I’ve looked at these photographs from "Natur" too, and honestly, they feel a bit like what you might get if a child wandered through the forest with a camera. I say that because in my opinion even a curious 10 year old might capture something more compelling. Sorry if this comes across as harsh. I just believe that if I can enthusiastically share what I love about certain books, I should also be able to share my honest opinion when something doesn’t resonate with me at all.
Ah... the old "even a child could do it"... hadn't heard, or read, that one in a while...
Yes. I agree. It‘s also not my cup of tea. But you mentioned Helga Paris. I like her work very much. Great portraits. Didn‘t know her work until recently. She was not very well known in the GDR. They didn‘‘t want her to exhibit because she was too honest obviously and they didn‘t want her to show these pictures because of that.
Isn't there a big retrospective of her work currently in Berlin?
These images look to me... lacking in curiosity.
No they're not. They are photographs of what he was curious about. That you are not curious about the same things he is, or wouldn't have been curious about the things he was curious at the moments he shot the photographs, all that is OK, but totally irrelevant. Looking at photographs is not about your curiosity, or an imaginary child's curiosity. Someone looked at something and thought that thing interesting enough to photograph it, and looking at photographs is in part trying to understand why, in the sense of becoming the eye, and the sensibility, of the one who took the photo. Looking at photographs is abandoning yourself — your self — to that.
I will also add that there is great craft behind the making of these photos, as anybody who spends enough time in the darkroom would tell you. There are in these photos very subtle plays of light that seem to be beautifully translated.
Can I ask you something a bit more personal?
I’ve been in this forum for a while now, and we’ve exchanged quite a lot with each other. One thing I’ve noticed, and I say this with genuine interest, is that I’ve never seen you be dismissive or critical of any photographer here.
Do you feel that there is such a thing as bad photography, or do you believe that every photograph contains something worth discovering, even if it doesn’t immediately resonate?
I’m asking because your position reminds me of something Bernard Plossu (whom I really like) once said: "I cannot say anything bad about any photography. I just love photography, and for me all photographs are interesting".
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that view. On the contrary, I find it quite generous. I’m simply curious and trying to understand your perspective a bit better.
Short answer is I'm certainly close to Plossu's point of view.
Long answer is, of course, more complicated, but more the subject of a private conversation, as how I view photography is unrelated to this thread, and would be of little interest to most people in it.
Only thing that I'll add, in relation to this thread, is that the more photobooks I own (or borrow from the library), to more open to the various possibilities of photography I become.
And the more I photograph and spend time in the darkroom printing, the more I admire and appreciated the work of those who have mastered both crafts, whether or not they are interested in photographing, or printing, the same things I am.
No they're not. They are photographs of what he was curious about. That you are not curious about the same things he is, or wouldn't have been curious about the things he was curious at the moments he shot the photographs, all that is OK, but totally irrelevant. Looking at photographs is not about your curiosity, or an imaginary child's curiosity. Someone looked at something and thought that thing interesting enough to photograph it, and looking at photographs is in part trying to understand why, in the sense of becoming the eye, and the sensibility, of the one who took the photo. Looking at photographs is abandoning yourself — your self — to that.
I will also add that there is great craft behind the making of these photos, as anybody who spends enough time in the darkroom would tell you. There are in these photos very subtle plays of light that seem to be beautifully translated.
Ah... the old "even a child could do it"... hadn't heard, or read, that one in a while...
I understand your point. And I try always to understand others work and also to appreciate it. And there is noch such thing as „good art“ or „bad art“. Totally agree. But for me personally it‘s not irrelevant which photographs impress me and which not so much. It‘s simply because I have to make choices. Which photobooks I should buy or borrow, which exhibitions I should attend. Maybe I should have a look at work that I don‘t understand immediately more often. should try harder to understand. Good point. Thanks a lot for your thoughts.
I just think a child might capture something more playful or surprising.
I also like Hido, and did get his latest book.
I’ve looked at these photographs from "Natur" too, and honestly, they feel a bit like what you might get if a child wandered through the forest with a camera. I say that because in my opinion even a curious 10 year old might capture something more compelling.
My biggest curiosity was from some of the pairs which are clearly subtle reframes and/or slightly different exposures or time of exposure at the scene. I am curious regarding the photographer's intent here. I think almost any of us would study the 2 and simply include the "best" of the pair, so why include both?
Imagine you're on a walk, you see a tree, you particularly like how the light fall on it, so you take a photo. Coming back, you see that tree again, the light has change, and you also particularly like how it falls on it, so again you take the photo. Doing that, you are no longer photographing a moment in time, but the passage of time, and how it has many ways to transform us. That is your intent, so you include both photos in your book, as there is no "best" of the two.
You could even imagine yourself just sitting in front of that tree one day, from dawn to dusk, and photographing it every hour, or every half hour, or every time the light changes in a way that speaks to you — it would be the same tree yet never the same —, and then making an entire book only of these photos. (Since I made the suggestion, of course I'd have no choice but to buy it !)
Having two of the same, yet different, is a great way to draw the viewer in. Viewer has no choice but to stop and look, even if just for differences, not only in the surface of the photo itself, but also in feeling. Viewer becomes more attentive, and that attention is then kept on single images.
I may be wrong — memory fails me — but I think Italian photographer Luigi Ghirri did this a lot.
Imagine you're on a walk, you see a tree, you particularly like how the light fall on it, so you take a photo. Coming back, you see that tree again, the light has change, and you also particularly like how it falls on it, so again you take the photo. Doing that, you are no longer photographing a moment in time, but the passage of time, and how it has many ways to transform us. That is your intent, so you include both photos in your book, as there is no "best" of the two.
You could even imagine yourself just sitting in front of that tree one day, from dawn to dusk, and photographing it every hour, or every half hour, or every time the light changes in a way that speaks to you — it would be the same tree yet never the same —, and then making an entire book only of these photos. (Since I made the suggestion, of course I'd have no choice but to buy it !)
Having two of the same, yet different, is a great way to draw the viewer in. Viewer has no choice but to stop and look, even if just for differences, not only in the surface of the photo itself, but also in feeling. Viewer becomes more attentive, and that attention is then kept on single images.
I may be wrong — memory fails me — but I think Italian photographer Luigi Ghirri did this a lot.
I found a copy of this on my lunch break yesterday. I had a gift card too, so things worked out well.
The Chinese Photobook, From the 1900s to the Present Mid-Sized Edition by Parr, Martin: New (2016) | Lakeside Books
ISBN: 9781597113755 - Hardcover - Aperture - 2016 - Condition: New - Brand New! Not Overstocks or Low Quality Book Club Editions! Direct From the Publisher! We're not a giant, faceless warehouse organization! We're a small town bookstore that loves books and loves it's customers! Buy from...www.abebooks.com
The only unfortunate thing is it's size; 13x11.5"
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?