Comments on: Various comments on Various Photographs

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 26 May 2008 16:29:57 +0000

Came across your blog via “conscientious” – haven’t fully digested this article because a lot of the subject matter needs researching on my part. However, here are some thoughts about the photo v. painting discussion

I’ve struggled like many to categorise photography, and you are correct that putting it alongside painting is plain wrong. Many artists start with photographic material and end up with something else – those are paintings. The fascinating thing about photography is that we seem to know that it inhabits a unique artistic sphere, but it’s damn slippery to pin down. I quite like Ronis’ observation that it’s closer to literature than to painting – it’s a useful starting point. I wonder, after all, if the original “Pictorialist v Realist” debate from the 19th century is still as good as we can get

By: g

Tue, 20 May 2008 13:48:40 +0000

You obviously need some sensitivity training; I’d suggest a couple of remedial viewings of Bambi.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 20 May 2008 01:20:45 +0000

no he did not. He says he is really a pussy cat inside. I believe that is a quote.

I was very happy when he said he didn’t like painting. KR also introduced KW’s work by saying the grasses in the deer bed pictures reminded her of brush stokes…in a deKooning…ay carumba!

By: Ber Murphy

Ber Murphy — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:17:45 +0000

Did he hit her or not. You made me read all that and he didn’t even ball her out?

By: Fogging your paper

Fogging your paper — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:45:47 +0000

Hey, the question is, why did he not install this like his past shows? We could have supported something like that, now we just questions the context of bad photography, shown badly.
Thanks for the post.. but sadly you beat me to the punch.
so I re-contextualized your post on my site.. Thanks again.

By: mdm

mdm — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:39:53 +0000

Someone’s quoting Goethe in your comment stream.

Great piece here, well said. Good to meet you this weekend. Keep this whole thing rolling on the original content front. Take care.

By: cb

cb — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:19:42 +0000

The “orphan baby” comment is similar to the reaction that Salgado has received for his beautifully tragic photographs. Is it more true if its quickly shot, sloppily composed, poorly printed, and published on newsprint? Is a quick recitation of events published on a newswire more true than an in-depth piece that is well written and gives history and context to an issue? They both have value but while one reports the existence of an event the other seeks a deeper understanding of the event.

Great post Robert.

By: scott Rex ely

scott Rex ely — Mon, 19 May 2008 12:33:39 +0000

As Goethe said:”All forms correctly seen are beautiful” I don’t think it is really the artist’s decision to determine what viewers, may on their own personal level, take away from any given work. It’s really a form of censorship to decide exactly under what aesthetic considerations viewers should be limited to in considering for themselves any work of art. My 2 cents…..

By: a.photographer

a.photographer — Mon, 19 May 2008 11:51:43 +0000

i did not attend the event but have had the unfortunate situation of having SN admonish me for a series of pictures i made around genocide. in this case as i create the body of work in which to explore the idea rather than condemn individuals i was taken to task for not showing “killers” as evil M.F…..who did not deserve to be shown as human beings. needless to say i was surprised by the response as the premise of the work had to do with creating a “level” playing field in which to discover how regular, normal human beings are “coerced” into barbaric acts by “dehumanizing” the other, be they Tutsi’s, Jews, Palestinians,Roma….etc. at the opening of my exhibit i was loudly yelled at…..rather unpleasant but then i am able to defend my self and the work…….a few years later i saw SN’s work from Afghanistan…..beautiful color images amid the destruction and war……an intersting development in the work…..

By: Hippolyte Bayard weblog

Hippolyte Bayard weblog — Mon, 19 May 2008 10:07:58 +0000

“SN employs his own “shock and awe” in this, by creating seductive work he gets you to look, and then he hopes you consider and think. In this way he is no different from the orphan baby photographers. Essentially this is all you can do with photography, or art, regardless of how tragic, awesome, sublime or liminal it is”.

I’m not so sure that is entirely true for me. SN’s work is definitely different from the ‘orphan baby photograph’, for a simple reason: if pictures were words, then Norfolk’s words would compose complex and interesting statements, saying things that would leave you thinking and wondering about their meaning, thoughts that would generate new thoughts inside your own mind. the ‘ orphan baby photograph’, on the contrary, is the equivalent of such a concise and unilateral statement that you’re just left there assuming it, with scarce if non-existent chance of going beyond what is shown. art can take you to new feelings, new thoughts, new views on reality: to me a lot of ’social photography’ is nothing more than a message saying ‘connect the dots, you’ll have the image’, while Norfolk’s work is ‘explore the space, you may find something you haven’t thought about’.
hope I was clear enough, always hard to express myself about these things in English (I’m Italian, by the way).

thanks for your post anyway, really interesting

By: Wesley Brown

Wesley Brown — Mon, 19 May 2008 08:44:39 +0000

I just read your two most recent posts, having arrived here by happenstance, thank goodness. I have been looking for what you present for a long time. I will read on.

By: Russell Kaye

Russell Kaye — Mon, 19 May 2008 03:12:20 +0000

yeah – you should have raised your hand…