Is this a good photo?

[MurrayMinchin]

Okay Grant, this thread appears to have run its course...do you think it's a good photograph?

Murray

 

[VoidoidRamone]

I like reading everyone's reactions to this. The people who write things like "no" are the most intriguing to me because it almost tells me that this photo is so far off from what they like that they don't even take the time to tell me why they dislike this image. For the people who aren't sure, this is an image made by Stephen Shore. Like Eggleston, he was one of the pioneers of "fine art color photography." A lot of people are writing things merely about the color of this photograph. So I should ask another question I guess: Would this be a better photography, in your opinion, if it were in black and white and printed on... Azo (for instance)? The post about color being vulgar- why is color photography "vulgar?" Does making an image that starts out in color (real world) then converting/shooting it in black and white make it more special and perhaps hint at how the photographer is able to block out the color and focus merely on tones, shades, and composition? Or does it just mean that color is something else the photographer has to worry about, and if not taken into consideration, ruin the photograph?

Someone also mentioned how this photograph doesn't stand up on its own as well as it does when grouped with a large amount of images. I would agree with that, I think that Shore's work is more powerful when shown in a group and you can gain context in which to place each image. A lot of his images, especially when seen in book form or some other linear form, become very narrative and produce a story and evoke emotions. I think the people here who are saying things along the lines of lack of feelings or emotions created by this photograph would or should change their minds when seeing this photograph in the context of many more images similar to it. Thanks.
-Grant

 

[Travis Nunn]

Photos like this are the basis for the quote, "Don't mistake lack of talent for genius."

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I think the people here who are saying things along the lines of lack of feelings or emotions created by this photograph would or should change their minds when seeing this photograph in the context of many more images similar to it.

We didn't have a chance. We were asked about this singular image which, in my opinion, doesn't have the legs to stand on its own.

Murray

 

[VoidoidRamone]

We didn't have a chance. We were asked about this singular image which, in my opinion, doesn't have the legs to stand on its own.

I also agreed that I didn't think this image is as good on its own. But if anyone is curious, here is a link to a fair amount of his work--> http://www.billcharles.com/shore/stephenshore_1.htm .
-Grant

 

[tim atherton]

The post about color being vulgar- why is color photography "vulgar?"
-Grant

I think Evans (being Evans) meant it in the deeper sense of the word - like Vulgate - in the vernacular, vulgus, of the common people - in a way, the common (everyday, quotidian). Even in Websters, only by the time you get to definition4. do you get to "bad taste, crude, lacking in taste etc.

As for colour - I am a firm believe in colour being much harder than lost people think. An awful lot of colour photos are what Edward Weston referred to - merely black and white photos with the colour added - whereas a true colour photograph is something else altogether. I all ties in with a sort of almost fear of colour, a reluctance to view it as much more than "merely" surface or cosmetic rather than being substantial. There's a difference between merely colouring in between the lines, and colours itself as form - the world IS colour (and I know I've written plenty along these lines in the past... one of the old "bees")

 

[roteague]

I like reading everyone's reactions to this. The people who write things like "no" are the most intriguing to me because it almost tells me that this photo is so far off from what they like that they don't even take the time to tell me why they dislike this image.

I thought I was pretty explicit about why I think this image is bad. The photographer is of no concern to me.

 

[Donald Miller]

I personally think that this is a rather mundane photograph of a mundane subject. It is something that most of us see over and over again over the course of our lives. Show me something that I don't normally see if you want me to get excited.

 

[roteague]

Photos like this are the basis for the quote, "Don't mistake lack of talent for genius."

Sort of like Joel Meyerowitz....

 

[VoidoidRamone]

I thought I was pretty explicit about why I think this image is bad. The photographer is of no concern to me.

I wasn't referring to you, Robert. I was actually just talking about the people who simply wrote things like "no" minus an explanation. I respectfully disagree with your opinion, but I am glad that at least you have your reasons as to why you do not enjoy this photograph. Thanks.
-Grant

 

[donbga]

I For the people who aren't sure, this is an image made by Stephen Shore. -Grant

I already knew it was by Shore - not one of his better pieces, IMO. Looking back at when Shore was regarded as breaking the color barrier some of his work may have historical signifigance.

Personally I think Sandy Skogland produces far more interesting color work. At least her work presents a point of view.

http://www.sandyskoglund.com/


The color snap shot anti-photograph genre is dead, let's try to bury it now.

 

[naturephoto1]

Sorry for coming to the party a bit late. But, have been preparing for and setting up at an Art Show. I do not particularly like this image. I neither really like the image composition or the time of day that the image was recorded. Had the image been taken early or late in the day, the shadows and/or better color could have certainly added dramatically to the success of the image.

Rich

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

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'm not worried about whether it's "good" or not. I don't think there are useful arguments to be made about what is "good" or what is "art." It's meaningful in its historical context, and that's enough for me.

 

[tim atherton]

Sorry for coming to the party a bit late. But, have been preparing for and setting up at an Art Show. I do not particularly like this image. I neither really like the image composition or the time of day that the image was recorded. Had the image been taken early or late in the day, the shadows and/or better color could have certainly added dramatically to the success of the image.

