What's up with the blur and grain?

[MattKing]

For the record, I like the image of the truck...

As do I.

But the grain and blur are important to the result, and at least appear to be the result of conscious choice.

 

[Felinik]

Things come in and out of style and if anything, the more recent pictorialist popularity is probably a backlash against the 'perfect' digital images that aren't strewn with what some consider defects.

This is what I suspect as well, as with everything; music, clothes, home decoration, whatnot... there seems to be a need for "balance", and not seldom it goes in circles. This can probably be backed by looking at the current instagram "retro" hype, as well as the last years appearance of vintage looking digital cameras. In short, vintage photography seems to be "a la mode" right now...

 

[Felinik]

Print quality? Nobody sees that or cares, besides perhaps other photographers/printers. In that context, from a marketing perspective, it might be easier to sell photographs that are blurry or grainy or under/overexposed because they are further removed from what the public would normally view as simple photographs. Potential buyers may see them as more than just pictures, and perhaps have a sense of the work the artist put in. A blurry or very grainy print might give the impression the photographer made the picture rather than simply took the picture.

This does indeed sound like part of the truth. It's kind of like with music, as soon as an artist release a song where something is completely bananas, vocals that sounds like frogs or robots or some other odd species, banjo playing backwards, or something else that is "out of the norm", if the artist is well known enough, it's treated as a stroke of genius and hits the charts with full power...

So again "a la mode"...

 

[hoffy]

As do I.

But the grain and blur are important to the result, and at least appear to be the result of conscious choice.

I'm with these guys - I like the picture. Maybe this sounds like a load of wank, but to me, these portrays some emotion, some feeling.

Put it this way, lets imagine that this picture was indeed very sharp and shot on a grainless film, or heavens forbid, digital. What would we have? A truck on a highway. Nothing more, nothing less. Sure, it might be a technically adequate picture, but I'd say it wouldn't capture the imagination of the average viewer.

Where's with this picture - the added grain, the blurriness - it adds tension. The way I am interpreting this picture is that either a violent storm is on us or approaching. I am not sure if this is what the photographer intended, but that is the feeling I get.

 

[Felinik]

I'm with these guys - I like the picture. Maybe this sounds like a load of wank, but to me, these portrays some emotion, some feeling.

Put it this way, lets imagine that this picture was indeed very sharp and shot on a grainless film, or heavens forbid, digital. What would we have? A truck on a highway. Nothing more, nothing less. Sure, it might be a technically adequate picture, but I'd say it wouldn't capture the imagination of the average viewer.

Where's with this picture - the added grain, the blurriness - it adds tension. The way I am interpreting this picture is that either a violent storm is on us or approaching. I am not sure if this is what the photographer intended, but that is the feeling I get.

And this leads us to an interesting chain of thoughts, this mean that blur, grain and other possible "distortion" parameters are adding to the composition, right?

I think then we are back on the same track, why does this work, and why do people appreciate it?

It's "a la mode"....

Regarding what the shooter intended with the shot, I dont know, but the shot is from a series of images about a certain group of people driving those "trucks", as kind of a unspoken community thing, it's actually late teenagers 16-18 years, driving those vehicles, home-modified kind of "car-tractors" which are allowed a max speed of 30 km/h and has to have specific dimensions etc. and that youngsters, 16 and up, can get a license to drive.

 

[Rudeofus]

Galleries need to sell stuff. Generally, photography is a tough sell. Unlike drawing, painting etc, it is difficult to get the public to see the monetary value in a photograph, because the "hand of the artist" is not obvious.

[...]

Please note this post is not meant to imply blurry, grainy or "badly" exposed pictures are inherently any better or worse than straight work. I'm just trying to put forth a possible explanation for why we might find more of this type of work in galleries.

Michael, that's a great explanation for what many seem to observe here, but it also confirms that not everything we see in galleries will pass the test of time. Which isn't new either, AFAIK Picasso burned his early paintings to keep his room warm, while galleries were full of less worthwhile stuff that has long been forgotten since then.

 

[Rudeofus]

Put it this way, lets imagine that this picture was indeed very sharp and shot on a grainless film, or heavens forbid, digital. What would we have? A truck on a highway. Nothing more, nothing less. Sure, it might be a technically adequate picture, but I'd say it wouldn't capture the imagination of the average viewer.

