View Full Version : Is Majoli shooting with a Holga now?
Ray Nalley
08-27-2008, 17:48
Magnum's got some new photos from Alex Majoli online, but many of them are pretty much ruined by flare. Is Majoli shooting with a Holga now?
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/c.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.StoryDetail_VPage&pid=2TYRYDPQP6HU
He goes to one of the most dangerous places in the world and yet takes artsy blurry nonsensical bs pictures with flare and other nonsense.
The pretentiousness and magnum bloat also has its limits.
Alex Majoli is one of my favorite photographers and I think once again here is an excellent set of images. Yes some of them have flare but look how the flare sets off certain details in the image. In my opinion, still a master of his craft. Besides, if he was using a holga (which he was not) then he sure if better with a piece of crap camera then any of us are with a masters tool.
Ray Nalley
08-27-2008, 18:10
I don't think the flare does anything but detract from the photos, most of which are average at best. I've been a fan of his work too, but this is really bad.
Not familiar with this photographer but imho these are not interesting or provocative images. I've never considered technical prowess to be necessarily important in any art form, but I cannot tell these images apart from bad snapshots, for the most part. For example, a strongly tilted horizon line can lend some dynamism, or create an interesting compositional effect. But it doesn't always do that, and definitely not in images 1 and 2 for example.
jan normandale
08-27-2008, 18:19
I just went through all 68 images in the link. Either you are both joking or your comments are totally inappropriate.
Ray Nalley
08-27-2008, 18:37
How can a personal judgement about photos be inappropriate?
One more point... I think the flare in many of these images comes not from a lens or a filter but from car windows on the vehicle that the photojournalist touring the region in, or at least that's what it looks like.... I realize Afghanistan is a very dangerous place, but wow. After checking out more of these images I think some of them are quite expressive, but others seem really pointless... I wonder what what goes on during the editing process.
These photos are extraordinary.
People never surprise me as far as their responses sometimes.
Colin, you said it best. He is, as will ever continue to be, a master. Yes, he is "just a man", but that "just a man" knows what he's doing and does it beautifully.
Every single one of these images are chock full of emotion and life. And the issue with the flare, are you serious? Did you even take a moment to really look at the images? There is much more to them than simply flare.
I find it humorous just how oblivious some people are.
Is it possible to view the pictures without the Magnum stamp all over them?
I realize Afghanistan is a very dangerous place,
They were taken in PAKISTAN, it's a different "STAN"
They were taken in PAKISTAN, it's a different "STAN"
Then I suppose there's less of an excuse for not stepping out of the car?
Ray Nalley
08-27-2008, 19:41
"And the issue with the flare, are you serious?"
Yes, I'm serious. The flair seems deliberate. He's a Magnum photographer. He can afford a camera with lenses that don't flare out the photos in those situations.
He is a Magnum photographer and an artist. And in that sense, he has every right to use whatever tools he wants to create his body of work.
I guess in the same manner that majoli is using the method of his choice, you too would complain about Jackson Pollock's choice of cheap 'Sears' paint for his action paintings.
Go figure.
Just because an artist choses to go against the 'norm' for technique does not make his work any less powerful or important. He is making a deliberate choice, and IMO it works extremely well.
Ray Nalley
08-27-2008, 20:13
The problem with having a "name" is that people seem to become non-critical of your stuff.
<shrug> We all have different tastes.
Photojournalism is going through a lot of problems right now as an industry. Magnum photographers have chosen to define themselves as authors, photographers who take creative chances and present work that has emotion and an opinion. This work is very psychological. You may find the following debate on the Magnum blog with Christopher Anderson enlightening.
http://blog.magnumphotos.com/2008/02/photo_of_the_week_mitt_romney.html
I think the following photo from this series is an amazing work of art. I would wager that many of those pieces would be breathtaking when seen framed as a 20 x 30. I'm quite happy that talented artists are out there pushing the boundries of taste and what is acceptable in photography. I admire a photographer who can find his unique vision in a world hot with so many images, as I hope that I can one day refine my own.
http://www.magnumphotos.com/CoreXDoc/MAG/Media/TR3/F/W/C/L/NYC82227.jpg
Thanks for starting this topic! I think these kind of discussions are really important.
Well, everyone has their good days, and bad. Whether this is one of his good or bad is in the eye of the beholder, but photojournalism's place is somewhat different now; it's no longer one of the main sources of information about the world and is leaning towards being another form of art. Magnum and Majoli reflect this. It seems the people who like these like them for their artistic merit, and those that don't maybe feel they don'tshow enough of Pakistan at present? I like them.
Ray Nalley
08-27-2008, 20:28
It's an interesting direction Magnum is moving in if this is so. Never thought I would see Magnum become a mecca for "art" photographers.
I think that's the entire point of Magnum. It has been a place for art photographers for quite a while. Maybe you didnt notice. ;)
I think that there's a lot of merit to what sirius and itf have had to say about these images, and I agree that some of the shots are very beautiful. One problem that I have with the series is that it seems really obvious to me (painfully so) that it is precisely a "unique vision" that Majoli is trying to find or define. I don't find that vision unique at all in this series(sorry). I find it really trendy and to me it smacks of a lot of the put-on naive amateurism that you find in a lot of published photography today (Vice magazine, I'm looking at you).