Rich

One thing I've always found a little strange (especially with people who work in colour) is the avoidance of the majority of the day for taking photographs. What is it that's wrong with the greater part of the day? (which most of us spend the greater part of our time moving around the world in and seeing all it's different aspects).

And a picture necessarily needs drama to succeed? (maybe this ties into the first part?)

 

[naturephoto1]

One thing I've always found a little strange (especially with people who work in colour) is the avoidance of the majority of the day for taking photographs. What is it that's wrong with the greater part of the day? (which most of us spend the greater part of our time moving around the world in and seeing all it's different aspects).

And a picture necessarily needs drama to succeed? (maybe this ties into the first part?)

Tim,

I do not always shoot early or late in the day. But, I do certain kinds of compositions, work with the lighting etc. at these times of the day. I also shoot mid day and certainly not during magic hour. In this instance, it was my opinion, that working with "better" shadow and light, would have added to this particular image.

Here are several images from my gallery that were not taken during magic hour; you may say that they are dramatic, but I did not rely on the lighting or the time of day to record these images:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Rich

 

[donbga]

Sort of like Joel Meyerowitz....

Robert,

I'm sorry you don't get Meyerowitz, your missing some joy in your life. I think you might like his 'BAY/SKY' book. OTOH, I didn't get that excited about his Tuscany work.

 

[roteague]

Robert,

I'm sorry you don't get Meyerowitz, your missing some joy in your life. I think you might like his 'BAY/SKY' book. OTOH, I didn't get that excited about his Tuscany work.

I really dislike his Tuscan work in particular.

 

[mono]

To me it is boring, just a house advertisement!

Even it is done by a famous photographer, it is a boring composition

 

[catem]

I 've only skimmed through replies so forgive me if I'm going over old ground - I think the definition of a 'successful' photograph (rather than 'good' or 'bad') is if it evokes some sort of response in the viewer (other than 'doesn't do anything for me'). Of course it's very subjective.

This photograph does evoke an emotional response in me, and isn't 'just' a record shot. What it does it to produce a feeling of (fairly strong) panic, certainly discomfort, which I'm then interested to work out why. Something about the blandness of that scene, the redness of the car, those suburbs. I find it quite disturbing, to know what's going on there, (and to get away from it).

For me, it works.
Cate

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Thanks to Grant for posting the link to the galleries of Shore's work, it has made it much easier for me (as someone unfamiliar with Shore's work) to form an opinion.

From the images viewed as a whole, it becomes clear that the one image in the original posting was part of a private project by someone who earns a living from advertising and editorial work. His style is apparently inspired in a general way by Eggleston, I feel he has emulated the style quite well without necessarily having very much to say beyond the truism that most places on God's earth are rather bland and uninspiring. There is perhaps a touch of the attitude so memorably expressed by the great Neil Innes: "I've suffered for my art, now it's your turn!"

So is it good? I couldn't justify saying it was bad, to judge whether the photographer had anything of substance to say, I'd have to see the image in question within a larger body of work sequenced and presented by the author. As a snap judgement, I'd say this individual image is by far the least interesting of all the ones on the website:
http://www.billcharles.com/shore/stephenshore_12.htm

 

[Gerald Koch]

If this is great art then I have a fortune tucked away in boxes in my closet.

 

[Jim Chinn]

I also knew it was Shore, having just looked through his re-released edition of Uncommon Places at Borders.

I don't think you can evaluate a single photograph when taken out of its intended context of a series or group. 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.

In looking at large projects like Shore's I always feel like there is always a number of pretty weak images that should have not made the final cut. I would agree with others that this is one of the weakest in the whole book.

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). You could roughly lump his style (static, urban, LF) in with the "new topographers" Lewis Baltz and Robert Adams.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

No....unless it's lack of anything is the point in which case the only point it has is to make a rather pathetic and obvious, erm, point.

I can't stand this sort of bull. It tends to suggest a certain intellectual superiority which if not the intent of the photographer tends to be the intend of those who make claims about such work (if you can call it that). It is in the same category as dissected sheep or unmade beds if you ask me - intellectual waste product.

Did I say how pointless it was?

 

[tim atherton]

From the images viewed as a whole, it becomes clear that the one image in the original posting was part of a private project by someone who earns a living from advertising and editorial work. His style is apparently inspired in a general way by Eggleston, I feel he has emulated the style quite well without necessarily having very much to say beyond the truism that most places on God's earth are rather bland and uninspiring.

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.

So much colour work that came afterwards has been influenced by Shore's work - including his contemporaries - Eggleston, Sternfeld, Myerowitz etc, later, to the whole colour side of the Dusseldorf School - Gursky, Struth, Egger, Tillmans, Hofer, Ruff etc and on to other current artists such as Lynne Cohen, Burtynsky, Southam, Jim Cooke. All have a part of their roots in Shore's work

Shore is seminal to all this.
(and on, as I mentioned earlier, into film/movies, TV, painting and design etc)

 

[don sigl]

I don't see anything beautiful about this photo. Of course I have my own view on what is beautiful. I admit, I'm a bit mystified with the idea of grasping the full meaning of what can be described as beautiful. But I think I know it when I see it or feel it.

And this photo..... not happening