This does not work as a powerful image in any sense. Sorry, gotta call it as it lay. As a teacher in the field, you should know that exploration does not mean a lack of technique, composition, or even meaning. This image lacks on all three accounts.
You name dropped Mary Ellen Mark, and I am not sure if you are equating her style with this, but this is not a MEM style at all. I can see the style you are after (I call it voyeuristic and condescending, and cynical), but this does not meet the criteria of moving beyond the contact sheet, or light table. If you are going for something 'up-close and personal ranging to the confrontational' Look at Martin Parr's work.
Although I don't care for it as a cultural critique, there *is* a cultural critique there. He has some meaning to his work. Along with that they are technically excellent and well composed. This image could benefit from all three of those.
Trying to communicate this person as they truly are without the artificality of a posed studio portrait is a fine thing. Communicating a person being truly themselves is good. A photographer masters his medium and uses all aspects to communicate his subject, message, and/or he makes a "pleasing picture." Clearly you don't feel the need for a pleasing picture, which is totally valid. You are trying to communicate something about this person. What does the absolute lack of basic technical aspects communicate? Are you trying to communicate that this woman is UNFOCUSED, unable to control things, one who seeks EXTREME OVEREXPOSURE, someone who is WASHEDOUT? (and has Gingivitus, jeez, look at those gums! I bet they don't really look that way) If that was not what you were trying to say, then you are simply making excuses for a poorly exposed SNAPSHOT! Not adhering to the "sterotypical pretty image" does not mean you should abandon all technical control. If you are trying to communicate something, fine, but make sure that the image you you put forth to communicate your message looks the way it does because you intended it to look that way to specifically communicate a message. Randomly achieved results are NOT INTENTIONAL. Unless you intended to give a ruddy, blurred, blown out image, then you either were taking snapshots, or you intended something else and screwed it up.
If your goal was to make the viewer feel uneasy about the subjects of this series of images, you?ve certainly succeeded. Harsh lighting, contrasty and over saturated color, unflattering compositions and tripping the shutter at what seems to be a most indecisive moment (to put a twist on Cartier-Bresson). Yes, you?ve made me think ? I think they?re not my cup of tea?
hell I didn't realize that I was gonna cause such a ruckus when I asked what Quinn was trying to accomplish here. Well I guess it has brought everyone out of the woodwork to throw in their two cents worth. I apologized on this site and e-mailed an apology to Quinn if I had offended him because I did not see what he he was trying to do here. Well, I did some research on Nan Goldin, (like he suggested) and quite frankly, I don't care for her work either, but that is just my preference. I do not pretend to be some great art or photography critic. Like my bio says, I'm an old fireman. I like the hobby and try to get better, nothing more, nothing less. If something that I said offends someone, I am sorry, but hell I am not gonna loose any sleep over it if they cannot accept the apology. Later all my friends,
I've definitely not had any classes in photography, and I haven't been doing it long- but I don't think you need classes to learn that photography is art. Its hard to find photography that isn't art - and in my opinion, I've found one.
I do not like your attitude, Quinn, how you stated "I am getting sick of it" when.. ALL art is original. Driftwood and sunsets are beautiful, as well as an unnatractive woman in a picture looking like shes pushing the camera away. Its all original, its all beautiful, but whats the concept?
I like to look at photography and be able to feel an emotion. In this I feel nothing.
But as long as you are happy... but it looks like a 4 year old said "smile mommy." IN MY OPINION. But what do I know?
Boys Boys Boys! As that great insightful American, Rodney King once said; "Can't we all just get along". Who is to say what is good and what sucks? If you don't like it thats ok, say you dont like it but move on to attack or praise the next one, no sense beating a dead horse.
When posting images for critique one must check their sensativities and emotions at the door and be able to take the negative along with the positive. We all like glowing critiques that give us a nice warm and fuzzy feeling, but in reality they do little to help us grow as photgraphers. Every photograph no matter how well done has some room for improvement.
