It looks like something that would end up in my darkroom trash bin. I guess that's why I'll never be a 'famous' photographer (and it doesn't bother me a bit).
Correct exposure is just getting what you intended, right? How do you know?I react more on the bad exposure/development than the actual blur, even a blurry picture can indeed tell a story, but why make things worse....
No reason to knock the guy. The photo doesn't emotionally grab you (because of what appears to be technical errors?), no big deal, what similar genre photos do actually grab you?It looks like something that would end up in my darkroom trash bin. I guess that's why I'll never be a 'famous' photographer (and it doesn't bother me a bit).
Just like writing, you need to know proper spelling and grammar. Once a writer has the basic down, he or she may break the rules and use bad grammar or misspellings intentionally...Blur and grain with photos should serve the art otherwise it's just bad technique
When did "bad" (as in not the best achievable result) become the new cool?
If it is intentional and serves the art then it isn't bad technique. It's really really good technique.
For the record, I like the image of the truck...
why does "bad" get appreciation and wall space at galleries and review space in media etc. ?
I cannot decide which I like worse: a million pictorialist or a million wannabe Adams....
You can use grain, "incorrect" exposure and other image "defects" to create a certain style and mood in your image, and if it works, more power to you. If someone, however, uses these techniques for a cheap wow effect of the "OMG how did he make these dots in that image" kind, then I'm not so sure whether real art has been created. Likewise there is a lot of craft but no inherent art involved in creating a perfectly exposed, sharp and mostly grainless image.Call me unwashed, but the grainy (I rarely like blurry) b&w street images that are quite popular - when matched with the subject well - I find to have a surrealistic quality, what I mean is, the style seems to emphasize the universal event pictured, and not the particular subject pictured.
Thoughts? Is that just me?
Given that, I really wonder who would pay big bucks for such an image.
At the court of the Shogun Iyenari, it was a tense moment. Hokusai, already well established as a prodigiously gifted artist, was competing with a conventional brush-stroke painter in a face-off judged by the shogun personally. Hokusai painted a blue curve on a big piece of paper, chased a chicken across it whose feet had been dipped in red paint, and explained the result to the shogun: it was a landscape showing the Tatsuta River with floating red maple leaves. Hokusai won the competition. The story is well known but the reaction of the conventional brush-stroke artist was not recorded. It's quite likely that he thought Hokusai had done not much more than register an idea, or, as we would say today, a concept. A loser's view, perhaps; though not without substance. If Hokusai had spent his career dipping chickens in red paint, he would have been Yoko Ono.
But Hokusai did a lot more, and the same applies to ever artist we respect, in any field: sometimes they delight us with absurdly simple things, but we expect them to back it up with plenty of evidence that they can do complicated things as well. And anyway, on close examination the absurdly simple thing might turn out to be achieved not entirely without technique. Late in his career Picasso would take ten seconds to turn a bicycle saddle and a pair of handlebars into a bull's head and expect to charge you a fortune for it, but when he was sixteen he could paint a cardinal's full-length portrait that looked better than anything ever signed by Velazquez. You can't tell, just from looking at the bull's head, that it was assembled by a hand commanding infinities of know-how, but you would have been able to tell, from looking at Hokusai's prize-winning picture, that a lot of assurance lay behind the sweep of blue paint, and that he had professionally observed floating red maple leaves long enough to know that the prints of a chicken's red-painted feet would resemble them, as long as the chicken could be induced to move briskly and not just hang about making puddles.
Marketing and hype play an uncomfortably big role in today's art market and gallery scene. If that artist was among the first to confront a public used to plasticky clean HDR shots, he/she might have brought something new to the table and might be an innovator. If the photographer in question used that style because that's what galleries ask for at the moment, we might have progressed onto the second or third "I". Note that this applies regardless of effort and skill put into the actual making of the image.Again, I think the difference between a lomo waller and a gallery work lies in the background of the photograph. Here's an excerpt from a much longer essay by Clive James.
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?