What makes a photo subject interesting?
Mike Henley
while who goes to this expensive art school in NYC, you know, those
art schools that cost $30-40K per year. Well, I just happened to have
started taking snapshots last week and therefore it came in the
conversation that I later on showed her a few I took. There was one in
particular, though a few too, that she described as "very
uninteresting" because they had a very very "uninteresting subject
matter". (forget my snapshots, notice what follows)... So, with some
curiosity i was wondering what was being taught in fancy schools, and
I asked if i could see some of her work, mostly to see what is
considered "interesting" and worthy of photographing, and guess
what... what she evidently considered "interesting subject matter" was
self-portraiture!
And she actually submitted self-portraits for her schoolwork. Which
makes me think that it can't be unusual.
I was just reminded of this now as I read through recent posts in the
newsgroup and there's a thread titled "feedback wanted" that links to
a "fine art photography" web gallery, where perhaps 8 or 9 out of 10
images are self-portraits.
I guess I have some difficulty in understanding this, admittedly in
part because I've not really thought of my appearance as being very
interesting, and the sight of myself in a mirror is often cause enough
for me to be reminded of reasons to be sad for an evening or so. But
regardless of that, I do find self-portraiture, in general, somewhat
strange. I would understand it if it was on the basis that models are
expensive, but still, there are often plenty of informaal people to
photograph, and there would probably be a fellow hobbyist/professional
who would photograph you.
I realize i'm digressing here, but back to the question... what makes
a photo "subject matter" interesting? Ironically, does the "subject
matter" matter at all, because i just had this thought that maybe they
do self-portraits to demonstrate technique or whatever regardless of
subject, but then, why would a self-portraiture person regard other
things "uninteresting"? Would it be fair to think that anything that
catches your eye and you look at and wonder if you should photograph
is therefore inteherently an "interesting subject matter"?
Jeremy
"Mike Henley" <mnhe...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6005702b.04060...@posting.google.com...
>
> I realize i'm digressing here, but back to the question... what makes
> a photo "subject matter" interesting?
It is heretical to say this, but I believe that most of those "interesting,"
"artsy" photos will end up in the trash heap of history. The photos that
are really going to have historical interest may well be the ordinary ones
that show how people actually lived--what the interiors of their homes
looked like, what cars they drove, what vacation spots they visited, etc.
Those billions of consumer photos may end up becoming the most interesting
of all.
Joseph Meehan
...
>
> I realize i'm digressing here, but back to the question... what makes
> a photo "subject matter" interesting? Ironically, does the "subject
> matter" matter at all, because i just had this thought that maybe they
> do self-portraits to demonstrate technique or whatever regardless of
> subject, but then, why would a self-portraiture person regard other
> things "uninteresting"? Would it be fair to think that anything that
> catches your eye and you look at and wonder if you should photograph
> is therefore inteherently an "interesting subject matter"?
To me, what makes the subject matter and the image interesting would be
the questions and memories and thoughts I have when I view the image.
One photo I remember recently was a girl on a bench with a pair of dance
shoes next to her. Did she just finish dancing and now worrying about how
she did and will she get called back? Is it the end of a long practice
session or the beginning of one? Was it her first day at dance school or
her last. Lots of stories in that one photo.
Another was a group of runners in the fog. This likely was more
interesting to me than others. I recognized the trail, as I had run there.
I know and savor the mood of running on a foggy morning. It brought back
many memories.
In the first case, I believe most people would react much as I did. In
the second my reaction was rather personal, although it was a find image
anyway, as I believe most people would be brought into the mood of that run
and have for just a moment been one of those runners.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
howard
> a photo "subject matter" interesting? Ironically, does the "subject
> matter" matter at all, because i just had this thought that maybe they
> do self-portraits to demonstrate technique or whatever regardless of
> subject, but then, why would a self-portraiture person regard other
> things "uninteresting"? Would it be fair to think that anything that
> catches your eye and you look at and wonder if you should photograph
> is therefore inteherently an "interesting subject matter"?
It doesn't really matter, if a photograph looks right, it *IS* right.
Here's some inspiration for those of us who need it...
Howard. (with bits)
Al Denelsbeck
news:6005702b.04060...@posting.google.com:
<snip>
>... I asked if i could see some of her work, mostly to see what is
> considered "interesting" and worthy of photographing, and guess
> what... what she evidently considered "interesting subject matter" was
> self-portraiture!
>
> And she actually submitted self-portraits for her schoolwork. Which
> makes me think that it can't be unusual.
Missed your chance, Mike! If you'd immediately agreed with her over
how interesting she was as a subject, you'd have her eating out of your
palm. Or you eating out of hers, or something...;-)
> I was just reminded of this now as I read through recent posts in the
> newsgroup and there's a thread titled "feedback wanted" that links to
> a "fine art photography" web gallery, where perhaps 8 or 9 out of 10
> images are self-portraits.
>
> I guess I have some difficulty in understanding this, admittedly in
> part because I've not really thought of my appearance as being very
> interesting, and the sight of myself in a mirror is often cause enough
> for me to be reminded of reasons to be sad for an evening or so. But
> regardless of that, I do find self-portraiture, in general, somewhat
> strange. I would understand it if it was on the basis that models are
> expensive, but still, there are often plenty of informaal people to
> photograph, and there would probably be a fellow hobbyist/professional
> who would photograph you.