I think the images taken from within the cars and the mug-shots don't belong in a series of photographic work presented as such. They may be informative, or help contextualize things if they accompany a magazine article, for instance, but presented in a series like this, it just makes me wonder how seriously the photographer and the editors take this work.
tmfabian
08-27-2008, 20:35
I know majoli uses little digital point & shoots quite a bit. His abuse in alaska series was shot on them as well. So maybe that's what it was?
http://www.magnumphotos.com/archive/c.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.StoryDetail_VPage&pid=2K7O3RHN8U6G
wasn't magnum always about making art?
amateriat
08-27-2008, 22:13
Things like this can be hit-or-miss, but I think most of Majoli's work here falls into the "hit" category. I'm not sure just how much you can concentrate on being "arty" in a place where you know your head could be blown off without due notice, so I'll give him benefit of the doubt for doing what he thought he could. Technically, he ain't shooting with a Holga from what I can see. More important than that, most of the images get across to me. Some of them are clinkers, and the series could have used tighter editing, but I see worse stuff every day in the papers.
- Barrett
I didn't know Majoli but I find his work excellent, be it with a Holga or an MP with Summilux.
So the prevailing sentiment is, if it doesn't make clear sense to you, then it's art?
So the prevailing sentiment is, if it doesn't make clear sense to you, then it's art?
Art which deserves its name involves a critical aspect. Art should constitute the world and consequently alter it. The world resists this. Art is difficult and is invigorated by the misunderstanding that attends it.
Photography is not painting. Photography is the act of capturing the phenomenal word on film/sensor and therefore its a craft not an art.
The best photographs are the least artistic ones (Robert Frank's work) and worst photographs are the artsy-sentimental-bokeh-over-composed-bs which is all over the place these days.
Artists and those with sensitive artsy temperament should look at something more flexible for self expression like painting or even film making.
Photography is not painting. Photography is the act of capturing the phenomenal word on film/sensor and therefore its a craft not an art.
The best photographs are the least artistic ones (Robert Frank's work) and worst photographs are the artsy-sentimental-bokeh-over-composed-bs which is all over the place these days.
Artists and those with sensitive artsy temperament should look at something more flexible for self expression like painting or even film making.
Your thinking of what is considered 'photography' is extremely limited. Have you even taken a look photography in the fine art world that isnt considered documentary/street photography? From your post it sounds like you have not. Try taking a look at post-modern artists such as Jeff Wall. You will be completely surprised by the type of work that has been produced, etc. Also try doing some real research and reading about what these post-modernist works are actually about. I think you'll find they are just as creative and flexible as any other artistic medium.
In fact, Jeff Wall's work is considered to be moreso painting than anything else, and his works are decisively photographic with strong art historical references to painting and art in general.
To claim that photography is less valuable and not flexible enough as an artistic medium compared to say painting is simply ignorant.
mr_phillip
08-28-2008, 07:37
Photography is the act of capturing the phenomenal word on film/sensor and therefore its a craft not an art.
I absolutely could not disagree more.
The best photographs are the least artistic ones (Robert Frank's work)
I'd love to see Frank's reaction to being referred to as the least artistic of photographers. You appear to either have a very narrow view of his work, or a very limited and absolute definition of art. Have you seen his more recent work - the Steidl publications such as 'Come Again'?
f/stopblues
08-28-2008, 07:44
Photography is not painting. Photography is the act of capturing the phenomenal word on film/sensor and therefore its a craft not an art.
The best photographs are the least artistic ones (Robert Frank's work) and worst photographs are the artsy-sentimental-bokeh-over-composed-bs which is all over the place these days.
Artists and those with sensitive artsy temperament should look at something more flexible for self expression like painting or even film making.
I couldn't disagree more strongly. I really think a photograph is sucessful to the degree that it moves or affects a person, not at all how literal it is.
“A great photograph is one that fully expresses what
one feels, in the deepest sense, about what is being
photographed.” - Ansel Adams
Being a photographer with your kind of view, I'm afraid you're missing out on the richest part of the medium.
Photography is a craft, and these days a technology which helps us capture what is visible to our eyes.
That is the essence of photography.
Everything else associated to photography from art to science is secondary.
f/stopblues
08-28-2008, 07:53
All I can say is that's an unfortunate view! How boring photography would be if that were all it had to offer!
photogdave
08-28-2008, 08:06
I think there is a very successful troll here at RFF and he's giving us some of his best stuff in this thread. Let's not give him any more food.
I think there is a very successful troll here at RFF and he's giving us some of his best stuff in this thread. Let's not give him any more food.
Simply because you cannot engage on a critical discussion of philosophical nature on what is photography, it does not mean you crap on the thread and call me who has simply posted an opinion a troll.
You played your part as a troll by posting your stupid comment and spoiling the discussion at hand. Go away!
/Could we please ignore this interlude and get back to the discussion.
thanks.
photogdave
08-28-2008, 08:14
Simply because you cannot engage on a critical discussion of philosophical nature on what is photography, it does not mean you crap on the thread and call me who has simply posted an opinion a troll.
You played your part as a troll by posting your stupid comment and spoiling the discussion at hand. Go away!
