Trickery and fake

[blansky]

An interesting clash of process vs product.

A lot like "he cheated" when he photoshopped his digital to look like analog or he deliberately messed up his printing to look like ???

Is it that amateurs are interested in process and pros are interested in product?

Is it that he didn't pay his dues?

Is it that he made a bunch of money and someone else didn't?

Is he really hurting the reputation of analog/LF?

 

[cliveh]

The process is irrelevant. I like to originate on film, but at the end of the day it is the final image that matters. Not how it is made, how long it took, or what it costs.

 

[lxdude]

Trick is, he gets paid well for his "$hitty" pix, whatever you think of 'em.

Yep. No news there. People get paid well for making shitty movies, TV shows, etc. Thomas Kinkade made a shitload off of shit.

Art without commerce is a hobby.

I was wondering how long it would be until you trotted out your favorite saying.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Everything's commodity ?

Art without commerce is a hobby.

I think this is a very American view where something has to have a price tag to have value. I don't believe in that. Art has transformative powers and without it, life is just existence. Good art is everywhere and you don't have to pay an admission to enjoy it. It's part of the human experience it.

 

[SkipA]

Going back to read the first post, it appears to me that the OP may have misunderstood what he was seeing and what the photographer wanted to accomplish. The accusations of trickery and fakery followed. (Edit: Actually, it was asserted from the start, in the thread title.) Is this possible, and would that explain all this umbrage over what amounts to the photographer's vision, like it or not? I'm sure no one could any longer support the claim that there was any trickery or fakery involved at all. What constitutes trickery and fakery too is a matter of opinion, unless one maintains that any manipulation of an image to satisfy the photographer's vision amounts to trickery and fakery. If that is the case, then is arranging your subject or the light or your camera to achieve a certain effect also trickery and fakery?

No one likes all photographs or every artist's style. That's no cause to accuse someone of employing trickery and fakery.

 

[CGW]

Yep. No news there. People get paid well for making shitty movies, TV shows, etc. Thomas Kinkade made a shitload off of shit.



I was wondering how long it would be until you trotted out your favorite saying.

Seemed doubly applicable here, especially given the prissiness and rancor washing around Clendenin's Olympic shots. Guess it never dawned on the disbelievers that these striking images might actually help the analog cause rather than harm it. The self-absorption level here is getting toxic.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I'd rather look at shitty pictures of olympians rather than technically perfect pictures of some random tree in a backyard.

I'll take the tree, thanks.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Seemed doubly applicable here, especially given the prissiness and rancor washing around Clendenin's Olympic shots. Guess it never dawned on the disbelievers that these striking images might actually help the analog cause rather than harm it. The self-absorption level here is getting toxic.

Then you should go, lest you become more ill.

 

[Ian Grant]

Going back to read the first post, it appears to me that the OP may have misunderstood what he was seeing and what the photographer wanted to accomplish. The accusations of trickery and fakery followed. (Edit: Actually, it was asserted from the start, in the thread title.) Is this possible, and would that explain all this umbrage over what amounts to the photographer's vision, like it or not? I'm sure no one could any longer support the claim that there was any trickery or fakery involved at all. What constitutes trickery and fakery too is a matter of opinion, unless one maintains that any manipulation of an image to satisfy the photographer's vision amounts to trickery and fakery. If that is the case, then is arranging your subject or the light or your camera to achieve a certain effect also trickery and fakery?

No one likes all photographs or every artist's style. That's no cause to accuse someone of employing trickery and fakery.

No, I fully understood what I was seeing, and I have a deep knowledge of photography both at the technical and artistic level.

What's being missed is that it's not the individula images etc that some of us find offensive, it's the passing them offas something they aren't. In effect they are a fiction based on the photographers misconcep[tions and should be treated as such.

If someone has work published in a publication like the LA Times then there's a need for honesty, the B&W images are a poor parody of photography 100+ years ago and that needs to be said.

The images remind me of some special effcts to simulate old film (cine) in Sony Vegas, I guess Premiere etc have similar

Ian

 

[Diapositivo]

It's all the marketing bullstuff which is fake.

But shooting the large-format film was a relaxing and, most important, creatively rejuvenating experience. With no motor drive to capture three frames every second (as with my Canon 5d Mark II cameras), I was forced to slow down and think about each frame.

Thinking about composition has nothing to do with 100-years old cameras. A Canon 5d Mark whatever does not prevent you to compose carefully. A badly developed analogue photograph can hardly be judged, from the outside, as a creatively rejuvenating experience.

On the other hand, the obvious can always be stated. If the experience was creatively rejuvenating for the author, who are we to doubt about it? Maybe he really got younger. And if this creatively rejuvenating production sells for good money, who are we to say that those who spend this money have very little understanding of what a good picture looks?
The utmost obvious statement de gustibus non disputandum can also be added here.

