Hmm, today was one of those days that you wish never happened - rotten! - but I'm over that now and have taken time to make something that looks like well-prepared response, ahem ahem.
Kay has not responded yet, so either he's also having a rotten day and more wisely, decided to ride it out in bed, or he doesn't understand English. It would have been nice to hear some more from the horse's mouth, but now you'll have to do with my ramblings.
When starting this thread, I merely said I felt more at home with these pics, not that I was going to praise them to heaven. To me, these images have an immediate pull on my sentiments. I actually and truly enjoy these images. To me they are not boring or empty at all. I can communicate with them very well. That doesn't mean I find them all good from a professional point of view.
The ones I especially like for more than just 'homey, sentimental reasons' are
this or
this or
this one
What I understood from the comments posted on
www.grossformatphotographie.de is that he has set himself the task to document his city, Düsseldorf. Some of the pics stem from this self-assignment. In another post that I can't retrace he explains what he's trying to do - and now this is interesting - showing that he is very concerned with content and concept and not at all with technical brilliance. That was what I found so incredibly remarkable from some of the comments posted, that people thought rather the opposite, viz. that the work lacked content, could not see what the photog was trying to capture or convey, but that they saw technique.
The easiest argument would be to say that the photog apparently has not succeeded in conveying his vision. But that's too easy a retort. You see, first of all I do not share this view, for to me he has succeeded in conveying his concept. Second, a lot of pictures that are liked across the pont (of Ansel-like dead treas, sweeping views in mountains, rough nature, waterfalls, etc. etc.) to me seem to lack the same content, while being technically well executed. To me, these seem boring and uninteresting, empty. Meaning they don't pull my strings and for the life of me I can't comprehend why other people rave over them. More than just individual differences, I would say continental differences are at play here as well. (Of course, I could be wrong).
On the other hand, I bet there is a certain amount catholicism at play as well. I have found that one of the common grounds in work I like has been the proximity of the maker to catholicism or a catholically impregnated community in his early life, specifically catholicism as practiced in a number of European countries, specif. Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Eastern Europe. I really can't put my finger on it or why it matters, but I have just found this to be the case.
I think the photog realizes the banality of his work, but I feel he's more with how things are captured rather than what - the how here being crucial to an image being succesful or not. Perhaps it's also that indefinite 'how' that I like.
Another interesting thing I gleaned from these comments, is that to people not familiar with this kind of environment, these images tell them something about the local architecture, whereas to me these are such familiar visuals, that I can only record them as a very personal statement about this ubiquitous mix of buildings. It's like seeing a personal portrait from someone you know initimately as opposed to seeing a portrait from an unknown person. You will tend to notice very different aspects of the image.
Okay, nuff said now. Or I won't shut up!