/Could we please ignore this interlude and get back to the discussion.
thanks.
uuhhh i no understand u
uuhhh i no understand u
I don't know why this guy is not warned or even banned.
He spoiled an interesting thread and I hope some of you complain about him to moderators as well.
Nh3, it takes a lot of craft to paint. I studied it for four years in school. Just as it takes a lot of art to make a successful photo. If your argument is that because photography is reliant on technology it is a craft, then how come there are not more photographers producing at the level of Robert Frank. How did Robert Frank get such insight and such a personal signature to all of his photos. Presumably, anyone with a Leica who shoots a well exposed and focused photo of a juke box could create exactly what he did. I propose that it's not the tool, it's how you use it that makes the art. There are enough luminaries of 20th C photography to prove that not everyone can attain the level of expression and communication. Perhaps you are playing the devil's advocate and winding us up here?
oh come now Nh3... you post with provocation and you know it. it is an interesting thread indeed but take a stiff drink and suffer the words you put forth.
"The best photographs are the least artistic ones (Robert Frank's work) and worst photographs are the artsy-sentimental-bokeh-over-composed-bs which is all over the place these days."
...there's more of course.
I love photography and my life is dedicated to it so i have strong opinions about photography. Some of these opinions are blunt and forward some of them are not.
Yes, I hate 95% of photos out there and I hate the trend of artsy and pointless photography which is the norm these days.
I also know for a fact that this site has a lot of serious photographers which share the same view.
Keeping those in mind I see no reason why I should play the same tune and compliment any piece of visual garbage as 'great shot'.
Nh3, it takes a lot of craft to paint. I studied it for four years in school. Just as it takes a lot of art to make a successful photo. If your argument is that because photography is reliant on technology it is a craft, then how come there are not more photographers producing at the level of Robert Frank. How did Robert Frank get such insight and such a personal signature to all of his photos. Presumably, anyone with a Leica who shoots a well exposed and focused photo of a juke box could create exactly what he did. I propose that it's not the tool, it's how you use it that makes the art. There are enough luminaries of 20th C photography to prove that not everyone can attain the level of expression and communication. Perhaps you are playing the devil's advocate and winding us up here?
painting is far more difficult and it requires real artistic talent. Painting is also purely synthetic and the craft of it is secondary to the imagination of the artist.
Robert Frank simply used photography to convey a message and in the process changed the face of photography. He did not go out to take perfectly exposed artistic and well-composed shots, he went to photograph the condition of people and at the same time comment on it.
So, photography when used as a means to depict a subject and comment on it is unrivaled, but when it comes to purely visual and aesthetic beauty / art - painting will always be the only medium.
So, photographers should stop trying to be painters and painters should never stop painting to take on photography.
That's my humble opinion.
Hello, 1920's called, they want they visual arts concept back :)
The criticism of the "flare" that you see in some of the photographs only shows that you have never been to that part of the world.
The air over there is very smoky, hazy and foggy (even more so during the winter months), and in the mornings, or when the sun peeks through on a cloudy day, that is exactly how it looks like with the naked eye.
Indoors, the light is just as he shows it, for windows are small and few, and rooms are rather dark and chilly, as the lighting is not as extensive or bright as in the US.
Alex Majoli is showing what you will see if you are there. He's giving the true state of the atmosphere over there, and for me it adds another dimension of realism to the picture.
The only dimensions missing are the colors, the sounds, and the smells, all of which are unique and beautiful in their own way.
I think there is a very successful troll here at RFF and he's giving us some of his best stuff in this thread. Let's not give him any more food.
I find certain threads of a poster deep and probing. They really make me think deeply in a really deep, deep way. I just can't wait to read them when they come up. So thought provoking!!!!!!
The criticism of the "flare" that you see in some of the photographs only shows that you have never been to that part of the world.
I don't doubt that the light is different in different parts of the world, but the flare in most of these shots is simply from the car window(s) that he was shooting through. We get that here, too (I'm in North America).
Well, Nh3. I think your definition of art is quite limited. What about sculpture, print making, and drawing? It doesn't matter much though. Photography has already won the art/craft debate almost a hundred years ago with the efforts of Alfred Steiglitz. It's well collected by all the major museums and has an established place in the art community. Now performance art, that's a craft ;)
MichaelW
08-28-2008, 09:31
An excellent series & not so different from classic Magnum stuff. I'm sure the founders would understand it if they were still around.
A few of the shots have some flare but there are 50 or so in the series so it's a cheap shot to make a big deal about that.
He's a great photographer, very good eye & he is trying some new things. Don't know how anyone thought it was a Holga, or is that just another cheap shot?
I second this. Some people just feel the need to create strife. If someone has to explain Majoli to you, well....I just don't think they will ever get it. Frank not an artist? Please, that statement does not even warrant a response. A punch perhaps, but not a verbal response :bang:
I think there is a very successful troll here at RFF and he's giving us some of his best stuff in this thread. Let's not give him any more food.
An excellent series & not so different from classic Magnum stuff. I'm sure the founders would understand it if they were still around.
A few of the shots have some flare but there are 50 or so in the series so it's a cheap shot to make a big deal about that.
He's a great photographer, very good eye & he is trying some new things. Don't know how anyone thought it was a Holga, or is that just another cheap shot?
