Stargazer said: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
tim atherton said:or maybe a pepper...
mhv said: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.
And even more so said: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.
David A. Goldfarb said: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.
Harrigan said:I find it a boring, everyday "local street corner shot". Far to common. Nothing special about it IMHO.David A. Goldfarb said: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.
Markok765 said:Harrigan said:I find it a boring, everyday "local street corner shot". Far to common. Nothing special about it IMHO.
exactly.
don sigl said: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.
JBrunner said:You should take a closer look at it
Assuming this is true, what does it have to do with the photograph?blansky said:What if I told you that 4 people were killed in that house. Two of them children.
jnanian said:now that is pretty funny
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.jimcollum said: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
David H. Bebbington said:........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
Jim Chinn said: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 said:Yes, it shows you how much this image is really worth.
My shorthand definition of a good photo is one that fulfils its intended purpose.Christopher Colley said:'why does a photo have to be "good" to be good?'
Christopher Colley said: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.
roteague said:Yes, it shows you how much this image is really worth.
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?