Models can be hard to come by, especially ones that will sit still
while you fiddle with the effects that strike your fancy. In some circles,
there are plenty of people who aren't bashful in front of a camera, but in
most locales, forget it.
And there are two other things to consider. One is that self-
portraiture, especially for a class, can demonstrate the different ways
that someone can be portrayed, and can be striking when displayed against
the already-known personality traits of the subject. This naturally would
work for anyone in the class as a subject, though.
The second is, you may not have been entirely aware of what her
"subject matter" was. In schools you get the emphasis on whatever the
instructor thinks is important, and exposure to examples from lots of
"master arteests". Often, all it takes is a lecture on how DaBuick
"utilized the inherent glowing properties of candlelight through a drifting
veil of smoke to simultaneously mask and reveal the inner child of his
subjects", and immediately the impressionable students are screwing around
with the candles.
(I think that's Lewis' cue ;-))
> I realize i'm digressing here, but back to the question... what makes
> a photo "subject matter" interesting? Ironically, does the "subject
> matter" matter at all, because i just had this thought that maybe they
> do self-portraits to demonstrate technique or whatever regardless of
> subject, but then, why would a self-portraiture person regard other
> things "uninteresting"? Would it be fair to think that anything that
> catches your eye and you look at and wonder if you should photograph
> is therefore inteherently an "interesting subject matter"?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There's no simple answer to such a
question. As Joseph said, there are things you identify with, and these
won't necessarily translate to others. And alternately, other subjects that
can appeal to a broad audience.
Remember, too, that many of the subjects that you might find
appealing are the types that have been photographed ad nauseum, so the
response from the viewer can depend on their exposure to similar subjects
as well. If your viewer has seen the same subject, but as a better image,
this will minimize the impact your own has, regardless of the merits it has
on its own.
"Interesting" is entirely subjective, and defined by the viewer -
it's only an opinion. And no matter who you are or what experience you
might have, it's still only an opinion. One voice among millions. That's
not a high percentage.
And should I mention here that art students are really damn full of
themselves? But I suppose that's an opinion too... ;-)
- Al.
--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Matt Clara
news:oKhvc.8498$Yd3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
So you take an anthropological view to his question. Interesting. Silly,
too, though I suppose it does raise the question, "Interesting to whom?"
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Alan Browne
..to who? Indeed many may document the lifes and times of many
people, but the lives and times of most people will be found to
be as ordinary and dull as the photographs that document them.
Further, unless the images are accompanied by appropriate
narrative, then the images are meaningless further still. Some
images may be used to establish dress, lifestyle, adherence to
some religion or another, etc... it won't be the billions of
photos, however, it will be a very thin slice of all the photos.
.."artsy"? Not sure what that means, however, there are
certainly photographic images made in the past hundred years and
images being made, that will be found valuable purely as art for
ages to come... just as art we find from the past millenia
fascinating and beautiful.
So not heretical, just not a very likely forecast.
--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
Gordon Moat
> A couple of days ago there was this young girl I had not seen for a
> while who goes to this expensive art school in NYC, you know, those
> art schools that cost $30-40K per year.
Okay, immediate disclaimers first: while many expensive art schools
require a portfolio revue prior to admission, some do not. Also, spending
lots of money on an expensive school does not necessarily make one
better, nor more highly educated, though it can give networking
opportunities not otherwise available.
> Well, I just happened to have
> started taking snapshots last week and therefore it came in the
> conversation that I later on showed her a few I took. There was one in
> particular, though a few too, that she described as "very
> uninteresting" because they had a very very "uninteresting subject
> matter". (forget my snapshots, notice what follows)... So, with some
> curiosity i was wondering what was being taught in fancy schools, and
> I asked if i could see some of her work, mostly to see what is
> considered "interesting" and worthy of photographing, and guess
> what... what she evidently considered "interesting subject matter" was
> self-portraiture!
>
> And she actually submitted self-portraits for her schoolwork. Which
> makes me think that it can't be unusual.
Some of this goes back to painters many years (decades, centuries, etc.)
ago, who sometimes did self portraits for additional learning, or to give
to fellow artists. Van Gogh in particular did around 40 self portraits.
Not really unusual, though maybe not as common currently. Amongst modern
photographers, Cindy Sherman is very well known for her many stylized
self portraits.
>
>
> I was just reminded of this now as I read through recent posts in the
> newsgroup and there's a thread titled "feedback wanted" that links to
> a "fine art photography" web gallery, where perhaps 8 or 9 out of 10
> images are self-portraits.
>
Another thing to consider is that some schools require one to submit a
self portrait as part of the admissions process. It could be the case
here, and that exercise may have stirred your friend to do more self
portraits.
>
> I guess I have some difficulty in understanding this, admittedly in
> part because I've not really thought of my appearance as being very
> interesting, and the sight of myself in a mirror is often cause enough
> for me to be reminded of reasons to be sad for an evening or so.
;-)
> But
> regardless of that, I do find self-portraiture, in general, somewhat
> strange. I would understand it if it was on the basis that models are
> expensive, but still, there are often plenty of informaal people to
> photograph, and there would probably be a fellow hobbyist/professional
> who would photograph you.
I see it more as an exercise. We had to do the same thing in a painting
class that I had in college, though I altered the idea a little by using
a sheet of polished copper as a mirror (which changed the colours).
