Isn't this a tired genre?

[Mainecoonmaniac]

24 hours of what ever is becoming very tired and hackneyed. Is it just me?


http://petapixel.com/2013/06/02/sho...-francisco-for-24-hours-straight/#more-113087

 

[MaximusM3]

24 hours of what ever is becoming very tired and hackneyed. Is it just me?


http://petapixel.com/2013/06/02/sho...-francisco-for-24-hours-straight/#more-113087

Yes..and the whole point of that is? There is life in SF? Because from a photographic standpoint, for me, it's just utter crap.

 

[MaximusM3]

Point number two -- "tired genre" like 8x10 photographs and pictures in Life Magazine and snaps of yet another wedding?

Yeah, that too

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That is terrible photography.

 

[Paul Goutiere]

24 hours of what ever is becoming very tired and hackneyed. Is it just me?


http://petapixel.com/2013/06/02/sho...-francisco-for-24-hours-straight/#more-113087

Yes.

 

[Tom1956]

Makes me glad I don't live in San Francisco. But then I was already glad of that.

 

[pstake]

Yes..and the whole point of that is? There is life in SF? Because from a photographic standpoint, for me, it's just utter crap.

Hear, hear.

There's that same thing going on with bicycle racing, now, too. "24 hours in Old Pueblo" "The Oregon 24" etcetera

I think you're commenting on the concept as being hackneyed, and I agree. Especially in terms of photography because good photos usually take between 1/30 and 1/1250th of a second (note that these are hand-held times for a Contax and feel free to judge me for it) The point is that it can take 24 hours or it can take a fraction of a second and it doesn't really matter how you compartmentalize.

This is a generation used to image and info bombardment. Shaping picture-taking into 24 hour compartments seems to me to be a gimmick aimed at the lethargic souls whose creativity is already stifled by regurgitating images shotgun style with modern ease and efficiency. So ya, it's hackneyed IMHO.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Didn't Rick Smolan started it? Anyway, it was all shot on film back then and I'm sure the there's a huge difference in the work in comparison to digital work. Photographers then were limited to only 36 shots before reloading, the film had to be processed and the photo editors had to shift through piles of chromes to find that photographic gem. It's a different game now.

 

[MaximusM3]

Didn't Rick Smolan started it? Anyway, it was all shot on film back then and I'm sure the there's a huge difference in the work in comparison to digital work. Photographers then were limited to only 36 shots before reloading, the film had to be processed and the photo editors had to shift through piles of chromes to find that photographic gem. It's a different game now.

Now it is simply sensory overload. Today, everyone with $500 and an internet connection is a "professional" photographer. Life is constantly recorded and paraded around the net, non stop. What makes any of it special? Well, pretty much nothing. In all fairness, there was much of that in the past as well, on film, but it got thrown in boxes and stored in the attic. Once in a while you get a Vivian Maier...and 99.9999% of the time, you don't. Fortunately, for those who understand photography, there is a lot more than just triggering a shutter to record life, to be able to craft a successful image that engages the viewer and has value.

 

[pdeeh]

yep

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

What's the criticism, exactly? The idea is tired or the execution sucks?

I don't know. While it may not be great photography, isn't everything tired? And hasn't it always been? How about flowers are tired? How about lith is tired? How about all that wet plate crap is tired? How about all the boring HCB rip off snapshot images are tired? Exhausted, actually. Waterfalls, portraiture, trees, red filter skies, cliffs, silos, bridges, star trails, Vivian Maier and on and on and on. There's nothing wrong about slice-of-life pictures. This is just another anti-digital thread.

I didn't express myself very clearly. I really should have said I 'think' that this is terrible photography...

Most things have been tried, but if you don't apply yourself and try to make something a little bit more thought through, then what's the point? It isn't the fact that somebody took pictures for 24 hours in an amazing city that irks me. It's the fact that they came up with something fairly mediocre, so what did they really accomplish? Sleep deprivation? Added an impressive number of exposures to the exposure counter?
If you can help me understand it, I will be very grateful. Because I don't see the point, (and that may well make me the schmuck I realize).

 

[MaximusM3]

What's the criticism, exactly? The idea is tired or the execution sucks?

I don't know. While it may not be great photography, isn't everything tired? And hasn't it always been? How about flowers are tired? How about lith is tired? How about all that wet plate crap is tired? How about all the boring HCB rip off snapshot images are tired? Exhausted, actually. Waterfalls, portraiture, trees, red filter skies, cliffs, silos, bridges, star trails, Vivian Maier and on and on and on. There's nothing wrong about slice-of-life pictures. This is just another anti-digital thread.