When photographing in a war zone or an extremely dangerous place, don't you think it would be more important to focus on the subject/situation than one's own skills at making abstract photographs?
I wouldn't call them abstract. In a comparison between articles written in a newspaper, there are ones that state the facts succinctly with implications of veracity while there are others that present a personal opinion on a topic. The Magnum photographers in general consider themselves to be more to be editorialists presenting their thoughts and feelings on a subject. David Alan Harvey says that anyone can make a photo that's a blue print of a situation. You should really read that link to the Christopher Anderson discussion that I posted earlier. I think you will enjoy the stance that the fellow is making there against Christopher's photos---it's very similar to the one you are taking here. Humorously so...
--ok, I'm outta here. I should get back to work!
I find the toughest thing to photograph is the feeling or atmosphere of an environment. I believe that Majoli is doing just that with many photos in this series.
Everyone in a war zone can take a direct shot of someone shooting or being shot or suffering. Majoli though, is taking an extra step to invoke a feeling of the place with visuals only. It's a brave move since it's hard to get. Art or not..... he probably can care less about this topic if he can't deliver the message the way he sees the environment he photographs.
I wouldn't call them abstract. In a comparison between articles written in a newspaper, there are ones that state the facts succinctly with implications of veracity while there are others that present a personal opinion on a topic. The Magnum photographers in general consider themselves to be more to be editorialists presenting their thoughts and feelings on a subject. David Alan Harvey says that anyone can make a photo that's a blue print of a situation. You should really read that link to the Christopher Anderson discussion that I posted earlier. I think you will enjoy the stance that the fellow is making there against Christopher's photos---it's very similar to the one you are taking here. Humorously so...I read that discussion and my comments here is totally in opposite of the person who was criticizing Christopher Anderson.
In that situation I liked Anderson's approach...
And a political circus is not the same as a war zone so your relativism is actually more humorous in this case.
When photographing in a war zone or an extremely dangerous place, don't you think it would be more important to focus on the subject/situation than one's own skills at making abstract photographs?
You think "art" is more about the artist and his/her skills and not about a focus on the subject?
Focus on a subject or situation through technological tools is a "craft?"
Man, the hostility in this thread is caustic.
If YOU have really clear ideas about what does or doesn't make a good documentary photograph, then why don't YOU pick up your camera and show the rest of us what you mean, rather than slagging another photographer. If you fancy yourself a photographer, your WORDS are - or rather should be - nearly worthless.
Man, the hostility in this thread is caustic.
If YOU have really clear ideas about what does or doesn't make a good documentary photograph, then why don't YOU pick up your camera and show the rest of us what you mean, rather than slagging another photographer. If you fancy yourself a photographer, your WORDS are - or rather should be - nearly worthless.
So, people who watch football can only criticize a play if they're capable of playing at the same level as professional football players?
Enough said...
Why don't you instead explain why Majoli's photos are 'great'.
Well... Nh3 is being stubborn with a dialectic opinion to most peoples in this topic, perhaps intentionally so. However s/he is not really being rude or personal at all. I don't think it is fair for others to be so.
There reaches a point where two opinions are completely explained. There is not much else to say after that point that could sway the other's mind.
Ray Nalley
08-28-2008, 10:58
It's a recurring attitude here. If you want to talk about a camera, you have to own and use it. If you want to talk about Nachtwey, you have to stand beside him in a war zone, if you want to talk about a photo, you have to give bonifides to establish you have taken photos at least as good as those you talk about.
It seems to be used as a bludgeon to beat into silence those who disagree with you. IMHO, of course.
So, people who watch football can only criticize a play if they're capable of playing at the same level as professional football players?
You have clear ideas about a "better" way to do it. So, since you're a photographer, too, after a certain point, you need to stop talking and demonstrate. Lets see your "better way."
If you want to talk about Nachtwey, you have to stand beside him in a war zone, if you want to talk about a photo, you have to give bonifides to establish you have taken photos at least as good as those you talk about.
Talk all you want. Ask questions. Admit you "don't get it," or simply state you don't like it, and move on. But when you consistently take the piss, and state personal opinion as carved-in-stone-tablet fact, don't be surprised when you're called on it.
majoli works remind me more of henri cartier bresson. those photos are more photo journalistic type but he add a bit "art" touch to pictures compared to bresson. I like that way he does. I feel those images are more dramatic than ones of bresson. it seems so that majoli use some burn and dodge. Holga? I dont believe because all images look sharp for me :D it is maybe LEica :)
Vic's comment reminded me of what Ansel Adams said of his landscape work: That he wanted a viewer to feel what it was like to stand in front of that mountain. Maybe, as Vic said, that's at least part of what Majoli's trying for here....
Ray Nalley
08-28-2008, 12:25
Pitxu, my name is, obviously, Ray. Someone else here responded to a post I made with still another name. Strange.
amateriat
08-28-2008, 12:27
Photography is not painting. Photography is the act of capturing the phenomenal word on film/sensor and therefore its a craft not an art.
By a similar yardstick, some established painters have been derided as being "mere" illustrators or craftsman (Andrew Wyeth, anyone?). For that matter, are you also stating the best examples of "craft" have never risen to the level of art ("officially" recognized or not)?