Anyway, it is not a bad way to experiment.
>
>
> I realize i'm digressing here, but back to the question... what makes
> a photo "subject matter" interesting?
It really would vary greatly among all viewers. I think you will get a
wide variety of answers. The best thing I can tell you is to take photos
of subjects in which you have an interest. When you are passionate about
what you photograph, that will come through in your images, and will
attract the interest of others. Remember, the camera looks both ways.
> Ironically, does the "subject
> matter" matter at all, because i just had this thought that maybe they
> do self-portraits to demonstrate technique or whatever regardless of
> subject, but then, why would a self-portraiture person regard other
> things "uninteresting"?
I think some might find composition, or geometric divisions, more
important than subject matter. With your friend, somewhat like I wrote
above, she has an interest in self portraiture, and is likely more
passionate and in tune with similar images. Of course, next week her
interests might change.
> Would it be fair to think that anything that
> catches your eye and you look at and wonder if you should photograph
> is therefore inteherently an "interesting subject matter"?
My personal approach is to find stories to tell, though that does not
always immediately come through in my images. I think it is really
important to photograph things that you enjoy photographing. Chasing
after subject matter ideas could just be frustrating, and might create a
situation in which you are not satisfied with what you are photographing.
Definitely try other things, to see if you enjoy those directions, but
move on when you find them uninteresting.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Gordon Moat
> . . . . . . .
>
> And there are two other things to consider. One is that self-
> portraiture, especially for a class, can demonstrate the different ways
> that someone can be portrayed, and can be striking when displayed against
> the already-known personality traits of the subject. This naturally would
> work for anyone in the class as a subject, though.
I think it is fairly common at some point in a college level art degree
program to need to do a self portrait (or two, or three). My chance came
during a painting class.
>
>
> The second is, you may not have been entirely aware of what her
> "subject matter" was. In schools you get the emphasis on whatever the
> instructor thinks is important, and exposure to examples from lots of
> "master arteests". Often, all it takes is a lecture on how DaBuick
> "utilized the inherent glowing properties of candlelight through a drifting
> veil of smoke to simultaneously mask and reveal the inner child of his
> subjects", and immediately the impressionable students are screwing around
> with the candles.
>
> (I think that's Lewis' cue ;-))
I would hope he has something interesting (or humorous) to write here. Anyway,
I am reminded of one photography class in which we were given a particular
concept assignment, and then shown some example images as part of a lecture.
The sample images never matched the just given assignment, which confused some
people. After a few lectures and assignments that went that way, I stayed
after class to ask the professor. What he explained is that if he showed the
class a photo with a pair of shoes prominently displayed, then when the
assignment was handed in, he would have about 90% of the class handing in
photos of shoes . . . the point being that the images did not exactly match
the assignment because he wanted us to come up with our own solutions . . .
the images he showed to us were only hoped to inspire some creativity.
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> And should I mention here that art students are really damn full of
> themselves? But I suppose that's an opinion too... ;-)
Hey! I resemble that remark! ;-)
William D. Tallman
<snip>
> I realize i'm digressing here, but back to the question... what makes
> a photo "subject matter" interesting? Ironically, does the "subject
> matter" matter at all, because i just had this thought that maybe they
> do self-portraits to demonstrate technique or whatever regardless of
> subject, but then, why would a self-portraiture person regard other
> things "uninteresting"? Would it be fair to think that anything that
> catches your eye and you look at and wonder if you should photograph
> is therefore inteherently an "interesting subject matter"?
Your last question is where you start, I think.
The question that follows is this: Is it likely that you could get an image
of what you see that would be of general interest, and if so, how
would/could you do that?
Two parts:
1) What makes an image interesting? Do you know? How can you find out? Do
you suppose that some serious reflection on your own part would yield some
insights? Perhaps you should engage in some intensive self-observation, so
that you can discern what it is that catches your eye, what specific
aspect/attribute of a scene captures your attention, etc. That would allow
you to analyze the specific and discover whether or not, once having caught
your eye, it will remain of interest, such that it captivates on repeated
viewing.
It's pretty common for beginners to go out and shoot stuff that captures
attention and then discover that the resultant image lacks the compelling
nature of the original scene. "What the hell was it I saw that made me
take *that* picture???" What interests the initial viewer does not always
translate into a compelling image. Or does it?
Once you have engaged in some introspection in these regards, do some
reading on these matters, and not just limited to photography; all visual
arts deal with these issues. With your initial work, you'll be able to
recognize the reality of what you learn, and will thus be able to apply and
experiment therewith.
2) How do you do that?!?!?
Well, if you do the first step first, you'll have an idea of what is
important, and that will give you a clue about *what* needs doing, which
will then lead to the question of *how* that gets done. With this in hand,
then read some books/articles on photography, and it's quite likely that
you will readily recognize and be able to make use of what you read.
Here are some hints.
Note that when one views a scene, one does not take it all in at once.
Viewing a scene is comprised of rapid scans from one point of focus to the
next in some kind of pseudo-random order, where small sections of the scene
are (instantaneously?) assembled to make the whole. The reality is that as
long as one is looking at a scene, one finds oneself constantly inspecting
and reinspecting different parts of it.