Yes, Michael, indeed..and maybe it always was. Again, the difference now is that everyone is constantly bombarded with it. In the past, you had to buy a book, or better yet, prints, to appreciate someone's work...or not. Now it's all out there and for free. What's special? Well, I guess it's up to someone to find something special, as in the end this is all very subjective. For me, it's not digital vs film, because again, there was always crap even on film. The internet simply made it all a lot easier to find it and view it, so our views may be a little skewed.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Didn't Rick Smolan started it?

Going way, way back Andy Warhol did an 8 hour film of a guy sleeping?

 

[MaximusM3]

What's the criticism, exactly? The idea is tired or the execution sucks?

I don't know. While it may not be great photography, isn't everything tired? And hasn't it always been? How about flowers are tired? How about lith is tired? How about all that wet plate crap is tired? How about all the boring HCB rip off snapshot images are tired? Exhausted, actually. Waterfalls, portraiture, trees, red filter skies, cliffs, silos, bridges, star trails, Vivian Maier and on and on and on. There's nothing wrong about slice-of-life pictures. This is just another anti-digital thread.

...on a separate not, considering what you just wrote, might as well all hang it up then. Have you?

 

[MaximusM3]

Going way, way back Andy Warhol did an 8 hour film of a guy sleeping?

...and someone probably bought it for 2 mil

 

[pentaxuser]

I enjoyed most of the shots. If the photographer thought it was worth such a marathon then it was worth it.

pentaxuser

 

[MaximusM3]

Hi Max, Thomas,

Don't get me wrong I don't think the work was very good. My problem would be more with an argument the "genre" is tired. It probably is, but I guess my point is when I see a photograph I like, I just plain like it. It can be any genre I suppose (although I naturally gravitate to some things more than others). It doesn't matter if it breaks new ground or is a genre/style/process that has been done to death.

I seem to increasingly find myself in support of photographs that are at best ok, at worst junk. A complicated, unpopular topic for another thread perhaps.

I hear you, Michael. But what is the "genre" anyway? Can it really be boxed in or categorized as a "genre"? For me, it's simply junk photography. I'm not even analyzing it within the realm of a "genre". These days everyone is a "street photographer" (God I hate that term). So, is the "genre" tired? No, I think WE are. it's like with music. I never get tired of listening to The Beatles, EVER. And, I can appreciate others who have used them as inspiration, if the music is good. Just like with photography, I can appreciate the hard work of those who pay attention to composition, geometry, light, subject, context, regardless of the fact that HCB, Winogrand, Eisenstadt, already said it all. It's harder to find a unique trait these days because everything has indeed been said and done, but that should not preclude us from appreciating good art, no matter what it is.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I enjoyed most of the shots. If the photographer thought it was worth such a marathon then it was worth it.

pentaxuser

That's a very valid point, and a perspective I often forget.

 

[batwister]

This isn't photography, it's a nervous breakdown with a camera.

You know that feeling of blissful ignorance you have about the great photography when you start out? I feel that way about crap photography now.

 

[NB23]

All I can say is: What a bad photographer!

 

[pstake]

I enjoyed most of the shots. If the photographer thought it was worth such a marathon then it was worth it.

pentaxuser

No offense but this comment smacks of reflexive optimism. The marathon itself is not at all the problem. As a personal exercise, it's a swell idea and one from which we could probably all learn (about ourselves.) What I don't agree with, is the passing off of mediocre photos with the flashy "24 hour" banner as a novelty — as a means of convincing the audience that arming one's self with an arsenal of fancy gadgets and soldiering through 24 hours, one is guaranteed to capture humanity in its essence.

A legion of "photographers" will pass this blogpost around and convince each other that the photos it contains are at the center of truth in the human condition. Then they will all start posting the junk they themselves capture during their own 24-hour photo hunts.

This is the kind of thing that dilutes the canon. Someone said that $500 and an internet connection has made everyone a photographer and this kind of thing is the vehicle for that. It's fine as an exercise. It's even a noble exercise when treated as such. But to give it more credence than that only diminishes the standard of what defines a truly great photograph or great photographer. It subverts the craft that great photographers strategize to hone with neither need nor want for novelties.

As an aside, Vivian Maier's work is amazing, inspiring.

 

[Tom1956]

Michael 1974 says it's another anti-digital thread. I see his point. At the same time, since the photographer of the series in question had no intrinsic value in any of the shots, they were bound to be mundane. A piece of film costs money, and making a print takes time and money. Clicking a digital camera and posting it with no other mechanics or expense whatsoever is a recipe for pointless "images", which is all they are--just "images". Our lives are pelted with this now. Ho hum.
When you get in the darkroom and start printing, you naturally cull your negatives to make a print that looks like something. This stuff looks like somebody who just shot everything and called it "street photography". I bet he didn't actually print any of it onto a piece of paper..

