Photographers are like beer

[severian]

Thanks to the thread started by Roteague we have page after page of posts detailing the photographers that have inspired us. Lets go in the opposite direction. Of all the photographers that have been proclaimed "great", do you feel that there are any that have not really lived up to the billing. Who is overrated? I know, it's all subjective but whats your opinion? Photographers are like beer. There is no really bad beer, some are just better than others. My choice for the one that should not make the Hall of Fame.......Arbus

Jack

 

[Bill Mitchell]

STEIGLITZ. Great promoter, great whiner, average photographer, miniscule output. Married and famously photographed Georgia O'Keefe. The fact that his other female nude pictures are so ordinary is a good indication that SHE, not he, is responsible for their quality.
ATGET. Prolific, but technically inept. A blind person could make equally good pictures in Paris.
DISFARMER. Disphotographer.

 

[bill schwab]

My choice for the one that should not make the Hall of Fame.......Arbus

Hmmmmm....

My vote says this should be a "Soap Box" issue. Perhaps I'm a bit "gun-shy", but I think this might only lead to trouble. One mans trash is another man's food.

Just my opinion.

Bill

 

[bill schwab]

STEIGLITZ..ATGET... DISFARMER. Disphotographer.

Yikes! I'm sure many will disagree with you on these Bill! I certainly do!

Bill

 

[roteague]

One mans trash is another man's food.

I would have to agree with you. I would have to answer this question with Edward Weston, an answer which would probably upset many people, but I might get a bit upset if someone answered with Jack Dykinga. In other words, It is easier to say who we like than who we don't - because many may identify with some famous photographer or his style, the answer to this question can seem like a personal put down.

 

[Gerald Koch]

I find the work of Jerry Uelsmann to be technically perfect but it doesn't appear to say anything.

 

[SuzanneR]

I think Arbus is overrated, too. She has a few phenomenal photographs... I'm partial to the "Jewish Giant with his Parents", but I've always felt that her work gets a lot more attention than it might have, had she not successfully comitted suicide. Although, my main criticism of her work, is that there is too much of Arbus in the photos. I think there can be so much more to art than self-expression.

Actually, I kind of feel that way about Sally Mann's "Immediate Family" too. Somehow, the presence of the camera, and the photographer are too obvious.

 

[bill schwab]

I find the work of Jerry Uelsmann to be technically perfect but it doesn't appear to say anything.

See, this is what I am talking about. I know Mr. Uelsmann as a great guy. He is kind and gracious to students and pros. Both those with potential AND those that may want to look for a fall-back option. He has a huge following, including my wife who has sentimental connections to many of his images. The man would never say anything bad about anothers work.

In fact, I have either met, or know any number of people that might be discussed on this board as I am sure many of you have or do. All of them are just like us... they love their work and are eternally grateful that people enjoy it and give their support. I have never known any of them to speak badly of others work in a public forum such as this. It is to be certain that people are going to have different tastes. That is one of the beautiful things in life. How boring if everyone liked the same things? We are photographers, not critics.

I am afraid this thread is going to end up saying more about the person posting the opinion than the person whose work he/she is publically showing disrespect for.

Again, just my opinion, but this should be a Soap Box issue so it can be turned off if the member/subscriber desires.

Bill

 

[Claire Senft]

If you are so silly as to think there is no bad beer than you have never tried Urologist Lager. Stuff is like piss.

 

[Monophoto]

Steven Shore - - - boring.

 

[Bill Mitchell]

Oh, I thought the question was "which photographers LIKE beer." Never mind.

 

[clay]

Well, if a photographer could be like a beer, I would want to be like Guinness Stout.

 

[Les McLean]

Martin Parr a no talent photographic fraud.

 

[bill schwab]

Oh, I thought the question was "which photographers LIKE beer." Never mind.

Now THAT's pretty funny!

Bill

 

[Joe Lipka]

Well, I am with Clay on wanting to be a Guinness Stout.