If exposed, developed and printed with best current technique, this image would be without merit and most likely ignored by most people. But if deficient technique can turn a pointless snapshot into fine art, something else has gone awry.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) might have created fine art by chasing a chicken with paint on its feet across a canvas, but in this case he did invent a new technique to achieve a certain aesthetic. Blurry&grainy prints and the mood created by these defects are not exactly novel, though.

 

[horacekenneth]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) might have created fine art by chasing a chicken with paint on its feet across a canvas, but in this case he did invent a new technique to achieve a certain aesthetic. Blurry&grainy prints and the mood created by these defects are not exactly novel, though.

You're very intent on whether they are innovating or not but I don't think innovation is what makes an artist an artist. Inventing HDR or Instagram doesn't make that person an artist, but if they do something really good with it, then they are an artist and an innovator.

Clive James' point about Hokusai is not that he invented something new, his point is that he did something incredibly simplistic and kind of inane to create a winning image. And he could do that because Hokusai was not simplistic or inane.
Like Michael Kenna or Moersch shooting with a Holga - it isn't art because they are the first ones to do it, it's art because they are so good that they can take a very simple fallible tool and make something beautiful.

 

[Klainmeister]

Galleries need to sell stuff. Generally, photography is a tough sell. Unlike drawing, painting etc, it is difficult to get the public to see the monetary value in a photograph, because the "hand of the artist" is not obvious. People often ascribe value to things they don't think they can do, or things that look as though a lot of work went into them. If they see a drawing, they see a special skill. When people look at sharp, well exposed, grainless photographs, they think they can do it. After all, the film/sensor records the image, the lens focuses etc. The photographer just has to see what already exists and take the picture, right? Print quality? Nobody sees that or cares, besides perhaps other photographers/printers. In that context, from a marketing perspective, it might be easier to sell photographs that are blurry or grainy or under/overexposed because they are further removed from what the public would normally view as simple photographs. Potential buyers may see them as more than just pictures, and perhaps have a sense of the work the artist put in. A blurry or very grainy print might give the impression the photographer made the picture rather than simply took the picture.

Please note this post is not meant to imply blurry, grainy or "badly" exposed pictures are inherently any better or worse than straight work. I'm just trying to put forth a possible explanation for why we might find more of this type of work in galleries.

Michael, I think you hit the nail right on the head. I have 4 photographs hanging in our office, 1 is a cyanotype toned with wine, another is a lith, and two are straight BW fiber (warmtone). Never once has anyone said anything about the latter two, while the paint-like aspect of the cyanotype gets constant comments. Someone even called it art!

 

[Rudeofus]

You're very intent on whether they are innovating or not but I don't think innovation is what makes an artist an artist. Inventing HDR or Instagram doesn't make that person an artist, but if they do something really good with it, then they are an artist and an innovator.

Few artists have the technical skills to develop a new technique by themselves. Van Gogh didn't come up with Chromium yellow, some unknown chemist did. Van Gogh also didn't invent still life paintings or sunflowers, but the way he presented sunflowers was certainly novel and intriguing. The term innovation goes far beyond technical advances. Expressing something new or in a new way with common means is also a form of innovation.

The blurry truck image doesn't do any of that, and therefore IMHO it doesn't go beyond the "nice image!" level. And this is not an art collection.

 

[Felinik]

You're very intent on whether they are innovating or not but I don't think innovation is what makes an artist an artist. Inventing HDR or Instagram doesn't make that person an artist, but if they do something really good with it, then they are an artist and an innovator.

This I completely agree with, if there's a certain level of innovation and creativity, blurry - grainy - underexposed - stained - whatnot, can definitely add something to an image, though then the threshold of originality need to really be noticeable!

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Now I have a questions for all those that responded to this post. Is art always supposed to be well technically executed and pretty? Or is art supposed to be challenging also?

 

[Felinik]

Now I have a questions for all those that responded to this post. Is art always supposed to be well technically executed and pretty? Or is art supposed to be challenging also?

My reply to this is in my posting above yours.

 

[horacekenneth]

Now I have a questions for all those that responded to this post. Is art always supposed to be well technically executed and pretty? Or is art supposed to be challenging also?