The best photographs are the least artistic ones (Robert Frank's work) and worst photographs are the artsy-sentimental-bokeh-over-composed-bs which is all over the place these days.
From your perspective, that is. Which is fine. I simply don't share that perspective.
Artists and those with sensitive artsy temperament should look at something more flexible for self expression like painting or even film making.
Sez who?
- Barrett
amateriat
08-28-2008, 12:37
majoli works remind me more of henri cartier bresson. those photos are more photo journalistic type but he add a bit "art" touch to pictures compared to bresson. I like that way he does. I feel those images are more dramatic than ones of bresson. it seems so that majoli use some burn and dodge. Holga? I dont believe because all images look sharp for me :D it is maybe LEica :)
Nope...he's using Olympus C-8080 and C-5050 "prosumer" digital cameras. The "flare/glare" people are referring to in his photos is likely the result plain old highlight blowout, sometimes rather severe. For most of the images, this doesn't get in the way of their power; in a few instances, it possibly enhances same.
- Barrett
Ray Nalley
08-28-2008, 13:09
From what I've read, he hasn't used C8080's and 5050's in several years. His use of them in 2003 seems to live on in websites and forums. He uses DSLR's, more modern P&S digital cameras, and has been spotted with both Hexar AF and RF cameras. From the photos over the last few years - and there are many very fine photos - it appears he uses a variety of equipment.
This work, though, IMHO, isn't some of his best work.
amateriat
08-28-2008, 13:19
From what I've read, he hasn't used C8080's and 5050's in several years. His use of them in 2003 seems to live on in websites and forums. He uses DSLR's, more modern P&S digital cameras, and has been spotted with both Hexar AF and RF cameras. From the photos over the last few years - and there are many very fine photos - it appears he uses a variety of equipment.
Ray: thanks for the update.
Hexars? Shooting a bit o' film? The man does get around, in more ways than one.
- Barrett
Ray Nalley
08-28-2008, 13:31
And really good taste in what he shoots with the Hexar.
62960
Chuck Albertson
08-28-2008, 14:04
Is it possible to view the pictures without the Magnum stamp all over them?
No. It cuts down on theft.
yay Hexar. it is RF anyway. I did read somewhere that Majoli longed back to use a Leica M but I dont know what he thinks about M8 if he had work with digital? Maybe it is too expensive for a Magnum photog? haha. It doesnt matter (equipment) as many said in many millions threads in million times :)
amateriat
08-28-2008, 15:49
And really good taste in what he shoots with the Hexar.
62960
Well, of course. ;)
Any idea how old this shot is?
- Barrett
sonofdanang
08-28-2008, 15:50
Geez Jim,
If you don't like it here why do you keep coming back?
....
It's definitely not for the sport.
I think there is confusion between co-location and correlation.
Informed criticism may contain opinion, but opinion does not require informed critical thought or, for that matter, anything but a larynx or a keyboard, as we have seen above.
Art is the expression that is informed by the intention and produced to the satisfaction of the artist. No one else. Therefore, only the artist will know whether or not the particular work is 'good' or 'successful'. Therefore all adjunct, that is to say other people's, opinions on that point are moot and not resolvable.
The validation of a work as art by any external body (critics, museums, peers, et al,) is a matter of subsequent and secondary opinion and may have bearing on the commercial viability of the work and perhaps the ego of the artist, but not its standing as art. For this reason, being an artist can be a very lonely state. For the truly driven, the loneliest.
A discussion as to whether or not something that an artist does is art is meaningless as no one other than the artist has the mandate.
That it (the work) is done by an artist (someone intending to make art) is sufficient to the definition.
For the viewers/listeners/audience, it becomes very simple: one responds to a work or one doesn't.
Discussion, debate, or argument which is based on discerning the artist's intent may lead to opinions with regard to the artist's intention or the success (in the viewer's terms) of a particular work and indeed, as to whether or not the viewer regards it as art. But that is between the viewer and whoever chooses to listen. The fact that it is art remains.
So. Can you judge the artistic success of an artist? No, not unless you are the artist. You may judge the commercial and other material successes. You may judge your acceptance. Or your rejection.
The medium is irrelevant.
I really like some of Alex's work. Some of it has moved me to a place of such indescribably absolute grief that I could not speak. But that's just me.
Oh, and Nh3, generally one offers an opinion with something to substantiate it. Otherwise the risk is that others will view it as a simple decree rather than the subject of debate.
one of the things I really like about majoli's body of work is that he is very dynamic and liquid with his compositional elements, he obviously has a command of light in the situation and is previsualizing his picture in his head in a slightly abstract/artisic manor which is something you will find common to many magnum photographers. I think that a couple people here have no grasp of what it takes to have your work judged and I mean truely judged by the establisted organizations like this and be recognized as a true master of what you do, I know I would not be rushing out to show my pictures to magnum...to really be in a place as a photographer who mentally is content to be exposed like that is far from the understanding of many people here and that is perfectly fine because it does not have to be nor is everyone here a pro.
amateriat
08-28-2008, 16:01
yay Hexar. it is RF anyway. I did read somewhere that Majoli longed back to use a Leica M but I dont know what he thinks about M8 if he had work with digital? Maybe it is too expensive for a Magnum photog? haha. It doesnt matter (equipment) as many said in many millions threads in million times :)
Majoli mentioned "longing" for cameras like the Leica M and Olympus OM-1, which I suppose was a hint that he wasn't finished with film just yet, though he also mentioned his dream camera as a very compact, high-spec digital with really small, fixed focal-length, interchangeable lenses (Olympus, you guys getting this down finally?). But I really do grok his attraction (however brief) to those C-series Olympus digicams; they truly are special in what I regard a sea of ho-hum dSLRs and interesting but technically-kneecapped "prosumer" digitals. The digital camera that could make me ditch film for good hasn't materialized yet. But that C-8080 will certainly stay in rotation alongside my Hexars, and that's high enough praise.