In terms of photographers, I would prefer to list those whose work I don't understand. Many people appreciate the work of these photographers, I don't. Diane Arbus, Sally Mann and Steiglitz, so far, are on my list. You could also add Nan Goldin, Cindy Sherman, Jock Sturges, Robert Frank, Eikoe Hosoh, Lee Freilander , Lewis Baltz and any current photographer who thinks that 8 x 10 is measured in feet.

Nothing wrong with these folks at all. I just don't understand their photographs.

 

[smieglitz]

I'm baffled by the popularity of:

William Wagman (sic)
Anne Geddes
Sean Kernan
Bruce Barnbaum

 

[jd callow]

This is one thread where I would have loved to read M. Scarpitti's views.

 

[toddstew]

Mo-holy crap-Nagy!

 

[rhphoto]

This is one thread where I would have loved to read M. Scarpitti's views.

That's Ornello Pederzoni III to you, buster!

So far, I have to say I pretty much agree with the aggregate list so far. Which begins to show that APUGers might just be in some agreement on matters of taste. (And of course, our taste is correct!! ) My peeve is with photographers whose work is famous JUST because they take pictures of famous people. How many coffee table books are lining bookstore shelves right now, with Madonna's pictures of Richard Gere, or some such nonsense. THAT stuff is the Skunkener Pilsner of photography!

 

[Charles Webb]

I am pretty much in agreement with the majority of names already mentioned, but for me Les McLean comment exactly fits Diane Arbus in my opinion. I have met her, attended her shows, and still came away saying "What is she trying to say or do" Sorry Arbus lovers, but I dislike spinache too.

I beleave there are far more frauds out there than there are super heros,
I think maybe I have had a bit more time to think about such things than
others may have and that is my opinion. One of my ex Bosses for instance was the most decorated member in the history of the PPofA, and he truly did not know an f stop from a door stop. All of his prints were done by a very capable DR technician. He only was able to earn a bit over 500,000
dollars a year, sit in a directors chair and shout at us.

Nuff Said, Charlie.......................

 

[Early Riser]

I won't comment on any photographers in particular, although I do think that saying why you dislike someone's work can be an educational discussion and have as much merit as saying why you like someone's work. However, I think for this type of critical discussion to have value it's important to explain why you don't like their work. Not just that you think it's lousy, but why is it lousy to you? Is it boring? Mundane? Poorly composed? The terms that you use to discuss why you dislike someone's work is a good way to determine just what it is that you value in a photograph and could be a good indicator of why and what you shoot.

Fame or notariety for a photographer changes the perception that others have of his/her work. My own criteria is that a photograph should be able to stand on it's own merits. If it needs a brand name photographer, shock value, or celebrity as the subject to give it any value, to me it is a meritless photo.

 

[Les McLean]

I won't comment on any photographers in particular, although I do think that saying why you dislike someone's work can be an educational discussion and have as much merit as saying why you like someone's work. However, I think for this type of critical discussion to have value it's important to explain why you don't like their work. Not just that you think it's lousy, but why is it lousy to you? Is it boring? Mundane? Poorly composed? The terms that you use to discuss why you dislike someone's work is a good way to determine just what it is that you value in a photograph and could be a good indicator of why and what you shoot.

Fame or notariety for a photographer changes the perception that others have of his/her work. My own criteria is that a photograph should be able to stand on it's own merits. If it needs a brand name photographer, shock value, or celebrity as the subject to give it any value, to me it is a meritless photo.

That's a very good point you make. The very reason that I don't like Parr is that he tends to describe what we should see in his images. We see quite a bit of him on UK TV and he always goes into long explanations of his work.

 

[toddstew]

I agree also. I tend to feel that Stieglitz's work could be interesting, but his talk about that work tends to cancel out any positive feelings that his work might elicit. Sometimes it's better to be able to take something away from a work on your own than be told what to take away.
todd

 

[Joe Lipka]

I...and he truly did not know an f stop from a door stop...

Priceless quote. Thanks for that wonderful image.

 

[PhotoPete]

Ansel Adams. Technical perfection, but no soul whatsoever, IMHO.
<let the flames begin>