Quinn, it appears that you tried something new, if you like it that is great, keep going with it, change it here and there, fill your portfolio with the new style, after all, it is your creation and your portfolio to do with as you please. When you post it here, and I hope you will continue to do so, don't get in a snit if someone says they don't get it, or don't like it. That is part of the critique process. Granted, if possible, they should also offer their views as to why they don't like it, and maybe even a way to improve. Not that you should heed such advice, but it is all part of the learning process, and just maybe there will be some validity to the advice offered.
Petros, you have not been a photographer for very long, but, judging from your website have taken some very nice photographs in this short period of time. You are partially right as to it doesn't matter how long someone has been taking photographs. One can take photos their entire life and not grow or learn a thing. Someone can take them for just a few months and really do remarkable things, however this is probably not typical. Experience does show in peoples work, be it in lighting, composition, or content. It is only when someone has experience and is confident that they will knowingly venture into new areas of the art that may or may not work. The newbie is still worried about trying to get some form of keeper on the film yet alone create some new art form or style.
So lets all see if we can be somewhat constructive instead of flaming each other, not that I don't like a lively debate, but they are more enjoyable when they are not at a personal level and something can be learned when the smoke clears.
What I love about this site is diversity. Diversity in thoughts, perspectives and imagery. It has opened up a whole new world for me, one my family will agree, I spend alot of my free time enjoying and learning from. Hey, it beats TV.
I am passionate about my work and do it for myself and not for the 'masses' or for anyone else. It fulfills me and gives purpose to my life. That is what I believe being a photographer/artists means. Thus, I try to view other peoples work in the same way. They too are doing something they love and has meaning to them.
What I don't appreciate much is when artists start taking jabs at each other with such comments as "pretty picture" "driftwood and sunset pictures" "conventional images"... I love sunset pictures and no two are ever the same no matter how hard you try. They border on the spiritual for me.
I guess my main point is please don't put other peoples interests down because you aren't deriving any personal satisfaction from those subjects. Instead, let us try to be more supportive and open-minded in our common endeavor as growing artists.
"A mind is like a canvas. The more open your mind, The more colors you can use" E. Goossens
I have been into photography for an entire year... Does this say something to you? Do you think you are a much more successful photographer than others on this site because you teach photography? Is time a measure of how good a photographer one is? If so, will I suck as much as you do in 20 years?
Quinn you assumed that I didn't know who the people you referred, were. Not the case. Some of their work I like, some, I have no time for. But at least I can appreciate their work for what it is. Your work though is definately not in their league. Since you like taking swipes at people, I think I can say this without feeling guilty (I'm not usually this bad you know - but you do bring the worst out in me): I'm glad I ain't your student.
I stand by my statement. To threaten to go elsewhere ("With that said, I may have to find another community for my work ;)") because someone asked you to explain smacks of elitism, which has no function in a site of learning and concept-sharing. I don't reject pictures that are not of driftwood and sunsets, but I'm trying to learn why I should appreciate things that are radical. Making someone feel as tho he should apologize for asking for an explanation is just plain wrong. Russ was politely expressing a desire to understand; he acknowledged your skill and requested more information. Instead of answering, you stood on a box and talked over him. I'm not sure what else that behavior qualifies as except spurning.
No apologies are in order for anyone or to anyone. It's not about that.
My comments are based on what I've experienced as a photographer for the last 15 years. I can purposely shoot what appeals to the masses, or, I can purposely shoot what appeals to me. The latter is much more difficult and challenging. Why? Because most of the time, the masses won't like it, or even justify its existence (see other comments).
If you are truly honest with yourself as a photographer, and you say, "I'm going to make this picture because it interests me" then you're on the right track. If you are trying to "please" other people by making pictures you think they will like, you're off track.
I teach photography (Salt Lake College) and I encourage my students to explore. I encourage my students to study photographers and their concepts and to reference them. I encourage my students to study images they don't understand, just as if they were to study a language they didn't know. This is what helps us grow as photographers. To flippantly say, "It doesn't work. I don't like it" speaks volumes to me as a photographer. I say, give something different, something that you're not use to, a chance. Explore it, ask about, formulate thoughts and questions about it.
I would like to address Sue's comments and Petros' comments: Sue, I didn't spurn anyone. I really didn't understand what you meant by that.