Identify those parts of the scene to which attention is repeatedly drawn,
and then hone in on them. That means reframing to eliminate that which
does not contribute until just that essential part is accompanied only by
what is necessary for context. It's called "cropping in the camera". And
it's also likely that any scene that captivates one's attention will
contain more than one of these. Identify and get all that you find.
Note that it is primarily motion that catches our eye. You are not going to
recreate motion in a still image, but you can frame so as to imply and give
space to motion. Also note that obvious contrast in luminance and
chrominance catches the eye. Large differences in brightness and color
catch one's attention. The question is: what do they mean? Can you
discern what they may mean? If so, can you frame so as to make that
meaning accessible to someone else, to tell the story of that meaning?
Also note that recognition catches the eye. Something that is not only
familiar but significant will catch one's attention, and to the extent the
familiarity and significance carries some weight, will also hold it as
well. Understand that anything and everything that is of significance to
us humans is so because it is part of some process that had an impact on
us. From our point of view, any such process constitutes a "story". Can
you recognize/discern that story, and if so, can you present it in the
image, somehow?
And now I've gotta stop before I really get started and get carried away!!
Does any of this make sense?
HTH
Bill Tallman
William Graham
Strikes me that you could make a couple or 6 or even 10 interesting self
portraits, but sooner or later, they are all going to look like Keane's
little girls with big eyes on rooftops of houses and cease to be interesting
anymore.....But what do I know?
William Graham
"Jeremy" <jer...@nospam.thanks.com> wrote in message
news:oKhvc.8498$Yd3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
show life as it really was at the time the artist lived. The way people
dressed, the way their houses looked, their modes of transport, and their
leisure activities. The same thing is true of old photographs from around
the turn of the century or before. the same thing will be true of
photographs taken today when sought out by people a hundred years or more
from now.
Lewis Lang
>From: mnhe...@msn.com (Mike Henley)
>Date: Wed, Jun 2, 2004 5:38 AM
>Message-id: <6005702b.04060...@posting.google.com>
No.
What makes a subject interensting is "fascination", or, another way of putting
it would be "great self-expression" (empathy with certain
aspects/qualities/ideas/feelings about the subject that the photographer holds
dear and deeply to himself and tries to express deeply to others) of the
rapport the photographer has with that subject matter (and/or that the
photographer has with certain aspects within/about/related to that subject
matter).
And sometimes even the subject matter is not the subject matter, I believe (if
I remember correctly) that Degas (the great painter, yes, he wrote with light
through his paintbrush so he was aphotographer int hat sense of the word "light
writing" or "light drawing") painted horse races (race tracks?), ballet and
possibly street scenes but his real subject matter (or interest in subject
matter) was "motion" (I believe he is quoted as saying this and/or someone else
has saidit about him but my memory can't recall it at the moment). Stieglitz
Photographed clouds as "equivalents" not for their literal shapes but for what
(feelings) they evoked in him and the viewer. A (shot of a) pencil might be
considered boring, but if that pencil is pushed to the head of the subject in
frustration, or balanced ever so carefully and twiddled about on the end of a
finger or two while its owner is in deep though the subject can be used to
express "anger" in the first instance and "pensiveness" and/or "grace" (in the
way the pencil is held/moved) in the second instance. Seen close up and in a
group those pencils can seem like receding mountain ranges. These examples are
also "superficial" as they don't go deep enough for me to make any great or
small statement/attitude/feeling the photographer has about pencils or what
pencils can be used as a clay/subject medium to represent/transfer his ideas
about something else through (like Degas?) did by expressing movement/motion
through his various subjects) but at least they are a starting point (pardon
the pun) to show that the subject is not an end point (pardon yet another pun
;-)) for subject matter interest or self-expression...
While there are certainly superficial "photogenic" subjects that are of
interest to many people on a superficial level for a "cheap shot"
one-dimensional instant emotional kick in the heart or the groin (kids for
cuteness, landscapes for "awe", great or small accidents/tragedies for a
different kind of "awe" and/or "empathy", pretty girls/sexy ladies for "sex
appeal", skyscrapers for manmade "awe" and pattern), interesting subjects come
from a deeper place than this kind of easy grandstanding/pulling of the
emotions -- the photographer's real and personal interest in the subject matter
(or something about/within that subject matter that interests them) itself.
Subject matter is not inherently interesting or uninteresting, its the
photographer's angle/take on that subject that provides the interest. Having
sad that, every photographer has their preferences/prejuidices for or against
certain subject matter - show me another Ansel Adams type landscape and I will
show you how to fly off El Capitan by tossing you off of it without wings ;-)
(I'm not trying to be cruel here, just showing my feelings in a joke). To take
this idea further, while I cringe at the mere sight of yet another rocks and
twigs and stream leandscape, the "joke" I mentioned would make the great basis
for an interesting shot on the very same subject matter... Ansel Adam's, back
from the dead, dressed as "Death" wields a sycle that is his 8x10" view camera
with a curved blade coming out of its top. We know Ansel is "Death" and not
just dead, because, his black hooded robe is a black dark cloth, often used to
view the focusing screens of 8x10" (and other large format) viewcameras. A line
of photographers, kneeling next to their 8x10" cameras wear blindfolds also
made out of black dark cloths. Several (photographers) are shown already
"flying the friendly skies" as they "fly" off the cliff, sans heads. In the
foreground is a stream (for that nice S-curve composition line camera clubs and
beginning composition photo books are so found of) with the bobbing decaptiated
heads of the photographers. Theese heads are all the same because they are
"Zone clones" and the middle of their foreheads bare the mark of the beast...
