tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post1498712671207932920..comments2024-03-26T23:27:56.399-07:00Comments on B: Purist in denialBlake Andrewshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07187987264904729243noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-52064109889116175962010-03-12T07:33:35.546-08:002010-03-12T07:33:35.546-08:00Comments and discussion continue here:
http://www...Comments and discussion continue here:<br /><br />http://www.flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/discuss/72157623475385251/Blake Andrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07187987264904729243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-56291707256342786872010-03-11T03:48:31.751-08:002010-03-11T03:48:31.751-08:00This touches a raw nerve for me, as it does for ma...This touches a raw nerve for me, as it does for many others. My initial reaction to any over manipulation is to dismiss it because it simply looks false. However, when manipulation is done well, where you are hard pushed to see the joins then it becomes something quite disturbing.<br /><br />Of course if manipulation is clearly stated it is acceptable and the work stands or falls on its own merits but if there is any vagueness that vagueness is usually deliberate...it is a deliberate choice to obscure. And that is when we move into a more disturbing territory. I dislike any work like this because it is false and second-rate.<br /><br />I am sorry that my link above to Dale Yudelman does not work but please have a look through his 100 photos. When I first saw them I was excited and inspired but then doubts crept into my mind. Other photographers raised doubts and I felt let down and agitated by his images.<br /><br />It may well be unfair to single out Dale Yudelman because he clearly has a good eye and many of his images are genuine. Is he a very good forger or is he genuine? His work confuses me.<br /><br />Street photography is something real and it has integrity. People who manipulate the world that they see in their images are in another world. I don't like that world at all.David Gibsonhttp://www.gibsonstreet.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-54849874294207387612010-03-10T17:24:18.975-08:002010-03-10T17:24:18.975-08:00a great post and great responses. for me "dis...a great post and great responses. for me "disclosure" means a lot. I've seen plenty of extremely altered photos that are presented as un-altered: unbelievable shadows, perspective etc. And for what?...three more positive comments from viewers?<br />In my own work i dodge and burn digitally, probably more so than tradition darkroom photographers but it is usually only to remove a glaring distraction from the intended image.<br />Additionally, if i use images as "graphics", i enter another genre of visual arts; graphic arts. ethically i can not "grab" a street subject's face and apply it as an element to graphic art. The context would be lost. <br />Opening the infinite world of super-imposed images etc requires expertise and a personal vision that validates the process and highlights the personal vision. Painting can do anything....the photographer is captured by a fraction of a second in reality.brhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319369552556788448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-84893111283020243172010-03-10T16:05:54.442-08:002010-03-10T16:05:54.442-08:00I think you're onto something there, Nick. Pho...I think you're onto something there, Nick. Photographs derive a lot of their meaning from their special relationship with reality. When that relationship is altered the question "what does that photo mean?" is narrowed down and thrown at the feet of the photographer. We have to rely on them to interpret what they meant in the image. As you point out, much of the time this is an empty exercise since it's hard for most people to say something profound pasting images together on a monitor. It usually winds up looking like a poor imitation of an actual photo. If you're going to take that route, why not go all the way and make collage or abstract painting or sculpture or just about anything but photography? <br /><br />On the other hand, the fact that this issue touches such a nerve may be a sign that it's ripe with meaning, which people such as Yudelman exploit to give their images a little extra charge.Blake Andrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07187987264904729243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-36558023643081427672010-03-10T12:47:05.824-08:002010-03-10T12:47:05.824-08:00A good post about a contentious subject Blake, for...A good post about a contentious subject Blake, for me the main difference is in the 'meaning' of each shot because it is 'meaning' that I am often looking for a sign of when I shoot on the streets...the composited photograph is missing that vital ingredient, I'm fascinated by the details of human life in public but I don't give a shit about what's going on in some photographers head as he sits at his computer sticking pictures together....its vain, self obsessed and informs me not a bit about the real world. We all know the arguments that a photograph has a tenuous link to the real nature of the thing photographed but you try telling that to my grandmother when she keeps asking for more pictures of her great grandchildren.Nick Turpinhttp://www.nickturpin.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-71129597392351702552010-03-10T11:01:30.266-08:002010-03-10T11:01:30.266-08:00I have read all the above and I may well comment f...I have read all the above and I may well comment further later but I would first like to throw this website into the mix. <br /><br />http://www.urbanart.co.za/photo/realitybytes/<br /><br />This is all about taking things at face value and trust.<br />So how should we react to these photographs by Dale Yudelman?David Gibsonhttp://www.gibsonstreet.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-12687989110747969702010-03-09T14:44:12.290-08:002010-03-09T14:44:12.290-08:00I often see a lot of street photographs as attempt...I often see a lot of street photographs as attempts to bring some kind of order out of chaos. To spot patterns, show flow and the interaction of people in the street. A photo with strong composition stands out against a muddled mess of people because the photographer is constructing his view of what looks best. Obtaining that perfect shot takes a lot of skill, luck and plenty of shoe leather.