Tree In Head A.Leibovitz

[Don_ih]

Yes but technical rules must be followed ja? Cannot break the rules unless we're told that these rules are breakable yes?

Sure, if you want to ridicule what was actually a fairly serious discussion.

 

[Cholentpot]

Sure, if you want to ridicule what was actually a fairly serious discussion.

'Fairly'

But you see the humorlessness of this whole thing I guess. Breaking some rules is ok because it's traditional to break those rules. So when you're breaking composition rules you're following a rule to break rules. If you do something technically wrong but get results you like, well, those rules are not to be broken.

 

[Milpool]

Depends on what era. Some are presentations of light and shadow. Others are intimate spaces.

Those are stories? I don’t know, I think a viewer can basically make a story, so to speak, out of any aspect of a photograph that grabs/holds his attention or "resonates" with him (if we want to be a little more arty about it).

 

[Don_ih]

'Fairly'

But you see the humorlessness of this whole thing I guess. Breaking some rules is ok because it's traditional to break those rules. So when you're breaking composition rules you're following a rule to break rules. If you do something technically wrong but get results you like, well, those rules are not to be broken.

Really, what are you talking about? Who cares if you or anyone else breaks any rules of exposure, development, composition - whatever? No one cares about anything but the result. That doesn't mean the rules or guidelines or instructions (whatever someone wants to call them) don't exist. Sure they exist. They're not natural laws or anything like that, dictated by the character of matter and energy. They're optional - because the entire activity matters about as much as picking your nose.

 

[Cholentpot]

Really, what are you talking about? Who cares if you or anyone else breaks any rules of exposure, development, composition - whatever? No one cares about anything but the result. That doesn't mean the rules or guidelines or instructions (whatever someone wants to call them) don't exist. Sure they exist. They're not natural laws or anything like that, dictated by the character of matter and energy. They're optional - because the entire activity matters about as much as picking your nose.

I'd rather take photos than talk about taking photos. If you've spent any time online you'll notice that when people have 'serious' conversations about photos they'll rarely post photos to illustrate their jabber. And almost never post their own work.

It's all merry-go-round yapping.

But back to Annie. I think another opinion of mine is if her name wouldn't be attached to her current work people wouldn't give it a second glance.

 

[Don_ih]

I'd rather take photos than talk about taking photos. If you've spent any time online you'll notice that when people have 'serious' conversations about photos they'll rarely post photos to illustrate their jabber. And almost never post their own work.

So? Anyone can look up hundreds of Annie Leibovitz photos - there are photos posted in this thread and an article linked. It's not necessary to pepper this thread with photos - people are familiar with photos, see them all the time. This is a general discussion about certain matters of composition.
No one is saying you shouldn't be out taking photos. Go for it! What does that have to do with everyone else having a discussion?

 

[BrianShaw]

As a moderator, I find it fascinating that a thread about Annie Leibovitz has descended into a near argument about philosophy!

Whether one is a moderator or not, it is interesting and core to the discussion of the aspect of a single Liebovitz photo per the intended discussion point.

 

[BrianShaw]

I actually do an assignment with my photo students, to go out and break all the rules. This one is most popular amongst them.

“Breaking all the rules” is imposing a rule.

 

[Pieter12]

I think I know what you’re going for here, but I also suspect you are forgetting about Siskind’s Harlem/Bowery work in framing your question. And those pictures, of course, are full of stories.

But Siskind is best-known for his close-up studies of light, textures and marks. All fabulous compositions, no stories. Carl Chiarenza would be a good example, too.

 

[chuckroast]

I had a somewhat unpleasant discussion with someone a couple of years ago who insisted that my photographs were terrrible, in part, because I allowed portions of the scene to go to jet black. I pointed out that rather famous photographers like Brassai, Weston, Strand and others did this routinely. Apparently, this individual had so internalized that Zone System ethos that they'd taken to the "all zones must appear in all prints". It was an example of slavish devotion to a rule, when the scene in question didn't benefit from it.