"f/64". See, if even I can turn another boring landscape shot into a work of
art, even without a camera, just by typing and creating a "visual word image",
so can you. Its the vision, the depth of feeling of the emotion(s) and the
depth of the insight/idea that counts, the subject matter, so long as the
photographer responds/resonates with it (for/against/etc.) chances are so will
the viewer.
I usually prefer portraits, and self portraits _if_ they are done well.
Unfortunately most are not, and most art student self-portraits seem like a
bunch of pretentious crap without meaning or insight, just arty technique, all
style, no vision.
Here are some self-portraits that are by no meeans "standard" nor include me
(or at least show me obviously) in the picture but say quite alot about how I
see/feel about my life and/or the world/society in general/particular:
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ll4.htm">"I SHOT R.M."</A>
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ll14.htm">"JUST SAY NO…"</A>
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ll12.htm">"HEY BULLDOG!"</A>
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ll16.htm">"JURY OF MY PEERS"
(/Etc.)</A>
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ll10.htm">"MISSION TRANSMISSION: LUCY
IN THE SKY WITH DIA…</A>
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ll6.htm">"CROSSROADS"</A>
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ll5.htm">"CALAVERAS COUNTY: 2010
A.D."</A>
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn2/st2.htm">"HOME IMPROVEMENT"</A>
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn2/st7.htm">"LAST LICKS"</A>
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ll2.htm">"NEOTENY"</A>
Sorry, I am not going to play art critic with my own work here (much less with
other's work) so you'll have to get out of them what you will what statments
you think I am making about myself and/or the way I see/feel about society, but
here's a hint, its not just about the subject matter itself (toys/dolls, men in
diapers, dogs, etc) ;-)...
A final word... not all self-portraits have to include the "self-portraitist"
literally in the shot. Here are some that express my own feelings/attitudes
about my life/self, the degree that someone understands or resonates with it is
another matter, a matter/point also not related to the subject matter
inherently in and of itself but to how the photographer relates to/with the
subject. It is said that all photographs are to a lesser or greater degree
self-portraits, whether intended as such or not, some photographers are just
(or have trained themselves to be) better at it than others.. ;-).
This post of mine is sort of a summary of other photographic writitngs/ideas of
mine in a sort of "Reader's Digest" form.
Hope this helped. :-)
This post is...
© 2004 Lewis Lang
All Rights Reserved
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***
Lewis Lang
>From: "Jeremy" jer...@nospam.thanks.com
>Date: Wed, Jun 2, 2004 6:12 AM
>Message-id: <oKhvc.8498$Yd3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
>
>
>"Mike Henley" <mnhe...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:6005702b.04060...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> I realize i'm digressing here, but back to the question... what makes
>> a photo "subject matter" interesting?
>
>It is heretical to say this, but I believe that most of those "interesting,"
>"artsy" photos will end up in the trash heap of history. The photos that
>are really going to have historical interest may well be the ordinary ones
>that show how people actually lived--what the interiors of their homes
>looked like, what cars they drove, what vacation spots they visited, etc.
>
There is more to life and photography than mere historical interest, art should
(this is my opinion) go beyond mere historical recording and have emotional and
aesthetic and ideological qualities that go beyond the level of simple happy
snaps. Every photograph by its very nature is a historical record, whether its
a valuable historical record that goes beyond its purpose of merely capturing
its (often nostalgic or educational info/recording of the past) subject matter,
is, well, another matter. Lartigue's "snapshots" of his family are worthy
(again, my opinion) of lasting as art, beyond the mere Belle Epoque history of
fancy ladies in fancy dresses, racing cars, family play, etc. becaus ethey have
other qualities that express his/his families feelings of joy de vivir
(literally pardon my non-existant French) because they show their joy of
life/passion. The crap that oozes as 4x6" prints from you average 1 hour photo
developer may or may not have images worthwhile surving beyond their historical
value (any good newspaper nowadays can do that and with much more
aesthetic/effective compositions/treatments of their subject matter) and worthy
of being called art or worthy of just being slightly more interesting than the
average piece of photographic crap that passes for snapshots, record shots, and
other types of shots today.
>Those billions of consumer photos may end up becoming the most interesting
>of all.
>
>
...Or the most boring. A snapshot of someone's foot or an alley or family dog
in 1944 might be just as boring as one of the same subject matter in 2004, not
because of the subject matter but because of the treatment of it. "Historicity"
alone might not, or, in some cases, will not save photos from the trash bin of
history. "There's gotta be something more"...
...aesthetics, outlook/vision/insight (whether intentional or not) into the
subject, etc....
This post is...
© 2004 Lewis Lang
All Rights Reserved
and... is historic, having just been created and about to recede into the past,
therefore it must be a good post because its a "historic" post ;-) ;-) ;-).
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Jun 2, 2004 12:44 PM
>Message-id: <Jtnvc.16652982$Id.27...@news.easynews.com>
Aliens from nearby stars who watch The History Channel ;-) and other PBS
shows... such as...
"Billions and billions of photographs in the cosmos..." - Carl Sagan/1
Lightyear Photo
"Billions and Billions of Images served/severed" - McDonald's and/or Bill Gates
;-) ;-)
This post is...