- Barrett
amateriat
08-28-2008, 16:03
Avotius: You mean, all the stuff I like about your work? :D
- Barrett
sonofdanang
08-28-2008, 16:15
Majoli mentioned "longing" for cameras like the Leica M and Olympus OM-1, which I suppose was a hint that he wasn't finished with film just yet, ....
- Barrett
I agree, Barrett. I think he was speaking to the high functionality of those cameras. I don't have them anymore, for a variety of reasons, but I owned and worked with a beater M3 and a slightly-used-when-got-it OM-1 set up. It was a period when I was utterly satisfied with the tools that I was using. I was fully absorbed in seeing and the machines were simply an extension of my eye. I'm just getting to that point again with the dSLRs as I was a bit of a late adopter in digital.
jan normandale
08-29-2008, 00:17
He goes to one of the most dangerous places in the world and yet takes artsy blurry nonsensical bs pictures with flare and other nonsense.
The pretentiousness and magnum bloat also has its limits.
IIRC you put up a shot of downtown Toronto a while ago. Some people provided commentary. You didn't like it. Why do you think people would like your caustic commentary of a photographer who is not around to respond.
Perhaps part of the problem here is this particular portion of this thread that I find in bad taste and inappropriate. Perhaps you would like to submit your work to a forum elsewhere on the net and never be able to respond as people slagged your work in a similar fashion. Just a thought and my 2 cents.
Certainly late to commenting on this thread, but after suffering all 68 images I felt a need to comment.
I think the set is very pedestrian, both in individual composition and any artsy approach. I dont buy the line that its dangerous so therefore you should be happy with anything the photographer gets. I know its dangerous; Ive had time photographing in Pakistan a couple of years ago so Im more than aware of that aspect. However, these photographers make their name going into conflict zones so I expect to see great images - this is what they choose to do!
On another (sort of similar) topic; A coffee table photo book on contemporary Thailand, put together for the 80th birthday of the King of Thailand, was published early last year called "Nine Days in the Kingdom" representing the works of some leading 55 international photographers, including the likes of Steve McCurry.
I recently spent quite some time going through the imagery in this book and again found myself highly disappointed (I was actually interesting in buying it). The statistics on the project indicated over 107,000 images were shot with only 425 chosen for the publication. Thats a less than an 0.4% keeper rate and for the photographers involved I would have just expected much better work. I have no idea about the selection process involved nor the impact of the publisher but that doesnt detract from what I would still consider another disappointment.
Collections of really good/ inspirational/ impacting photographic work seems to be getting harder to find lately...
I found this series by Majoli fascinating.
Maybe the problem is that some people have a too rigid and formulaic concept about how a photograph should look like.
Some photographers convey the impression of technical excellence, but this in turn can easily distract from the subject itself, i.e. this technical excellence can form a veil between the viewer and subject. Suddenly you don't see the subject anymore but a "beautiful picture".
What I see in some of contemporary documentary photography (e.g. by Majoli, Pellegrin, Anderson et.al) is an effort to tear apart that veil.
Photography is the act of capturing the phenomenal word on film/sensor and therefore its a craft not an art.
And this from someone who only a couple of months ago wrote a manifesto stating that:
The state of photography as an art is in jeopardy. (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57636)
Guess the art bit went downhill pretty fast, eh?
Harry Lime
08-29-2008, 04:29
No doubt that Majoli is a brave guy and he is to be admired for having the nerve and skill to work in dangerous locations and come back alive.
But frankly I've never been impressed with him as a photographer. Composition is not his strength and I'm often left wanting for the decisive moment or an intimacy with his subject. His pictures lack focus and often struggle to sum up the story or event in a single frame.
Nachtwey, Christopher Morris, Gary Knight etc of VII and several of the other Magnum members, who do hard news are better in this respect.
Avotius: You mean, all the stuff I like about your work? :D
- Barrett
hah....I dont know what to say about that :p
Double Negative
08-29-2008, 11:12
The flare is obviously caused by the window(s) of the vehicle he's in. Even a crappy P&S has less flare than that. Secondly, you'll note that many of the images aren't level - another clear indication he's shooting on the go. So now that that's out of the way...
I think the images are good, but not great. They get their point across and make a PJ statement. We can nitpick the focus, exposure, shake, etc. but these aren't clinical art school photos. Plus, we don't know what circumstances he was shooting under (rushed, under fire, whatever).
Ray Nalley
08-29-2008, 11:30
If I, an unknown, had posted these same images to the gallery, would the same posters praising them have given me the same response?
