Picturesque Poverty: Contemporary Photography’s Ugly Game

Genteel Death · 01.03.2019, 07:09 AM

https://cphmag.com/picturesque-pover...XRCw46qLWl-kjg

Worth a read.

!@#$%! · 01.03.2019, 07:59 AM

thanks

it’s a lot like john waters’ “pecker” which maybe should be required viewing along with this article

one big problem i have with this essay is that avedon is blamed for his douchey reviewer. that’s a major bananapeel in its reasoning. i don't think avedon had a contemptuous look. if anything he found beauty everywhere.

the other problem here is an abscence: the notion that the poor don't get the power of photography. might have been so in the past, but these days of ubiquitous cellphone cameras, and twitter and instagram and facebook, the “trumpland” inhabitants at least all take photographs, even the ones with the beards and ripped flannel shirts. [eta: the avedon boy with a rattlesnake has a facebook]

but then the argument gets good, in the second part, when it focuses on the art world itself, and the individual responsibility of the photographer it picks up steam, and finishes well.

thanks for the link!

now if someone could write about popular photo sites like “the people of walmart” (which i hate...). those inflict a greater damage than any art gallery. they don’t even try to make an aesthetic appeal—they’re all just about derision, condescension, cruel laughter, feeling better by looking at someone "inferior." fuckem.

ilduclo · 01.03.2019, 09:04 AM

Fairly interesting. Mentions Kapusckinski, who’s an essential read for those interested in transitional colonial figures (Shah of Shahs, The Emperor).

One of the most magnificent photographic documents I’ve ever seen was along those lines. It was B&W photos of shipbreakers published in Harpers Magazine maybe 10 years ago. stunning images of humans with massive sculptural steel forms, it’s brutalist sculpture at its finest...

Couldn’t find the original pictures on line, but here’s an example

dirty bunny · 01.05.2019, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

now if someone could write about popular photo sites like “the people of walmart” (which i hate...). those inflict a greater damage than any art gallery. they don’t even try to make an aesthetic appeal—they’re all just about derision, condescension, cruel laughter, feeling better by looking at someone "inferior." fuckem.

People of Walmart was the first thing that sprung to mind when I began reading the essay, and you summed up my thoughts on that website as well or better than I could!

As for the essay, I don't necessarily agree with the general thrust of his argument (which is the poor are exploited photographically).

The other thing is the general assumption that people don't view these kinds of photographs critically. Which may be correct. Maybe most people don't. But it's a good idea, and there are other good thoughts in the essay.

Diesel · 01.05.2019, 10:49 AM

Yea how dare anyone laugh at the walmart people:

Genteel Death · 01.15.2019, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

thanks

the other problem here is an abscence: the notion that the poor don't get the power of photography. might have been so in the past, but these days of ubiquitous cellphone cameras, and twitter and instagram and facebook, the “trumpland” inhabitants at least all take photographs, even the ones with the beards and ripped flannel shirts. [eta: the avedon boy with a rattlesnake has a facebook]

I agree that he could have mentioned this, but to me he refers to people who take photography more seriously, not the general populace with access to it. Sure, the smartphone is the most popular camera in the world, and I think with advancement in technology it's wonderful that regular folks have access to the means of taking good photos and learn through the process. But the reality is that the majority of people who take photos with smartphones care little or nothing about shutter speed, exposure, ISO, composition, noise levels etc. They use photography in a less purposeful way than the photographers referenced on here, who will often have their work exposed in galleries and discussed by people with more than a passing interest in photography.

Are you familiar with Jamie Windsor, btw?

!@#$%! · 01.15.2019, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

I agree that he could have mentioned this, but to me he refers to people who take photography more seriously, not the general populace with access to it. Sure, the smartphone is the most popular camera in the world, and I think with advancement in technology it's wonderful that regular folks have access to the means of taking good photos and learn through the process. But the reality is that the majority of people who take photos with smartphones care little or nothing about shutter speed, exposure, ISO, composition, noise levels etc. They use photography in a less purposeful way than the photographers referenced on here, who will often have their work exposed in galleries and discussed by people with more than a passing interest in photography.