Composed of billions and billions of electrons and is...
Š 2004 Lewis Lang
All Rights (billions and billions of them) Reserved
Lewis Lang
SNIP
Tuna and a little bit of Thousand Island dressing...
A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down the pants!
The smell of napalm in the morning?
Paris and Nicole?
Any photo without Annika's dogs in it ;-0
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Jun 2, 2004 6:46 AM
>Message-id: <Rdivc.15048$DG4....@fe2.columbus.rr.com>
>
>Mike Henley wrote:
>...
>
>>
>> I realize i'm digressing here, but back to the question... what makes
>> a photo "subject matter" interesting? Ironically, does the "subject
>> matter" matter at all, because i just had this thought that maybe they
>> do self-portraits to demonstrate technique or whatever regardless of
>> subject, but then, why would a self-portraiture person regard other
>> things "uninteresting"? Would it be fair to think that anything that
>> catches your eye and you look at and wonder if you should photograph
>> is therefore inteherently an "interesting subject matter"?
>
> To me, what makes the subject matter and the image interesting would
>be
>the questions and memories and thoughts I have when I view the image.
>
> One photo I remember recently was a girl on a bench with a pair of dance
>shoes next to her. Did she just finish dancing and now worrying about how
>she did and will she get called back? Is it the end of a long practice
>session or the beginning of one? Was it her first day at dance school or
>her last. Lots of stories in that one photo.
>
Or perhaps she is thinking of putting on dem dancing shoes and going over to
the local 1 hour photo to tap dance on top of all those miserable billions and
billions of historical photos with her billions and billions of bunions ;-)
> Another was a group of runners in the fog. This likely was more
>interesting to me than others. I recognized the trail, as I had run there.
>I know and savor the mood of running on a foggy morning. It brought back
>many memories.
>
> In the first case, I believe most people would react much as I did.
> In
>the second my reaction was rather personal, although it was a find image
>anyway, as I believe most people would be brought into the mood of that
>run
>and have for just a moment been one of those runners.
>
>--
>Joseph E. Meehan
>
>26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
>
Reminds me of all those Cokin fog filters and how quickly I want to run away
from all those pseudo romantic photographs that use them ;-) ;-).
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Jun 2, 2004 7:48 AM
>Message-id: <Xns94FC4F9A35526sa...@127.0.0.1>
So Al, how long have you been an art student ;-)? Never mind, jokes usually
don't come off that well in the context of the internet/usenet...
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Jun 2, 2004 2:19 PM
>Message-id: <40BE1A25...@attglobal.net>
>
>Al Denelsbeck wrote:
>
>> . . . . . . .
>>
>> And there are two other things to consider. One is that self-
>> portraiture, especially for a class, can demonstrate the different ways
>> that someone can be portrayed, and can be striking when displayed against
>> the already-known personality traits of the subject. This naturally would
>> work for anyone in the class as a subject, though.
>
>I think it is fairly common at some point in a college level art degree
>program to need to do a self portrait (or two, or three). My chance came
>during a painting class.
>
>>
>>
>> The second is, you may not have been entirely aware of what her
>> "subject matter" was. In schools you get the emphasis on whatever the
>> instructor thinks is important, and exposure to examples from lots of
>> "master arteests". Often, all it takes is a lecture on how DaBuick
>> "utilized the inherent glowing properties of candlelight through a drifting
>> veil of smoke to simultaneously mask and reveal the inner child of his
>> subjects", and immediately the impressionable students are screwing around
>> with the candles.
>>
>> (I think that's Lewis' cue ;-))
>
My cue for what? A public service announcement to warn against the use of
candles by art students as sex toys? My inner child threw a temper tantrum and
walked away from me, then paddled a raft ("The Love Boat"?) and is currently
vacationing in the Bahamas of my soul so I'll have to get back to you and ask
the teacher if I can use sea water in my assignment to show my inner "Chef
Buoyancyardee" and my "Rice-A-Balogna" or use a toilet to express my
metaphysical doubt over the cancellation of Mr. Ed (any horse that talks and
isn't a network executive has had to have some kind of narcotic slipped into
its feed at the network cafeteria -- a bad example for my "inner child"/other
children).
>I would hope he has something interesting (or humorous) to write here.
Sorry, all I could come up with is the above and the stuff I just wrote in a
oprevious post.
Anyway,
>I am reminded of one photography class in which we were given a particular
>concept assignment, and then shown some example images as part of a lecture.
>The sample images never matched the just given assignment, which confused
>some
>people. After a few lectures and assignments that went that way, I stayed
>after class to ask the professor. What he explained is that if he showed
>the
>class a photo with a pair of shoes prominently displayed, then when the
>assignment was handed in, he would have about 90% of the class handing in
>photos of shoes . . . the point being that the images did not exactly match
>the assignment because he wanted us to come up with our own solutions .
>. .
>the images he showed to us were only hoped to inspire some creativity.
>
>>
>> . . . . . . . . . . . .
>>
>> And should I mention here that art students are really damn full
>of
>> themselves? But I suppose that's an opinion too... ;-)
>
>Hey! I resemble that remark! ;-)
>
>Ciao!
>
>Gordon Moat
>A G Studio
><http://www.allgstudio.com>
>
Shown a pair of shoes for an assignment? Anybody photograph their own
soles/souls? My sneakers have the souls of a shoe but my shoes realy know how
to dance!