I think there is a musical analogy relevant here. You have to learn scales to play fast. It's a foundational technique. But that doesn't mean every tune must have fast scales in it. You have to visit technique (rules) to give yourself choices, but having done so, what really matter is the final tune (picture).

 

[chuckroast]

But Siskind is best-known for his close-up studies of light, textures and marks. All fabulous compositions, no stories. Carl Chiarenza would be a good example, too.

I'd suggest a great photograph evokes a story, but the image itself may- or may not contain the story.

For example, a picture of a Depression era mother holding a baby with despair in her face has the story in the picture.

But, a pure abstract itself rarely does. A good abstract causes some inner mechanism in the viewer to connect with their own internal narratives that lead to some story they care about. A pile of logs might turn into an internal reflection of the story of God's creation. Barbed wire in the abstract might cause pondering about human rights abuses. Icicles in isolation might take the viewer back to that wonderful ski trip where she met her husband. Abstracts - well done ones anyway - are evocative and atavistic, not directly narrative.

 

[Pieter12]

And she told her to remove her crown...



Yes but technical rules must be followed ja? Cannot break the rules unless we're told that these rules are breakable yes?

That would certainly be breaking a rule, at least in the UK.

And not all technical rules have to be followed. Cross-processing, motion-blur (the kids call it ICM--intentional camera movement!), purposely over- or under-exposing, all can result in interesting and unique photos. Your examples seem to be just exaggerated attempts at ridicule.

 

[Pieter12]

I'd suggest a great photograph evokes a story, but the image itself may- or may not contain the story.

For example, a picture of a Depression era mother holding a baby with despair in her face has the story in the picture.

But, a pure abstract itself rarely does. A good abstract causes some inner mechanism in the viewer to connect with their own internal narratives that lead to some story they care about. A pile of logs might turn into an internal reflection of the story of God's creation. Barbed wire in the abstract might cause pondering about human rights abuses. Icicles in isolation might take the viewer back to that wonderful ski trip where she met her husband. Abstracts - well done ones anyway - are evocative and atavistic, not directly narrative.

A good abstract image may stimulate the imagination, evoke emotions, somehow please or irritate the viewer. One might recognize the subject, but there is no story needed. Certainly not anything about gods. I would even venture to say that if the viewer sees or connects a story to an abstract image, then the image is a failure as an abstraction.

 

[Cholentpot]

That would certainly be breaking a rule, at least in the UK.

And not all technical rules have to be followed. Cross-processing, motion-blur (the kids call it ICM--intentional camera movement!), purposely over- or under-exposing, all can result in interesting and unique photos. Your examples seem to be just exaggerated attempts at ridicule.

Ridicule by itself is exaggeration.

 

[Pieter12]

Ridicule by itself is exaggeration.

I beg to differ. Exaggeration may be used to ridicule, but one may ridicule without exaggerating.

 

[MattKing]

Whether one is a moderator or not, it is interesting and core to the discussion of the aspect of a single Liebovitz photo per the intended discussion point.

But not the "near argument" part of it - - that is what is of concern to us as moderators.
Whether or not something brings rise to informative discussion - which we value and try to promote - or instead brings rise to arguments and exchanges of personal invective - which we wish to avoid - is often both fascinating and unpredictable.

 

[Mike Lopez]

But Siskind is best-known for his close-up studies of light, textures and marks. All fabulous compositions, no stories. Carl Chiarenza would be a good example, too.

Chiarenza is hardly immune to storytelling through his photographs. See The Peace Warriors of Two Thousand Three, for starters. As well as Solitudes, while you're at it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'd rather take photos than talk about taking photos. If you've spent any time online you'll notice that when people have 'serious' conversations about photos they'll rarely post photos to illustrate their jabber. And almost never post their own work.

It's all merry-go-round yapping.

But back to Annie. I think another opinion of mine is if her name wouldn't be attached to her current work people wouldn't give it a second glance.

Where are yours?

 

[eli griggs]

In my paintings, art, I've had feedback that varies with what is being seen, which can be very helpful, not that I'm promoting any point of view, ever.

I prefer to allow the viewer interpret the work on their own, though if I give a non-numeric title, that changes things a bit.