Are you familiar with Jamie Windsor, btw?

hah, i keep writing you replies and erasing them because im still working out things as i write them

did not know that guy but will check his videos, thanks

!@#$%! · 01.15.2019, 10:40 PM

i guess basically what im trying to drive at is that while the issues of representation have long been part and parcel of art making and art criticism, popular photography is now both more pervasive and more influential than ever, but lacks perhaps the same awareness, and carries more power, and with it more danger.

on the one hand everyone can be a citizen journalist—on the other hand everyone is a paparazzo or a colonist claiming possession of whatever is in front of their increasingly sophisticated phone lenses, and perpetuating all manner of social atrocity in their instagrams.

plus the issue of technical seriousness is increasingly moot with things like aspect ratio and composition, value scale and color space and calibration, lens choice and settings and so forth all handled by presets, filters, editors, and incipient AIs that only promise to get better at it.

so in the end as the distance between the rando and the amateur and the pro increasingly diminishes (talent still matters, resources not so much), what we are mostly left with is the relationship between photographer and subject and between photograph and audience (hah, funny word, “audience”, for visual art).

add to that the decentralization of publishing and suddenly everyone is armed to the teeth without even knowing.

01.03.2019, 07:09 AM	#1
Genteel Death invito al cielo Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 8,744	https://cphmag.com/picturesque-pover...XRCw46qLWl-kjg Worth a read.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

01.03.2019, 07:59 AM	#2
!@#$%! invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: mars attacks Posts: 42,563	thanks it’s a lot like john waters’ “pecker” which maybe should be required viewing along with this article one big problem i have with this essay is that avedon is blamed for his douchey reviewer. that’s a major bananapeel in its reasoning. i don't think avedon had a contemptuous look. if anything he found beauty everywhere. the other problem here is an abscence: the notion that the poor don't get the power of photography. might have been so in the past, but these days of ubiquitous cellphone cameras, and twitter and instagram and facebook, the “trumpland” inhabitants at least all take photographs, even the ones with the beards and ripped flannel shirts. [eta: the avedon boy with a rattlesnake has a facebook] but then the argument gets good, in the second part, when it focuses on the art world itself, and the individual responsibility of the photographer it picks up steam, and finishes well. thanks for the link! now if someone could write about popular photo sites like “the people of walmart” (which i hate...). those inflict a greater damage than any art gallery. they don’t even try to make an aesthetic appeal—they’re all just about derision, condescension, cruel laughter, feeling better by looking at someone "inferior." fuckem.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

01.03.2019, 09:04 AM	#3
ilduclo invito al cielo Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 3,305	Fairly interesting. Mentions Kapusckinski, who’s an essential read for those interested in transitional colonial figures (Shah of Shahs, The Emperor). One of the most magnificent photographic documents I’ve ever seen was along those lines. It was B&W photos of shipbreakers published in Harpers Magazine maybe 10 years ago. stunning images of humans with massive sculptural steel forms, it’s brutalist sculpture at its finest... Couldn’t find the original pictures on line, but here’s an example
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

01.05.2019, 10:49 AM	#5
Diesel the destroyed room Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 595	Yea how dare anyone laugh at the walmart people:
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

01.15.2019, 10:40 PM	#8
!@#$%! invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: mars attacks Posts: 42,563	i guess basically what im trying to drive at is that while the issues of representation have long been part and parcel of art making and art criticism, popular photography is now both more pervasive and more influential than ever, but lacks perhaps the same awareness, and carries more power, and with it more danger. on the one hand everyone can be a citizen journalist—on the other hand everyone is a paparazzo or a colonist claiming possession of whatever is in front of their increasingly sophisticated phone lenses, and perpetuating all manner of social atrocity in their instagrams. plus the issue of technical seriousness is increasingly moot with things like aspect ratio and composition, value scale and color space and calibration, lens choice and settings and so forth all handled by presets, filters, editors, and incipient AIs that only promise to get better at it. so in the end as the distance between the rando and the amateur and the pro increasingly diminishes (talent still matters, resources not so much), what we are mostly left with is the relationship between photographer and subject and between photograph and audience (hah, funny word, “audience”, for visual art). add to that the decentralization of publishing and suddenly everyone is armed to the teeth without even knowing.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|