Petros, every image I make is mine. It's original and different at its most rudimentary level. The reference I was making to Goldin and Arbus was just that, a reference (as in another source of information). Do you know who they are? You say, "In my experince," how long have you been shooting? My advice to you is to ease up on the Photoshop work. It's a great tool, but you can go too far ;)
Quinn, you like to think of your work as, different and artistic (we all do I guess). Good for you! One thing I don't understand though, is how can you claim in one breath that your work is different and in an other breath justify your art through someone else?s (not very original - in fact your comment suggests you are copying someone else?s idea. So how different is your "art" anyway?).
Now this being a critique site, it might be a good time to make a statement about your photo. Unfortunately, I have to agree with the others. This does nothing for me. Maybe because with photography I like ?seeing? the beauty into everything ?ugly? rather than the other way around, or maybe because I just don?t get it. Either way, it does nothing for me.
I would like to encourage you though to explore this further. I'm quite confident that no artist is absolutely happy with every piece of work they produce. In fact, in my experience, it's usually the artist that tries to convince others that his work needs "improvement", rather than the other way around. So keep working on it, until you nail that wonderful picture which will make others justify their art through you...
Personally, I always found Nan Goldin's work a bit pretentious, a collection of poorly crafted snapshots that would have a hard time getting her a passing grade in Photo 101. But that is only my opinion, and what is art anyway. If you shot it and you are happy with it, thats OK. If it is something that you would hang on your wall, thats OK too. Photography is a personal thing, we should all shoot for ourselves first and worry about what others think second, unless we are shooting on their dime.
I respect the "It's about doing something different. Using photography in a different way" statement and always try to do the same. I'm also sensitive enough to see emotions in still objects and have imagination to understand the composition and receive its message.
This picture has it all ? the story line "eating something", the message? "its hot" and emotions "I like it". If it is the purpose of the picture ? I got it so you have done a great job. If your goal was to create something different and demonstrate how photography can be used in new ways - ups, I did not go for it.
Goldin's pictures have a story, and intriguing enough for me to be interested to know the story. Maybe it is style; maybe it is sense of beauty ? don't know, but I enjoy it. I think the only problem with this picture is not having enough prove of you creating it ? it looks like a shaky-hands shot in McDonalds. There is nothing telling me ? look at it, an artist created it.
At the same time if you don't try new things, especially conflicting ? you will never know if you were right or wrong. Good luck with your project!
Russ, my personal opinion is that you don't need to apologize; Quinn does. This is a learning site, and if Quinn didn't wish to hear that he missed his mark as far as expressing his viewpoint, he shouldn't be posting here, instead of playing this game of "It's my ball, and now I'm going home cuz you're not playing by my rules".
I've enjoyed Quinn's work. As a newbie, I WANT to learn from him, but not if he's going to take the stance of "You're all beneath understanding what I'm trying to say." Russ, your original comment was a polite request for enlightenment, and you were spurned. Not a way to "spread the wealth", I'd say.
You're right, in a way. It's not about "pretty" pictures for me. Not that I have anything against them, in fact, if I have the opportunity, I'll shoot one occasionally. It's about doing something different. Using photography in a different way. I'm bored with conventional imagery. In fact, I'm sick of it. I call them, "driftwood and sunset pictures". They are lacking originality or individuality for me. With that said, I may have to find another community for my work ;) Thanks for your comments. Q
P.S. If you are not familar with Nan Goldin, Diane Arbus, Eugene Ricahrds and Mary Ellen Mark, please do some research on them. You will not regret it.
i don't know if this is what quinn had in mind...but i personally see this series of pictures as a true expression of the people in them...no glamourized photoshoot lights and reflectors, no worries on technicality...just as long as their true expression and self is revealed on film. i like the series in a way, and in another way my eyes hurt:)
Maybe my old eyes and imagination don't see what you are trying to do here. What I am seeing is out of focus, off balance, and poorly exposed. I looked back over your portfolio and you have some great shots such as the cork screw, the green nut, sams back, little girls eyes, billy king, homeless veitnam vet, and the gulf war. So this really stumps me here, What are you trying to accompish? Fill me in please.
0 
{K:10561} 9/17/2002