Several pieces of feed back I've received come to mind as we discussed rules, photography, art, etc, the first one is the time a patron bought an abstract piece, she really liked, which in her word, she saw as "Jazz!"

I didn't press the email image, which was part of a evolving series I call, "Random Marks" which include(d) (s) a number of different mediums, acrylics. watercolours, silver point, oil pastels or sticks, ink, charcoals, coloured pencils, etc, each contributing a different element, or reading.

I really like hearing happy patrons relating their personal experience with the image.

Photographs can do this, especially if you allow the "meanings" to be generated by the viewer, in most cases.

Documentary works in particular are ripe for this freedom to access or judge, IMO.

Another example I'm sure others here have experienced was the time I was gallery sitting, during our limited open to the public, hours.

A small group of young, female Doctors, showing one of their fellows around Charlotte, came in and slowly visited each "studio space" and wall display.

I was interested in their (and everyone's) reactions when they stepped into my studio space, where they spent some time discussing several pieces.

I was able to watch this because cameras had been installed throughout the gallery, including one looking down from my 'back' wall showing most of the space and the rear door to the gallery.

I believe I spoke to a couple of these ladies for a few minutes about my space and work, then they finished their looking and left.

Half an hour later, the Doctor that was being shown around town, came back on her own, went directly to my studio and selected a framed, black ink Woodcut print and brought it up to me to ring up.

That she liked this print was self evident by the excitement in her voice, as she hunted up her card for the sale and I processed it.

As she started to leave, she turned to me and happily related that 'This print has changed my life' and was out the door to rejoin her friends at lunch down the street.

Seeing things, not previously described or announced in the authors's title, events, people , etc, in photographs has had and continues to have, life, societal and history changing impact on us all, even if we don't recognize it ourselves, regardless of any rules, followed or otherwise, the viewer will see what the see, even long after, when we're in our graves and urns.

IMO.

 

[Pieter12]

And what the gell does that have to do with composition, specifically Ms Leibovitz’s Vogue series of supermodels wearing denim?

A propos, all this criticism has led me to purchase her Taschen monograph.

 

[BrianShaw]

Whether people like her subjects, composition, and photography as a whole or not... she is a fantastic photographer.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

“Breaking all the rules” is imposing a rule.

Well, there has to be some structure with teenagers

 

[Cholentpot]

Where are yours?

You'll find I've posted a'plenty of photos on this website.

 

[bjorke]

Often, hand-wringing about arbitrary rules when looking at a picture is an indicator that someone's photos are about nothing else.

Far better, imho, to follow rules like "avoid being boring unless your message is about boredom." Or "avoid exploiting impoverished subjects unless it's essential to your point about the history of being a white man with a camera in a third-world environment." Or "pay more attention to the light, it has the power to both diminish or enoble."

Note that these sorts of rules can be decided in advance -- even written down, as did, say, Garry Winogrand (in his grant declaration) or Tony Ray-Jones (in his notebook), and THEN make your pictures. You will know where you stand and what the contours of your pictures will be.

 

[snusmumriken]

I thought of this thread when scanning the film I developed today, and thought I'd share how my thoughts went. I quite liked the shot attached here, but after a little while I noticed how the lamp-post is right behind the head of one of these ladies. Then I thought: I had time - maybe 10 or 15 sec - to choose how to frame the shot and when to press the button. So what I've got is the moment when instinctively I felt everything was as right as it was going to be. Naturally, after the event, one can search for compositional 'rules' that are upheld or broken. So I find - with some surprise and a sense of seeing afresh - that there are two diagonals: one explicitly marked by the railings and paralleled by the shadows, one implicit from BL corner to TR corner. The ladies are oriented towards the intersection of those diagonals, marked by the lamp-post. X marks the spot. If there is a rule about lamp-posts growing out of people's heads, I've definitely transgressed; but I think there's enough tonal contrast to minimise any visual ambiguity. And finally, who cares? It was a lovely walk, late on a sunny afternoon, and I like this reminder of it. I'm not expecting a knock on the door from the Rules Police. They have Bigger Fish to fry.