Hey All,
One thing I did not say about the photography class I took. The first day the instructor said (i'm paraphrasing of course) - if you are the type whose feelings get hurt easy and you take every criticism personal - I strongly recommend you drop this course. You are going to learn a lot about photography everything from photographing the image to the print as you will develop and print your own black and white images and then we your classmates and I will provide critical commentary and praise on your images and sometimes compare with Master photographers. Sometimes what you think is great will be trashed and you - if you want to learn photography you have to learn to get over that and trust that the people criticizing your work are not criticizing your existence on earth - just as they will have to trust you when you criticize their work.
I cannot stress the importance of the above paragraph enough. Today everybody seems to have thin skin as if they never grew up or truly think they are God's gift to earth. What happened to trust and belief that the person next to you is not inherently evil? I will never succumb to this I think dismally evil yes evil view of mankind - ever - but that is just me.
Moving on...
For the mods - go here http://research.archives.gov/description/196261 and click the additional information link. You will see the use of this image is unrestricted access and unrestricted usage. So once again what is the basis for not allowing links to iconic photos like this? I chose this image very deliberately as I knew it was public domain. I'm at a loss.
Moving on again...
I want to touch on terminology. High concept - low concept I don't really care how the idea is expressed as long as what Minor White said is understood. The sensitivity to words that another uses is beyond me (see above).
Moving on again again...
Well I've no problem with this as Minor White said "One should photograph objects, not only for what they are but for what else they are." In my mind the what else does not have to be additive - it can be subtractive as well. I do tend to want to try to be additive (and tell a story - but that is just me) but if you are doing minimalist work it is subtractive and can be very powerful. The point is - most importantly - you the photographer expressing how you add or subtract. If you look at your image and the criteria expressed by Minor White is met - you have succeeded - I think.
Now on to Ray. Sure photography is many things to many people but your first paragraph basically said it all. "What you see" "making an image of what one sees instead of taking a picture of" - how you add or subtract from what is in front of you. The point is the photos that successfully add (or subtract) are the ones the present and hopefully the future will truly admire. The others are nothing but day to day filler and eventually dust in the wind. Important in their own way but not in the way intended here. I too take way way too many of those - but I suppose it is part of the process of learning to see.
Migrant mother will stand for as long as humans look at photographs - why? Who here has an opinion? This is where in the class I took you step up - and trust. This should be less painful as none of us took that image - but to me this is part of the heart of why this part of this forum should even exist. What are the qualities - maybe it is only one quality - what do you zero in on - what do you see - why is this image great or even not?
Olli may have an inside track as he has apparently some knowledge of the FSA photographers. What do you see Olli?
On a side note I will say that in my opinion the FSA photographers are the greatest group of photographers ever assembled. As Olli has suggested they did have a mission and with and perhaps in spite of their boss Roy Stryker achieved it. I personally think this "mission" needs revival today but that is a different discussion. Anyway in working toward their "mission" they learned to see - or enhanced their already existing considerable ability. I personally turn to this group of photographers more than any other when I tire of "pretty" which generally runs rampant today. I'm also a fan of new topographics. Others may turn elsewhere.
i think the image of napalm girl is also worthy of discussion as high concept or call it what you like photography. My opinion of it differs from mine of Migrant Mother.
-Ed-
One thing I did not say about the photography class I took. The first day the instructor said (i'm paraphrasing of course) - if you are the type whose feelings get hurt easy and you take every criticism personal - I strongly recommend you drop this course. You are going to learn a lot about photography everything from photographing the image to the print as you will develop and print your own black and white images and then we your classmates and I will provide critical commentary and praise on your images and sometimes compare with Master photographers. Sometimes what you think is great will be trashed and you - if you want to learn photography you have to learn to get over that and trust that the people criticizing your work are not criticizing your existence on earth - just as they will have to trust you when you criticize their work.
I cannot stress the importance of the above paragraph enough. Today everybody seems to have thin skin as if they never grew up or truly think they are God's gift to earth. What happened to trust and belief that the person next to you is not inherently evil? I will never succumb to this I think dismally evil yes evil view of mankind - ever - but that is just me.
Moving on...
For the mods - go here http://research.archives.gov/description/196261 and click the additional information link. You will see the use of this image is unrestricted access and unrestricted usage. So once again what is the basis for not allowing links to iconic photos like this? I chose this image very deliberately as I knew it was public domain. I'm at a loss.
Moving on again...
I want to touch on terminology. High concept - low concept I don't really care how the idea is expressed as long as what Minor White said is understood. The sensitivity to words that another uses is beyond me (see above).
Moving on again again...
My own personal disagreement with the writer (and with others) is his claim that photographs should tell a story. As I see, one of the key strengths of photography is that photographs don't tell stories. To quote Clive Scott:
"because the photograph is so weak in intentionality, in its ability to say what it means, so it must either outbid itself, make its case with the crassest obviousness, or it must fall back on language to make its case for it. More particularly, the photograph shaves context down to something wafer thin."
Well I've no problem with this as Minor White said "One should photograph objects, not only for what they are but for what else they are." In my mind the what else does not have to be additive - it can be subtractive as well. I do tend to want to try to be additive (and tell a story - but that is just me) but if you are doing minimalist work it is subtractive and can be very powerful. The point is - most importantly - you the photographer expressing how you add or subtract. If you look at your image and the criteria expressed by Minor White is met - you have succeeded - I think.
Now on to Ray. Sure photography is many things to many people but your first paragraph basically said it all. "What you see" "making an image of what one sees instead of taking a picture of" - how you add or subtract from what is in front of you. The point is the photos that successfully add (or subtract) are the ones the present and hopefully the future will truly admire. The others are nothing but day to day filler and eventually dust in the wind. Important in their own way but not in the way intended here. I too take way way too many of those - but I suppose it is part of the process of learning to see.
Migrant mother will stand for as long as humans look at photographs - why? Who here has an opinion? This is where in the class I took you step up - and trust. This should be less painful as none of us took that image - but to me this is part of the heart of why this part of this forum should even exist. What are the qualities - maybe it is only one quality - what do you zero in on - what do you see - why is this image great or even not?
Olli may have an inside track as he has apparently some knowledge of the FSA photographers. What do you see Olli?
On a side note I will say that in my opinion the FSA photographers are the greatest group of photographers ever assembled. As Olli has suggested they did have a mission and with and perhaps in spite of their boss Roy Stryker achieved it. I personally think this "mission" needs revival today but that is a different discussion. Anyway in working toward their "mission" they learned to see - or enhanced their already existing considerable ability. I personally turn to this group of photographers more than any other when I tire of "pretty" which generally runs rampant today. I'm also a fan of new topographics. Others may turn elsewhere.
i think the image of napalm girl is also worthy of discussion as high concept or call it what you like photography. My opinion of it differs from mine of Migrant Mother.
-Ed-