But the fact remains that most of those reading that stuff will actually think that 100-years-old technology can only produce results that technically faulty.

If he had said: "I wanted to test waters with large format, old lenses, old techniques, and I am not very technically prepared with any of those, but I did find the path rewarding" he could have been sincere and genuine.

By just selling his bad technique as due to old technology he is "falsifying" the technical value of the technology he's not fully exploiting.

I think this is original critique. It's selling (counterfeiting) bad technique as old technology. The fact that he can sell this for good money make things worse.

Some people "sold" the Trevi Fountain to American tourists in the past, you know, there always is somebody ready to buy anything if you look carefully... (I understand the person who "bought" the Trevi fountain more though).

Modern crap art with a ridiculous "artist statement" can sell for huge money. That doesn't make art in the eyes of anybody but those who buy it, and possibly not even (considering that those buying are often just speculating on its raise in value, regardless of its artistic quality).

 

[Ian Grant]

You've hit the nail on the head with yor comments Fabrizio.

Ian

 

[blansky]

Much ado about nothing.

He's not the spokesperson for large format "old ways".

He's a guy who tried out a technique and then was asked/interviewed about it for the LA fucking Times. Not Large Format Weekly.

The public doesn't know shit about this stuff one way or the other, nor do they care.

The only people that care are other photographers who probably know what he did anyways.

Jesus people, who gives a shit if he pissed on the prints to age them.

 

[CGW]

"Modern crap art with a ridiculous "artist statement" can sell for huge money. That doesn't make art in the eyes of anybody but those who buy it, and possibly not even (considering that those buying are often just speculating on its raise in value, regardless of its artistic quality). "

Care to share some examples?

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

LA Times , you can expect from them to polish every turd they can find connected to money or fame.

 

[pbromaghin]

100 years ago? How about 150 years:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/melonman/5617885635/in/photostream/

and a little detail from it...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/melonman/5618470618/

 

[E. von Hoegh]

"Modern crap art with a ridiculous "artist statement" can sell for huge money. That doesn't make art in the eyes of anybody but those who buy it, and possibly not even (considering that those buying are often just speculating on its raise in value, regardless of its artistic quality). "

Care to share some examples?

Thomas Kincaid.
Peter Lik.
That fuckwit in Britain(?) who makes "art" of dead animals.

Just to name three. But according to you, they're great because thay make/made a lot of money.

Edit - Andy Warhol's big soupcans were garbage, too, as was most everything else he did. And that guy who does all that horrible dreadful stuff with the eagles - garbage.

 

[CGW]

Thomas Kincaid.
Peter Lik.
That fuckwit in Britain(?) who makes "art" of dead animals.

Just to name three. But according to you, they're great because thay make/made a lot of money.

Robert Rauschenberg made "art" with a stuffed goat once. Damien Hirst is your man. That's it, eh? Don't start.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Robert Rauschenberg made "art" with a stuffed goat once. Damien Hirst is your man. That's it, eh?

That's all I care to think of and post, it's pretty far down my list of things to worry about. Yes, Hirst, thanks.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

OOOH I know..

Thomas Kincaid.
Peter Lik.
That fuckwit in Britain(?) who makes "art" of dead animals.

http://www.damienhirst.com/

At least his art is challenging.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Thomas Kincaid.
Peter Lik.
That fuckwit in Britain(?) who makes "art" of dead animals.

Just to name three. But according to you, they're great because thay make/made a lot of money.

Edit - Andy Warhol's big soupcans were garbage, too, as was most everything else he did. And that guy who does all that horrible dreadful stuff with the eagles - garbage.

What's with Peter Lik?

 

[lxdude]

The public doesn't know shit about this stuff one way or the other,

If they look at the pictures in the article, and get the impression that's what old cameras and techniques produce, they think they do know.

nor do they care.

They care to some extent, or the Times wouldn't have run the piece.

 

[lxdude]

Guess it never dawned on the disbelievers that these striking images might actually help the analog cause rather than harm it.

I find the images striking, too. Strikingly bad. They would have been much better if he hadn't screwed with them. IMO.

I think they do harm the analog cause by being misleading as to what good analog work with old equipment looks like.
They probably help the analog cause, too, by showing people that analog is still around and capable of producing images very different from the usual; doubtless many will find the images cool, even though I think they suck.

 

[blansky]

They care to some extent, or the Times wouldn't have run the piece.

Most of the what's in the LA Times nobody cares about.

 

[lxdude]

Most of the what's in the LA Times nobody cares about.

Well, it sure ain't the paper it used to be. Still, they expend ink and newsprint on those things they think will attract readers, therefore revenue.

 

[jimgalli]

Have to agree with Blansky \\ (scary, very scary) 7 pages of sour grapes because this guy got some bit of notice?? Goodness.