This post Š 2004 Lewis Lang All Rifghts Reserved and the turnip said no and
then and then and then...
Al Denelsbeck
news:20040603014100...@mb-m23.aol.com:
>>Subject: Re: What makes a photo subject interesting?
>>From: Al Denelsbeck ne...@wadingin.net
>>Date: Wed, Jun 2, 2004 7:48 AM
>>Message-id: <Xns94FC4F9A35526sa...@127.0.0.1>
>>
>>
>> And should I mention here that art students are really damn
>> full of
>>
>>themselves? But I suppose that's an opinion too... ;-)
>>
>>
>> - Al.
>>
>>
>
> So Al, how long have you been an art student ;-)?
Long before I even knew what art was, if you go by that definition.
Or maybe I'm just French
Bob Hickey
> how interesting she was as a subject, you'd have her eating out of your
> palm. Or you eating out of hers, or something...;-)
>
In most cases, I would think that the well known rule of thirds applies
here. Every third shot gets one "wow"; as in: shuffle, shuffle, "Wow, this
one's great". shuffle, shuffle, "Wow, terrific". Actually, I think
every one should take their own shot, if only to feel how depressingly
boring the whole operation really is. But as a course of study? The box
of eggs shot must really be a killer. Bob Hickey
Lewis Lang
>Date: Thu, Jun 3, 2004 7:30 AM
>Message-id: <RZDvc.105064$Nn4.22...@twister.nyc.rr.com>
Nightmare thought... what if the box of eggs shot _is_ the self-portrait? ;-)
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <Xns94FD31A4B31Bsa...@127.0.0.1>
>
>cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in
>news:20040603014100...@mb-m23.aol.com:
>
>>>Subject: Re: What makes a photo subject interesting?
>>>From: Al Denelsbeck ne...@wadingin.net
>>>Date: Wed, Jun 2, 2004 7:48 AM
>>>Message-id: <Xns94FC4F9A35526sa...@127.0.0.1>
>>>
>>>
>>> And should I mention here that art students are really damn
>>> full of
>>>
>>>themselves? But I suppose that's an opinion too... ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> - Al.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So Al, how long have you been an art student ;-)?
>
>
> Long before I even knew what art was, if you go by that definition.
>
> Or maybe I'm just French
>
> ;-)
If you wear a beret, you could be both an art student, pretentious and French
Alan Browne
> Aliens from nearby stars who watch The History Channel ;-) and other PBS
> shows... such as...
>
> "Billions and billions of photographs in the cosmos..." - Carl Sagan/1
> Lightyear Photo
>
> "Billions and Billions of Images served/severed" - McDonald's and/or Bill Gates
> ;-) ;-)
:-)
Cheers,
Alan
Bob Hickey
> Nightmare thought... what if the box of eggs shot _is_ the self-portrait?
;-)
>
> Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
>
> http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
>
> Remove "nospam" to reply
>
leeetle too close to the camera. Bob Hickey
Bob Hickey
"William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:54rvc.37466$js4.13635@attbi_s51...
"
> Strikes me that you could make a couple or 6 or even 10 interesting self
> portraits, but sooner or later, they are all going to look like Keane's
> little girls with big eyes on rooftops of houses and cease to be
interesting
> anymore.....But what do I know?
>
promoted them, they got divorced behind them, and everybody got sued.
However, the lawyers seemed to do well. OTOH, I was in Steve Madden's
Shoes yesterday, and all the girls there looked like Keane's, so maybe he
really didn't plagiarize his ads. Never know.
Bob Hickey
William Graham
"Bob Hickey" <Hicks...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GwLvc.163262$WA4....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
make a lot of money, and that's all some are in it for. There are
photographers who have made their whole reputations off of one image
also....After all, it isn't their fault if the paying public has no taste.
If McDonalds can make a fortune by selling a billion hamburgers, why can't
T. Kincaid make a fortune selling paintings of little houses in the woods
that have no garages, or any visable means of access.......
Mike Henley
> Strikes me that you could make a couple or 6 or even 10 interesting self
> portraits, but sooner or later, they are all going to look like Keane's
> little girls with big eyes on rooftops of houses and cease to be interesting
> anymore.....But what do I know?
Who's Keane? I did a google search on "keane" and "portrait" and
there's a guy called Sean Keane who's apparently a musician with an
album called "Portrait" that's dominating the search results.
William Graham
He was a popular painter about 20 years ago who painted (or, his wife
painted) a zillion portraits of little girls with big sad eyes sitting on
the rooftops of houses and the like....Their eyes got bigger and bigger with
every painting, until they were of cartoon proportions.....But, he sold them
like hotcakes and made a lot of money.....
Mike Henley
>
> Strikes me that you could make a couple or 6 or even 10 interesting self
> portraits, but sooner or later, they are all going to look like Keane's
> little girls with big eyes on rooftops of houses and cease to be interesting
> anymore.....But what do I know?
What do you think of these (menu on the left for works I-IV)?
http://www.lorettalux.de/
William Graham
In a way, they are similar to Kean's stuff....After a while, they all look
alike to me. I think portraits should have something of the person in them.