<br /><br />Funch and Co's photography takes this desire to find order to the extreme. This is how they would like the street to be. It can be very visually pleasing and I'm sure it sells well, but as you say, it's unreal.<br /><br />The order and composition only makes sense if it's composed out of chaos. It shows how people influence each other. Creating a staged look is not interaction. It's just acting. And that's not real life.MartinHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-72583220455154067992010-03-09T10:45:33.507-08:002010-03-09T10:45:33.507-08:00I was going to delete that Viagra spam comment but...I was going to delete that Viagra spam comment but then I realized it actually might be appropriate for a discussion of real vs manipulated subject matter.<br /><br />David, you're right about there being variations in manipulation but sometimes the line is fuzzy. The Stepan Rudik image for example is so slightly altered that it's almost equivalent to spotting dust specks or some other very slight manipulation. Yet it's clear that content has been altered. <br /><br />I think there are parallels to the music industry and vinyl. Look for a future post on that.Blake Andrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07187987264904729243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-81801486636646851342010-03-09T10:13:04.685-08:002010-03-09T10:13:04.685-08:00I just want to say what an excellent and exhilarat...I just want to say what an excellent and exhilarating post that was (and a superb photograph by the way!).<br />I think Blake's writing reflect the thoughts of many street photographers and for me at least is going to serve as a signpost for days to come.<br />Blake's rationale echoes Winogrand's famous motto "There is nothing as mysterious as a fact clearly stated".<br /><br />Manipulated images can be pretty cool as long as the context is clear.<br />Composites and street photography is not the result of digital only.<br />Ray Metzker was probably the first to mix the two with very eloquent results.Zisishttp://www.zisiskardianos.grnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-71066574859443447922010-03-09T09:14:44.181-08:002010-03-09T09:14:44.181-08:00Maybe there is a language problem here too. Maybe ...Maybe there is a language problem here too. Maybe 'manipulation' is too vague when it can describe both darkroom dodging and say two images combined digitally. To me there is a clear difference between a street photograph over burned and digital 'composites.' To people outside of the photography and art appreciating world the difference might seem negligible, but to those on the inside it should be obvious. It may seem like street photography and work that is cut from the fabric of day to day reality is on the outs, but it could all come back around as people reject over-worked, and overly slick work in favor of something more real. street cred. look what happened to vinyl?davidplechlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-5116731202081059062010-03-08T20:53:53.516-08:002010-03-08T20:53:53.516-08:00Dorothea Lange had a quote on her darkroom door fr...Dorothea Lange had a quote on her darkroom door from Francis Bacon that read:<br /><br /> The contemplation of things as they are without substitution or imposture without error or confusion is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention.<br /><br />Maybe she too had to remind herself sometimes why she photographed. I for one still agree.SRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-52432423593548634132010-03-08T18:14:29.044-08:002010-03-08T18:14:29.044-08:00You're right that context matters. I was tryin...You're right that context matters. I was trying to make that point in the post but not sure if it was clear. I think it's fine to create digital montages. Jeff Wall, Gursky, or whoever can do whatever they want because they don't profess to practice documentary photography, so it doesn't bother me too much. But when those montages are interwoven in a body of work with "real" shots for no clear reason, I think that's a problem. <br /><br />Photographs are by nature authoritative. That's a powerful characteristic but it's sort of like a genie in a bottle. It should be used with discretion.Blake Andrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07187987264904729243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-33755478330933838252010-03-08T15:36:05.761-08:002010-03-08T15:36:05.761-08:00Actually I have a lot trouble with Jeff Wall too, ...Actually I have a lot trouble with Jeff Wall too, mainly for the same reasons that Blake mentions -- it's only strange enough to look calculated. But aside from that pesky process issue (the thing that makes an amazing street shot appeal to another street photographer because we know how incredible it is to find that little piece of reality-stranger-than-fiction) the problem is more related to our clinging to the truthfulness issue. We can talk the talk about photographs not being real, but in our hearts we still think a street photograph ought to show what the physics caught. In other words, street photography is still linked at the hip to documentary, and capitalizes on the element of amazement. Unlike most entertainments, it purports to record an actual encounter with something in the real world and not just something you dreamed up. But like you, I can't help but wonder when that emotional response will just disappear altogether because the virtual kind of experience will seem just as good; when truthiness is good enough.Chuckhttp://chuckphotos-not.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-36078215870785007352010-03-08T10:01:42.587-08:002010-03-08T10:01:42.587-08:00I think a lot depends on how the photographer pres...I think a lot depends on how the photographer presents their work. Looking at a Jeff Wall shot for instance, I don't get annoyed when I find how how manipulated it is. However, if I went to a show based on that one shot of "Deja-Vu" expecting a street photography show I'd be quite annoyed to find out they were manipulated.<br /><br />It's probably a tough thing for a photographer though, because they may not feel like they're being untruthful, and they may disclose everything about how their work is produced, but you look at a shot like that and expect something completely different from the work.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14376544915709704855noreply@blogger.com