How so?
Compare their images.
Compare their images.
This presumes that the individual performing the comparison reads photographs the same as you do. And can thus be expected to see the same dissimilarities that you have already seen. But since everyone's perspective on life is unique to each individual, that presumption is likely invalid.
So Bob's question regarding your unique perspective stands,
How so?
Ken
A ridiculous question as HCB is backed up by a worldwide historic consensus of opinion from millions of people, many of whom are more qualified to comment than I.
But Bob's question was not about asking what the consensus opinion was of those "millions of people", it was a question about what was your individual personal opinion. Or more specifically, what dissimilarities you had already seen when comparing the two bodies of work that prompted your admonition to him to perform a similar comparison, with the unspoken expectation that he would see the same.
It is a basic premise of classical logic that one cannot successfully assert the falseness of an argument without being able to point to the truthful condition which gives rise to that falsehood. In order to successfully argue that Bob's argument is wrong, you must be able to back that position up by telling us what you believe is right. Simply offering the opinion of millions of others does not necessarily meet that metric.
Ken
But then this is only my opinion.
A ridiculous question as HCB is backed up by a worldwide historic consensus of opinion from millions of people, many of whom are more qualified to comment than I.
If I like a picture, I like a picture. It doesn't matter who took it. And if I like an artist I like an artist whether they've been overexposed on the internet or not.
My problem with Maier is I've never seen anyone say she accomplished anything extraordinary. To me it would seem her picture taking was a manifestation of some kind of mental disorder. If you walk around with a camera and take thousands upon thousands of pictures over the course of decades there are bound to be some winners. That is not the hallmark of a great artist. I do like the fact she documented a lot of mundane things. I like documenting things too. I wouldn't call a lot of what I do fine art though.
I do like the fact she documented a lot of mundane things. I like documenting things too. I wouldn't call a lot of what I do fine art though.
To me it would seem her picture taking was a manifestation of some kind of mental disorder.
yup in a hundred 100k there would be some winners - EXCEPT that those who have seen whole contact sheets say she never took multiples, only one exposure. i wish i had one tenth as good an eye!!!
yup in a hundred 100k there would be some winners - EXCEPT that those who have seen whole contact sheets say she never took multiples, only one exposure. i wish i had one tenth as good an eye!!!
Tough crowd.
Some of you folks should turn off your computers and make photographs.
(like I'm doing riiiiight now)
But its a great way to feel better about one's own lame photography by slamming someone else's. Especially someone who throughout her life could not give a flying rat's ass about what anyone thought of her work. How dare she!! Based on the tone of these forums lately I'm surprised no one called her work a complete waste of film.
One thing for sure: no one's gonna discover any of our work after we're long dead and start publishing books about what geniuses we were!
Based on the tone of these forums lately I'm surprised no one called her work a complete waste of film.
While it may be a difficult pill for some here to swallow, I'm pretty darned sure Ms. Maier had never even heard of APUG.
Ken
This is not about "slamming" someone's work. This is about discussing the rubric by which you anoint an artist "one of the greatest" of all time. By default if you say they are the greatest or one of the greatest that means you rank them above all or most others. Many of us could argue you are "slamming" the work of everyone else if you aren't looking at the situation holistically.
In the 1950s people like Harry Callahan and Aaron Siskind were teaching at the Institute of Design in Chicago, where one of the founding directors was László Moholy-Nagy. Ray Metzker was one of the students there in the mid to late 1950s. There was a lot of strong and innovative photography being produced in Chicago in that era, and I would assume there was a wider awareness of it in the city, but don't have any evidence for that. I think art and photography magazines would have been the main source of information for the general public back then. It would be interesting to see what publications were available in Chicago and the types of articles that were included in them.I have all of Fred Pickers Notes, in the 70's and 80's I worked at photography as a printer and lived and died by his notes and some of the photo mags of the time. It was my only connection to the outside world of photography.
She is of an era even before the FP notes and she worked it seems relentlessly at exposing film, Was there a photo culture in Chicago at that time ??
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?