NYT Discovers "The Regulars"

[FPjohn]

http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2.../last-call/?hp

yours
FPJ

[aperture64]

Just read the article. Sounds like a good idea for a book.

[vrgard]

I agree that it sounds like a good idea. But after reviewing some of the images on the gallery website I don't quite see the execution. I couldn't help feeling that some of you fellow RFF members would have done a much better job.

-Randy

[aperture64]

Where is the gallery?

[vrgard]

Here you go aperture64: http://www.gallery339.com/html/exhib...lars%3C%2Fi%3E

[Pablito]

Originally Posted by vrgard

I couldn't help feeling that some of you fellow RFF members would have done a much better job.

I doubt that very much. The photos are pretty spectacular.

[Gid]

I don't think they are anything special. More power to her elbow if she can get someone to buy prints at $2,000, never mind $5,000. As usual its in the eye of the beholder and of course the NYT won't do any harm.

[vrgard]

Sorry guys, I didn't mean to sound too negative. I just don't see it in these images. And more power to you if you do. Not saying I'm right and you're wrong. But they don't do it for me. Guess that's what makes it art. And kudos to the photographer for making a go of it, both with the book and the MFA in Photography.

-Randy

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The people are interesting, but the lighting is horrid. They look like they were shot with a point-n-shoot with built in flash. Yuck

[Ducky]

Et me too, looks like a police lineup.

[rbiemer]

Randy, thanks for the link to the images.
Frankly, having spent a lot of time in places like that bar, I recognize those folks. More, I know the looks in their eyes.
The photos are very good, I think, and I think the way she lit them definitely plays into the idea: those kind of bars are harsh.
"Art"? I dunno. Honest? I think so.
Rob
PS: I do think there are some few of us here at RFF who could have shot something like this; but I certainly couldn't.
R

[aperture64]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

The people are interesting, but the lighting is horrid. They look like they were shot with a point-n-shoot with built in flash. Yuck

That's sort of the point. They are taken in a dive bar. Glamorous lighting wouldn't have done it. It's like catching wildlife in their environment. The lighting will never be pretty. They have that 'deer in the headlights' look.

The prices make me feel like a deer in headlights.

[Al Patterson]

Originally Posted by rbiemer

Randy, thanks for the link to the images.
Frankly, having spent a lot of time in places like that bar, I recognize those folks. More, I know the looks in their eyes.
The photos are very good, I think, and I think the way she lit them definitely plays into the idea: those kind of bars are harsh.
"Art"? I dunno. Honest? I think so.
Rob
PS: I do think there are some few of us here at RFF who could have shot something like this; but I certainly couldn't.
R

You got that right. I resemble one or two of those shots. This is a case where the whole seems to be greater than the sum of the parts.

[wlewisiii]

I've been in, heck lived in, a lot of places like that. I can understand the idea of the lighting but I don't think it works. They really are mug shots of a sort and are well enough done so far as it goes. However a nice big hammerhead flash used like Weegee used a 7" reflector on a 3 cell handle? That would have done the trick while still giving the hard/harsh/"welcome to the jungle" feel she's apparently after. Just look at her images and imagine the light a bit higher & to the right rather than straight on into the face. I agree you don't want glamor lighting but I just don't think that what has been done is right.

I think the lighting bugs me because I see so much done right - the composition using the square & the bar and chair as framing mechanisms is fantastic. Be interesting to know if she shot a 6x6 camera or if it's cropped to that...

As far as the price on the prints, more power to her. I'd be lucky to get change from a fiver for one of mine And yes, I can think of at least three shooters here at RFF who could do that series at least as well if not better. Alas, I'm not one of them...

William

[wlewisiii]

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

Ah but they didn't -- and the doing is all that counts in life.

"Eighty percent of success is showing up."
Woody Allen

At worst, yet. Go look at Memphis' work, for an example.

William

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

Why?

At $2000 each, a photographer would have to sell 70 prints just to net $70,000 (assuming the gallery does not take more than 50%, and does not discount too often) -- before you deduct the cost of doing business. Now 70 prints is doable, but a VERY modest living, since few have a show more than once every two years, at most.

That's why galleries are a scam. They charge outrageous commissions then give you a show every 2 yrs? why bother. I think the internet is changing the dynamic of art buying and selling and hopefully the art world as we know it, where everyone but the artist makes good money can finally die forever.

