a photo of a grove of trees that likely took the same amount of time to compose/set up is really darn great to the same person.

Is it just what we like to look at that decides merit? I don't really see much difference between the two types of photo. Both can be very much just as 'snapshot' as the other yet one is Art and the other one is garbage?

(I am guessing this is a whole other threads worth of conversation)

Rhetorical: Why does a photo have to be "good" to be good?

 

[Christopher Colley]

........I think Shore shot himself in the foot with his title "Uncommon Places" - his pictures are of common places and do not in any way (at least to me) communicate whatever quality Shore felt made them uncommon.........

David

sorry to post twice in a row, but, maybe Shore was answering my question just posed..

'why does a photo have to be "good" to be good?'

maybe Shore responds: it doesnt.

Uncommon because these are not "good" photos.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Perhaps a relevant measure of how good an image is, is how well it holds its meaning or conveys a certain magic for the viewer many years after the image was made. If you use that measuring stick, the list is pretty small of photographers whose work will not be simply seen as records and curious artifacts from another time and place.

Thanks Jim We can stick a fork in this puppy, because it's done!!

What Jim said holds true for every Human form of self expression.

Murray

 

[jimcollum]

Yes, it shows you how much this image is really worth.

:^)

about $5,000 in 20x24 (although i wouldn't pay that for this image of his)

 

[David H. Bebbington]

'why does a photo have to be "good" to be good?'

My shorthand definition of a good photo is one that fulfils its intended purpose.
There is the argument that a boring and drab picture perfectly conveys boredom and drabness - but I don't buy it!

Regards,

David

 

[catem]

sorry to post twice in a row, but, maybe Shore was answering my question just posed..

'why does a photo have to be "good" to be good?'

maybe Shore responds: it doesnt.

Uncommon because these are not "good" photos.

What it is not is a pretty picture - Lets face it, there are a great many pretty pictures in the world, just as there are a great many 'snapshots'.

Uncommon because it challenges us to look a little further, to look at ourselves, rather than providing us with all the answers, with beauty on a plate. I still think it's asking us what we find there....that's why it's interesting to me.

And I agree that the effect of this picture is not served well by being seen small on on a monitor (as is so often the case).
Cate

 

[removed account4]

Yes, it shows you how much this image is really worth.

doesn't matter to me if bobo the chimp took it-
it still is reflective of where and when it was taken ...

 

[juan]

I like Shore's work pretty well, although it's quite different than what I usually do.

I, too, find this image troubling - scary, if you will. Perhaps that's because I was a young adult at the time it was made, and actually conscious through the 70s, unlike some on this forum.
juan