 

[MSchuler]

I've never personally been a fan of "24-hour" series (or what I would consider other gimmicky series like "The Red Couch"). However, great genre work by definition is work that expands the genre's boundaries. Anyone can write bad science fiction, but some very thought provoking work has been written by Ursula LeGuin, Phillip Dick, William Gibson, and others that expanded what science fiction can be and do. Still life images that included vegetables were around for hundreds of years before Edward Weston...

So I think the issues here are that 1) these are crappy snapshots (IMHO), 2) they do nothing to improve the "24-hour" genre and 3) that they are being publicized as though they were something more precious than they are. I think this reflects more on the photographer's ego than anything.

That said, while digital reduces the cost-per-frame, I've seen plenty of crappy "street photography" images on film, too, and some by very famous photographers.

 

[batwister]

No offense but this comment smacks of reflexive optimism. The marathon itself is not at all the problem. As a personal exercise, it's a swell idea and one from which we could probably all learn (about ourselves.) What I don't agree with, is the passing off of mediocre photos with the flashy "24 hour" banner as a novelty — as a means of convincing the audience that arming one's self with an arsenal of fancy gadgets and soldiering through 24 hours, one is guaranteed to capture humanity in its essence.

A legion of "photographers" will pass this blogpost around and convince each other that the photos it contains are at the center of truth in the human condition. Then they will all start posting the junk they themselves capture during their own 24-hour photo hunts.

This is the kind of thing that dilutes the canon. Someone said that $500 and an internet connection has made everyone a photographer and this kind of thing is the vehicle for that. It's fine as an exercise. It's even a noble exercise when treated as such. But to give it more credence than that only diminishes the standard of what defines a truly great photograph or great photographer. It subverts the craft that great photographers strategize to hone with neither need nor want for novelties.

As an aside, Vivian Maier's work is amazing, inspiring.

Very well put, but don't agree that it 'diminishes the standard of what defines great photography'. For anyone who has had an eye opening adventure through photography, from rock bottom (Flickr at the start for me) to thoughtful and critically revered contemporary and classical work - i.e. 'the canon' - there is a reasoned perspective gained, which is: there is a huge gulf between this kind of naive work and 'great photography'. Completely different spheres, which, all said and done, do not influence each other. Despite what many contemporary photography commentators say, there really is no need for any reactionary movement against the prolific output of these people, because they attract different audiences, and rightfully so. It really is just a case of live and let live. If you're eating in a restaurant, does it have any baring on you that someone else in the world is at Burger King?

Back to the sentiment of my last post however, even by the standards of the 'photo sharing sphere', this is terrible photography . The 24 hour thing is like a lure for keeping a certain type of photography enthusiast perpetually ignorant to important conceptual work (which doesn't mean what you think it does, benjiboy). But when we're talking about other people's ignorance, it eventually becomes a political debate. For the sake of the integrity of this community and its newcomers, ignore shit like this and read any number of history of photography books, lend or buy monographs and go to exhibitions if at all possible.

APUG really needs a reading list sticky thread.

 

[pstake]

Very well put, but don't agree that it 'diminishes the standard of what defines great photography'. For anyone who has had an eye opening adventure through photography, from rock bottom (Flickr at the start for me) to thoughtful and critically revered contemporary and classical work - i.e. 'the canon' - there is a reasoned perspective gained, which is: there is a huge gulf between this kind of naive work and 'great photography'. Completely different spheres, which, all said and done, do not influence each other. Despite what many contemporary photography commentators say, there really is no need for any reactionary movement against the prolific output of these people, because they attract different audiences, and rightfully so. It really is just a case of live and let live. If you're eating in a restaurant, does it have any baring on you that someone else in the world is at Burger King?

Back to the sentiment of my last post however, even by the standards of the 'photo sharing sphere', this is terrible photography . The 24 hour thing is like a lure for keeping a certain type of photography enthusiast perpetually ignorant to important conceptual work (which doesn't mean what you think it does, benjiboy). But when we're talking about other people's ignorance, it eventually becomes a political debate. For the sake of the integrity of this community and its newcomers, ignore shit like this and read any number of history of photography books, lend or buy monographs and go to exhibitions if at all possible.

APUG really needs a reading list sticky thread.

Thanks for pointing out the holes in my argument. You're absolutely right; or at least I agree completely. I think a part of me is indignant because I have to work with / be around so many of the "Burger-Kingers," who are the same ilk as the person who posted this 24 hours in SF business — and I'm afraid of the long-term effect it will have on my own perception. I'm from the same generation and I'm bombarded by the junk images as well as the naive comments that praise them. And so I'm vigilant to point out the gulf between the naive work and the great photography.

I suppose your point is probably what Pentaxuser was getting at, too, and I'm probably just not quick enough or mature enough to have caught it.