I assume you mean challenging emotionally or philosophically. I think art can have a number of purposes. It doesn't need to be deep, but it can be and that can add. It can also be cheesy and distract from what would otherwise have been a nice photo. Does anybody know what Ansel Adam's purpose in his landscapes was? I imagine his art wasn't meant to be any more challenging than to show other people the world in a very technical fashion.

My question is what does the medium do to your message? A hyper-realist painter, a pro large format photographer, and a guy with an 8x10 polaroid (loaded with something more accurate than IP film) all make a picture of the same landscape. How does the medium change the message? What if it was a portrait?

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Now I have a questions for all those that responded to this post. Is art always supposed to be well technically executed and pretty? Or is art supposed to be challenging also?

Art is supposed to 'say something' to the viewer. To me, the truck photo only says 'accidental exposure while the camera was hanging over my shoulder'; your milage may vary.

 

[pdeeh]

As far as the 'famous' photographers go, it seems to me that such work is often treated like 'the emperors new clothes'.

Of course, sometimes the Emperor's old clothes are worn out and shabby ... but perhaps many think they are still sparkling and fresh

 

[Vaughn]

Art is supposed to 'say something' to the viewer. To me, the truck photo only says 'accidental exposure while the camera was hanging over my shoulder'; your milage may vary.

And as we grow older, our hearing just aint what it use to be...

 

[Felinik]

Art is supposed to 'say something' to the viewer. To me, the truck photo only says 'accidental exposure while the camera was hanging over my shoulder'; your milage may vary.

Maybe it was...

What interests me is that in the end, and this is what triggered me to start this thread, is that the artist for some reason chose to keep it, and that the curator has chosen it to be included in the exhibition + book...

Though I buy that "it's fashion", there's loads of ugly clothes on the street nowadays too...




/Grumpy old fart

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

How about these classic photos by Robert Capa?

http://www.mcdigitalphotography.com/2012/03/robert-capa-masters-of-photography.html

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I don't think art has to "say" anything.

I agree. Art should help us escape our dull daily existence for a little while at least. Possibly transformative. There's some art that "say" something different to every viewer. And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[horacekenneth]

I agree. Art should help us escape our dull daily existence for a little while at least. Possibly transformative. There's some art that "say" something different to every viewer. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I almost think this is the definition of bad art. If five people look at my work and each comes away with something that is totally different than what I was trying to communicate then I didn't do a good job. I think technique is subservient even to this. The merits of the sample truck picture to me are not whether or not the camera was on a tripod and developed so as to minimize grain, the merits are in first does it communicate what the author intended, and then second, is it a good message.

 

[horacekenneth]

What if all a photographer intends to do is show a place (for example) as he sees it, and allow people to react (or not) in any way they see fit? Why does the photographer have to be "communicating" something specific through the photograph?

By virtue of our own unique personalities, any honestly made photograph automatically says something about how a photographer sees the world around him, be it subtly or obviously. Does there always have to be some message people are supposed to "get"?

I don't understand, you say that every photograph says something and then you turn around ask does there always have to be a message. It seems like you answered that one for yourself. There always is a message.

Showing people the world as you see it IS a message. You can't not communicate something, and trying not to is a message in itself. Therefore, I would say that good art is art that communicates a good message well, and bad art communicates poorly or communicates something wrong.

 

[rwreich]

One makes an image to show, but to whom? Is a photographer simply providing an alibi, proving one's own existence? On APUG, I've heard people say, "It's all about the print." If this is true, then photography is the tangible expression of perspective in moments past. A photograph doesn't have to 'say' something, rather, it only needs to encounter a viewer. It is during this event, the simultaneous existence between viewer and photograph, that the artist is able to communicate from the first person.

That sounds wicked cheesy, but it's how I feel about photography right now.

 

[removed account4]

maybe whats up with the blur and the grain is
that the photographer<s> in question are tired
of making clinical looking photographs.
tired of HCB, tired of atget, tired of weston and adams
and he/<they> want to use other aspects of photography
that the hcb, atget, weston, adams &al. group might have overlooked?


at least whoever it might be who "you don't want to out" has you and others talking about aspects of photography that might
not be in your comfort zone. and that is always a good thing ... i think it is laughable when people refer to people
who do things they don't understand or like as "idiots"




----

Oh please!

my thoughts exactly

 

[markbarendt]

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....

One effect of sharp visible grain is that it gives our eyes something sharp to latch onto.