The photographer should try to catch the expression or pose that
characterizes the subject the best....So you are reminded of his or her
personality.....The setting too, should have something in it that reminds
you of the subjects personality.....I would try to take the photographs in
the subject's own home or workplace....So that the people who know the
subject would say, "That's Kathy, all right! - Just the way she always looks
to me..." While Ms. Lux's works are finely technically crafted, I am left
without knowing anything about the personality of her subjects. They all
seem to have the same (perhaps forlorn) personalities to me. I can tell
nothing of them from the background/setting of the portraits, and nothing of
them from their facial expressions. - But please understand that I am not an
art critic by any stretch of the imagination. I have never taken one minute
of artistic study in my entire life.....
Lewis Lang
>Date: Thu, Jun 3, 2004 4:05 PM
>Message-id: <GwLvc.163262$WA4....@twister.nyc.rr.com>
Hi Bob:
Didn't understand what you just said above, can you give me some back story to
fill in the (total) blanks? Thanks and TIA...
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
Lewis Lang
>Date: Thu, Jun 3, 2004 1:35 PM
>Message-id: <0kJvc.22423$F75.1...@weber.videotron.net>
:-)/LOL
Lewis Lang
>Date: Thu, Jun 3, 2004 3:54 PM
>Message-id: <FlLvc.163136$WA4....@twister.nyc.rr.com>
Who knows... could be a very _eggs_citing shot from a _fertile_ imagination if
done _sunnyside up_ or as a _yoke_... Forget about stopping at "white on white"
lighting techniques/exercises, this could be an opportunity for a whole new
level of meaning and _eggs_citement. Could have deeper shades of segregation
and/or Apartheid too if she remembers to separate the whites from the yokes to
express her attitude about the world and/or her self but she'll need to give
the shot(s) some defintite direction(s) so people will get her gyst/jest and so
their minds won't come across _scrambled_ so she'll be left with egg all over
her face.
This post is...
hardboiled and goes well with toast and orange juice and is...
Š 2004 Lewis Lang
All Rights Reserved
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
Lewis Lang
>From: "Bob Hickey" Hicks...@nyc.rr.com
>Date: Thu, Jun 3, 2004 3:54 PM
>Message-id: <FlLvc.163136$WA4....@twister.nyc.rr.com>
>
>>
I'm not sure I get the joke here, are you referring to eggs as her ovum or
something, if so, I find that very insulting to women... and damn funny! ;-)
(No, female readers, if there are any still left on this forum/usenet group, I
am not a misogynist (women have two of my favorite organs, liver and Yamaha
;-)) but I am at times non-PC even when typing on my PC ;-)).
What did the film developer say to the photographer who panicked because he
thought he set his camera's I.S.O. too high when he was on a shoot? "Lighten
up" ;-)
How many super models does it take to have one thought? 7. One to have it and 6
others to try to find out how much weight to lose to fit into it...
Why did Ansel Adams' camera start leaking? Somebody thought it used waterhouse
stops instead of f/stops and used it as a Mr. Zonie bathroom/urinal.
On a cloudy day using N+1 development with a bellows compensation factor of
5.627 how many stops do you have to push to make a mountain into a molehill?
Hey, its been a long damn day and I'm too damn long tired to be too damn long
funny at this damn long moment. Laugh, damn it! Now don't you feel better? Do
as I say, not as I joke ;-0...
This post is...
Š 2004 Lewis Lang
All Rights Reserved (and this means that you can't steal it ian even if you
wanted to)
"What was the punch line?... uh, above the waist and below the knees? Hawaian?"
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
Deathwalker
Bob Hickey
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040604011607...@mb-m25.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: What makes a photo subject interesting?
> >From: "Bob Hickey" Hicks...@nyc.rr.com
> >Date: Thu, Jun 3, 2004 4:05 PM
> >Message-id: <GwLvc.163262$WA4....@twister.nyc.rr.com>
> >
> >
> >"William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:54rvc.37466$js4.13635@attbi_s51...
> > "
> >> Strikes me that you could make a couple or 6 or even 10 interesting
self
> >> portraits, but sooner or later, they are all going to look like Keane's
> >> little girls with big eyes on rooftops of houses and cease to be
> >interesting
> >> anymore.....But what do I know?
> >>
> > IIRC, The Keane's were really done by his wife. He claimed them,
> >promoted them, they got divorced behind them, and everybody got sued.
> >However, the lawyers seemed to do well. OTOH, I was in Steve Madden's
> >Shoes yesterday, and all the girls there looked like Keane's, so maybe he
> >really didn't plagiarize his ads. Never know.
> >Bob Hickey
> >
>
> Hi Bob:
>
> Didn't understand what you just said above, can you give me some back
story to
> fill in the (total) blanks? Thanks and TIA...
>
> Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
>
> http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Keane paintings, grown up. As pictures, they work fine; in real life, they
are really sad. I wonder if any of these girls realize that eating daily,
has life long benefits? Maybe they look good in pictures. Bob
Hickey
Bob Hickey
think that's the point of the whole set. Not everyone has a personality, or
if so, finds it best not to show it. Her own shot looks like she's afraid to
be thought plain, and even more so to appear attractive. Or maybe not.
Bob Hickey
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <Nf9wc.165769$WA4....@twister.nyc.rr.com>
Thanks Bob. What is Keane's full name? DO you have any links to his paintings?
TIA
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
William Graham
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
Try: http://www.keane-eyes.com/