Likely not.
Brennotdan
08-29-2008, 13:59
If I, an unknown, had posted these same images to the gallery, would the same posters praising them have given me the same response?
Likely not.
Aren't his images looked at by experienced and critical editors? People who have a dense and comprehensive knowledge of the history of photojournalism and documentary photography? Perhaps not anymore as some have opined, but this particular photographer is part of a particular group that signifies his images worthy of attention to me and thus changes the way I will look at them. I like most of the images, but I will not pretend to understand the content. I do trust that Magnum knows what they are doing, and that choice will decide whether one studies or dismissed the images.
sonofdanang
09-21-2008, 14:22
As a reflection of the tenor and the times in that part of the world, I think the images capture a very clear sense of what it is like to be there. Nothing, politically, socially, economically, is quite 'in focus' there, and that is just the most basic metaphor used in some of the images.
The juxtaposition of the foreign press's eye with the consequences of economic and strategic actions taken far away is often obscured by the many layers of local agendas, manipulated by greater forces, until the journalist cannot see clearly what is going on or more importantly, the why behind the what. All that is left is what can be seen, shaped by what cannot be seen, the sum of which has profound effect on people's lives. And then focused into a relatively small image. A remarkable feat, from any perspective, fitting the experience into such a small format. One that deserves our attention.
Nicely done, Alex.
Brennotdan said:" I do trust that Magnum knows what they are doing, and that choice will decide whether one studies or dismissed the images."
It is worth noting that all the photographers at Magnum "are" Magnum. It is they that decide what they should do. They are at once a collective and a loose association of individuals. In an interesting parallel, they force us, the viewers, to make our own decisions after they have made theirs - that is the fine art part of it. The documentary part is, well, obvious. While they may choose editors for their works it is less an adjudication than a collaboration.
He goes to one of the most dangerous places in the world and yet takes artsy blurry nonsensical bs pictures with flare and other nonsense.
The pretentiousness and magnum bloat also has its limits.
Ah ... glad to have discovered the authority on pretentiousness.
It's an interesting direction Magnum is moving in if this is so. Never thought I would see Magnum become a mecca for "art" photographers.
Uh, the very nature of Magnum means there is no "corporate direction". I acknowledge that it is a possibility that a trend among a number of Magnum photographers could be developed, that would be the extent of it.
Photography is not painting. Photography is the act of capturing the phenomenal word on film/sensor and therefore its a craft not an art.
The best photographs are the least artistic ones (Robert Frank's work) and worst photographs are the artsy-sentimental-bokeh-over-composed-bs which is all over the place these days.
Artists and those with sensitive artsy temperament should look at something more flexible for self expression like painting or even film making.
That's just silly, IMO.
Photography is a craft, and these days a technology which helps us capture what is visible to our eyes.
That is the essence of photography.
Everything else associated to photography from art to science is secondary.
Wow. Thanks for totally changing my aesthetic. You talk about "discussion" and "disagreement", but you have stated that "Photography is" [emphasis mine], not "My view is", or "I feel". It might be a benefit to loosen or expand your vision up a bit.
BTW, some of this series of Majoli's work are great because they evoke a deep response in me. And make me think. Thank God they are not simply mechanical craft. Am I wrong? If so, come to the GTA meet next month and educate me as to why.
sonofdanang
09-21-2008, 20:05
Trius,
Amen to that, brother... I think someone is confusing co-location with correlation. Art is not externally abstract-able. That is to say the viewer does not have the mandate to determine whether something is art or not. That is for the artist alone. It concerns issues of motivation that the observer/viewer, by definition does not have access to. Whether the viewer/observer responds to it or not is a matter of some choice, depending on an almost infinite set of conditions present in the viewer.
Or, simply put, some folks jest cain't see past the aspen and find the aquifer.
Just because there is craft present (as in all art forms) does not rule out the presence of art or the intent to make art. Only the artist will know if they have succeeded. That's not elitism, just logic.
By the way, is there a thread for the GTA meet? When? Where? I'll be there during the last half of October.
Ray Nalley
09-21-2008, 20:27
I don't know. I think only the viewer can determine what is art. I've never considered myself an artist. I've been shooting photos a very long time. I've always considered myself a technician rather than an artist and have consistently told people that. But many people say to me that what I produce is art (and buy it as such). I insist they are wrong, that I'm technically competent rather than creatively so. Yet they still label it art. I have no control over how it is received or labeled. So I don't determine whether my photography is art or not. The people who view it do. YMMV
My photography is simple and unartistic but my posts in this forum are dazzling works of art because people can't seem to let them die away and they always resurrect old threads and quote me of all the other people.
:angel:
My photography is simple and unartistic but my posts in this forum are dazzling works of art because people can't seem to let them die away and they always resurrect old threads and quote me of all the other people.
:angel:
I can't always disagreee with what you say NH3 but your abrasive approach certainly is gaining you some recognition. A few before you reached their peaks in this particular arena just before they were banned! :p
amateriat
09-21-2008, 20:49
Okay, allow me to throw off the cloak of humility just a bit: I like to think that some of my work is an attempt, sometimes a bit more clumsily than other times, to reach towards Art. But there's good art and bad art, IMO. Where my work falls I leave to others, but I'm trying to make an effort at something (some of the time, anyway), and to say otherwise, IMO, smacks of pretension of yet another kind.
