urban ku dip/triptychs
Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 09:46AM 
Busy scenes
Massive solids
Times Square, NYCI was doing some file housekeeping and I came across some pictures that seemed like they belonged together, some obviously so, others subtlety so. In any event, I would be interested to read what you think about them.
Of late, you may have noticed that I have been drawing upon the tidbits of Brooks Jensen as fodder for discussion. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is that I/we have run through quite a plethora of topics over the last year or so - At vs. art, fine Art vs. decorative art, meaning, truth, studium and punctum, referent and connoted, pretty vs. beautiful, modernism / postmodernism, the work of other photographers, the price of tea in China, etc. The well has by no means run dry, but I am 'coasting' a bit now that the holidays are upon us.
I am also trying to focus much more intently on my Art. Not only the new Decay work, but also editing over 700 of my ku pictures - urban and natural world - down to a strong, focused collection of about 100 pictures. The editing is very difficult - to mix a metaphor, it is a back-breaking mental exercise.
Nevertheless, it's on with the show (and another Brooks Jensen tidbit).
"If your work gains attention because of your extraordinary craft and technique, your fame will be fleeting. Pretty soon, everyone will be able to easily do work that is just as good as your masterpiece of craftsmanship from today. When that happens, your work will have to stand on the merit of its artistic content alone. When 'everyone can do it' is when the artist's role is clearest."
IMO, there is a whole lot of "everyone can do it" photography out there. This phenomenon became especially pervasive with advent of digital capture and 'processing'. Now, just about everyone (with at least half a brain) can make ultra 'clean', ultra dynamic range, ultra sharp, ultra whatever pictures. 'Craftsmanship' is everywhere apparent. The 'artist's role' is not so prevelant.
Which brings to mind yet another Jensen tidbit - "For the first several years one struggles with the technical challenges ... [B]ut, eventually every photographer who sticks with it long enough arrives at a technical plateau where production of a technically good photograph is relatively easy. it is here that real photography starts and most photographers quit."
Reader Comments (5)
Mark I have a question I would like you to address either here in the comment section or in a post. As I have said before I am not a professional nor do I know anything about art, I just have a passion for photography.
When I was shooting 35mm years ago I always shot slides. I would have a roll of 36 in the camera and a couple of rolls in my pocket. Because of this I was very careful of what I shot because I didn't want to waste film but today of course with digital it is different.
But is that a good thing?
Today my camera is set for JPEG Fine,Image size large and ISO 100 or 200 which gives me about 294 on my card.
My question is this, yes we can take more shots but by doing this have we lost the discipline. When shooting film we looked for the "shot", took our time composing but today it is shoot, shoot, shoot. Sometimes I think instead of a 1GB card I should go out with a 256mb which would limit me to about 70 images.
What is your feeling on this?
On a different note, your pairings remind me of our walk last Sunday, where the guy was raking snow, and the kids were playing 2 on 2 basketball using a football.
B]ut, eventually every photographer who sticks with it long enough arrives at a technical plateau where production of a technically good photograph is relatively easy. it is here that real photography starts and most photographers quit."
Boy isn't this the truth. I think that many photographers get stuck at this point because they don't allow themselves the artistic freedom to just shoot what they are passionate about. I see too many photographers that fall into the camera club wow shot trap never to dig themselves out.
I think the problem is the way our society works. We are trained to believe there is a correct answer to every problem. A photographer who achieves financial success, respect of their peers and the general public, surely has created "the" correct answer.
The trouble with correct answers, is something like when you are looking for your car keys; once you find them you stop looking. Just a thought, Tim
I think that like Brooks says, that is where the art begins! People often expect craft or obscure subject/location to make the work but often the best work i see has idea(s) behind it. I love those Brooks Jensen books, very philosophical.
As for the topic at hand, I believe it is hard for those of us who cut our teeth on film to truly evaluate the difference digital brings in regards to shooting a large quantity. We came from one workflow, learned our craft and can now benefit from what digital can offer.
My beginning digital photo students however don't seem to appreciate this! Alas, I have turned into one of those "Back in my day..." people!
I think that once you learn (relearn?) your craft in the digital realm, you find that equal care needs to be taken with exposure, etc. I love the fact that I will shoot things digitally that I might not have deemed "worthy" of a precious film exposure. In this way, it seems like a plus but I wonder if people would get more out of it and appreciate if coming from a sheet film background or something similar.