As for why people are shocked at the prices: The photographer is an unknown charging prices at which one can buy the work of established photographers. When I was in Santa Fe, galleries there sold Cartier Bresson prints, signed by him, for about that much. If I had $2000 to spend on a photo, I'd buy Cartier-Bresson, I like his work and given his historical importance, his work is a better investment.

[Pablito]

The images are thoughtfully crafted in many ways.

1. They do NOT look like they were shot with a point and shoot with a built in flash. The lighting is very carefully worked out so she gets exactly the look she wants. She used a strobe, obviously, but there is some kind of diffusion of the light source, perhaps a bare bulb flash unit in a white reflector or some other device to add subtle diffusion. Also, the light source is too high up for it to look like a built in flash. It may evoke the look of on camera flash but the images lack many of its telltale signs like glossy skin reflections, red eye, etc. Seems very sophisticated to me.

2. She is thinking a lot about depth of field; the pics are riveting in part because the faces are sharp but the hands, the stuff in the foreground are not. Also because of her careful use of lighting, those objects that are closer are not washed out as they would be with on-camera flash.

3. Her images are full of art historical references. I thought immediately of the portraits by Titian; got out my Titian book and the similarities to some of his portraits is really striking. Try google images if you don't have a Titian book. Also the depth of field/ focus play reminds me somewhat of Vermeer. These characteristics are too consistent to be chalked up to conicidence. I think she knows, and appreciates art history.

4. The glance, the humanity, the loneliness and isolation of the individuals. Perhaps the most important thing.

5. The prices: So what? One image is already sold out. As for buying Cartier-Bresson prints, any photo dealer can tell you that finding a good Cartier-Bresson print is very difficult. They are few and far between. There are, however, many, many poorly printed HCB prints out there - and signed ones too. For $2K you are paying more for an autograph, you'd be extraordinarily lucky to get a good signed HCB print for $2K.

6. (Disclaimer) - The above statements are my opinion, my opinion only.

[dmr]

Originally Posted by vrgard

I just don't see it in these images. And more power to you if you do.

I see it!

These are the people you see at the bar all the time, often times alone, often times chatting with each other, or chatting with the bartender. Whenever you go to a bar you will see them. You know each one has a story, but that story will never be told to you.

The ones that intrigue me are the ones who sit alone at a table at a bar where there's a band, nursing a beer, and are obviously totally lost in the music. They seldom interact with the others, but are most definitely into it!

[Al Kaplan]

A lot of the "value" of any artwork depends on which social circles you tavel. Rich people can afford to pay more. If your dad went to Harvard with people who ended up as art critics or book publishers, or operating a high end art gallery more as a hobby than a way of making a living (their trust fund supports their lavish life style) while other friernds are simply collectors you have the right connections.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Al Kaplan

A lot of the "value" of any artwork depends on which social circles you tavel. Rich people can afford to pay more. If your dad went to Harvard with people who ended up as art critics or book publishers, or operating a high end art gallery more as a hobby than a way of making a living (their trust fund supports their lavish life style) while other friernds are simply collectors you have the right connections.

Spooky … I was just wondering if she were related in some way to the owner of the gallery

[aperture64]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

That's why galleries are a scam. They charge outrageous commissions then give you a show every 2 yrs? why bother. I think the internet is changing the dynamic of art buying and selling and hopefully the art world as we know it, where everyone but the artist makes good money can finally die forever.

As for why people are shocked at the prices: The photographer is an unknown charging prices at which one can buy the work of established photographers. When I was in Santa Fe, galleries there sold Cartier Bresson prints, signed by him, for about that much. If I had $2000 to spend on a photo, I'd buy Cartier-Bresson, I like his work and given his historical importance, his work is a better investment.

Great point. No way I would spend 2k on any of these images.

[zuikologist]

At last, a decent discussion on images rather than gear. Keep it up

[Melvin]

The people don't look interesting to me, mostly young hipsters. Where are the truly haggard, freakish old drunks? Makes me thinks it used to be a dive bar, but has been gentrified. She's no Diane Arbus.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by zuikologist

At last, a decent discussion on images rather than gear. Keep it up

I fear they are going to talk of the status of galleries and the price of beans

[maddoc]

What is interesting about this series of mediocre shots of regular customers of a bar in NY ?