- Barrett
sonofdanang
09-21-2008, 20:52
Okay, allow me to throw off the cloak of humility just a bit: I like to think that some of my work is an attempt, sometimes a bit more clumsily than other times, to reach towards Art. But there's good art and bad art, IMO. Where my work falls I leave to others, but I'm trying to make an effort at something (some of the time, anyway), and to say otherwise, IMO, smacks of pretension of yet another kind.
- Barrett
Yep. Keep it up.
I get excited by looking at photos that say something to me, or there is an indication that the photographers is trying to say something.
So, my dream is to be able to say something with my photos.
I can't always disagreee with what you say NH3 but your abrasive approach certainly is gaining you some recognition. A few before you reached their peaks in this particular arena just before they were banned! :p
In the words of Friedrich Nietzsche,
"...the secret for harvesting from existence the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment is - to live dangerously."
amateriat
09-21-2008, 21:03
I get excited by looking at photos that say something to me, or there is an indication that the photographers is trying to say something.
So, my dream is to be able to say something with my photos.
Bingo. So, where's the problem here?
- Barrett
I reviewed a large % of the photos in the OP link. It was like watching a remake of an old movie. Not bad but uninspiring and I wondered why they bothered. Going into harm's way to take the same pictures of war that have been taken time and again going back to Brady. Going into inner cities to take pictures of wounded in hospitals that could be in Chicago or a NY ghetto. Maybe we, at least me, are saturated with the same thing. If you want to do photo art, stay home and take photos of the cat or the flower pot.
Just my sour opinion.
While I'm at it, I hate these threads where opinions are offered, shot down, criticized, insulted and belittled. Feel free to do the same to mine, I guess.
Bingo. So, where's the problem here?
- Barrett
I mentioned in my previous posts that I consider photography to be a craft rather than an art.
IMO a photographer, especially a photojournalist's main responsibility is to "say something" with his photos, and say it as simply and clearly as possible.
amateriat
09-21-2008, 21:12
Ducky: Believe it or not, I think these exchanges do serve a purpose, in the service of expanding, debating, and exploring topics like these, which either sharpen or challenge one's POV. It's not always stirring the pot for the hell of it (thought that happens here as well). I like to think there's been a healthy (and vigorous) back-and-forth in this thread, and I've been eager to hear all points of view here. It can get out of hand at times, but ultimately, it's the only way to move forward.
- Barrett
sonofdanang
09-21-2008, 21:13
I reviewed a large % of the photos in the OP link. It was like watching a remake of an old movie. ......
Perhaps we haven't come that far.... In some cultures there is the belief in reincarnation until the being 'gets it right'. A possible interpretation of Mr. Majoli's work is we haven't got it right and that we need to know that.
I checked out the link before I read all these posts. There are a lot of great photos in that series, some really wonderful photos, a lot of them "spoke" to me. Then I came back to this thread and couldn't believe the discussion going on. I feel like we are in the thirties and discussing if HCB's work is really art or just a childish play with a new gadget made by Leica, which can't produce real photos anyway.
And about this pretentious artists: every time someone is consciously composing a shot he/she is being "artistic".
I get excited by looking at photos that say something to me, or there is an indication that the photographers is trying to say something.
So, my dream is to be able to say something with my photos.
That, to me, is the essence of photography; I applaud this.
When I started out, my craft sucked (obviously), and I really had very little direction to my work. One day my tutor saw a photo I had made and he was really struck ... he asked me to look at it again and think about the symbolism. Then it hit me like a ton of bricks, and I was transported. Not that it was a great photograph, but that it had a level of meaning that I hadn't really thought about. But someone else saw it right away. When he pointed it out and it clicked, that was my epiphany.
The lesson was that the craft and technique are the tools, the object (for me) is to react with my gut and heart, not just my head. It is a meditative type of exercise. Just my opinion.
I mentioned in my previous posts that I consider photography to be a craft rather than an art.
IMO a photographer, especially a photojournalist's main responsibility is to "say something" with his photos, and say it as simply and clearly as possible.
You can't say something with craft alone.
The problem with having a "name" is that people seem to become non-critical of your stuff.
<shrug> We all have different tastes.
YUP... when it comes to these types of photos, the most appropriate 4-letter acronym seems to be IMHO.
Svitantti
09-24-2008, 15:06
..and what's wrong with a Holga? ;-)
hoteesgnal
10-06-2008, 09:43
"And the issue with the flare, are you serious?"
Yes, I'm serious. The flair seems deliberate. He's a Magnum photographer. He can afford a camera with lenses that don't flare out the photos in those situations.
I have a hard time deciphering the intention behind your comment- I want to believe you are joking but I have a terrible, catastrophic feeling that you are serious.
This thread sums up the state of photography rather nicely: A group of caveman shooting rangefinders in the dark of a cave while 'people with holgas' discuss new ideas in the warmth of a fire outside.
New ideas- what a novel concept.
The world changes and photography responds. These photos by Majoli demonstrate that perfectly.
Next you'll tell me the snapshot aesthetic is just a fad that came about for no explainable reason whatsoever.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.