- Messages
- 8,276
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
If the first instalment with Jem Southam is anything to go by this should be worth keeping an eye on.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKKOFCBmaLk&feature=youtu.be
Jem Southam - is he taking the p**s?
The Painter's Pool is a load of crap - I've thrown out better - and a lot of the rest look like the kind of thing we might take when we first got a camera!
No wonder I'd never heard of him!
That sounds like the rant of someone who's disadvantaged somehow ...The Painter's Pool is a load of crap - I've thrown out better - and a lot of the rest look like the kind of thing we might take when we first got a camera!
By what measure? You might not like them but "mostly terrible", you are going to have to justify that. I find it hard to see that anyone could call them terrible.mostly terrible
By what measure? You might not like them but "mostly terrible", you are going to have to justify that. I find it hard to see that anyone could call them terrible.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion
I will never understand why people get so upset and agressive about things that are quite harmless like Jem Southams photos. There are lots of things in life I don't enjoy, football for example, but I really don't feel the need to go around ranting about them. If that's what other people enjoy then live and let live, it's not worth bursting a blood vessle over.
Jem Southam - is he taking the p**s?
The Painter's Pool is a load of crap - I've thrown out better - and a lot of the rest look like the kind of thing we might take when we first got a camera!
No wonder I'd never heard of him!
But as I said, live and let live, why go to the effort of coming into this thread and having a rant. If you are not interested in this work then why not just move on the next thing, that's what I don't get. There are loads of images posted in the various Crit sections of this forum which are mediore but most people take a look and then move on, they just don't bother to comment.I'm not upset about them I just think they are crap and certainly not as noteworthy as some commentators seem to think.
But as I said, live and let live, why go to the effort of coming into this thread and having a rant. If you are not interested in this work then why not just move on the next thing, that's what I don't get. There are loads of images posted in the various Crit sections of this forum which are mediore but most people take a look and then move on, they just don't bother to comment.
Whilst I'm not going to be rushing out to buy any of his monographs, I found his photos quite quaint and refreshing in comparison to the deluge of long exposure HDR rubbish positioned from the exact same tripod holes.
But as I said, live and let live, why go to the effort of coming into this thread and having a rant. If you are not interested in this work then why not just move on the next thing, that's what I don't get. There are loads of images posted in the various Crit sections of this forum which are mediore but most people take a look and then move on, they just don't bother to comment.
But clearly some people like his work, why can't they just get on with liking his work?Because if you get people to accept that crap is somehow good they soon lost the perception of any art as anything other than crap.
See , there we go, that's a perfectly acceptable point of view, just saying they are “terrible” or “crap” without justification is what I have an issue with. If you are going to make strong statements about someone’s work, especially someone who is not here to defend themselves, it at least needs a justification. But are they really badly exposed? The exposure looks OK to me.To me, many of his woodland/forest/landscape images are just bland, lifeless, badly exposed, badly composed, messy or too busy, there's nothing significant about them, they look like someone pretty much aimed a camera at a section of woodland and clicked, nothing more
But clearly some people like his work, why can't they just get on with liking his work?
See , there we go, that's a perfectly acceptable point of view, just saying they are “terrible” or “crap” without justification is what I have an issue with. If you are going to make strong statements about someone’s work, especially someone who is not here to defend themselves, it at least needs a justification. But are they really badly exposed? The exposure looks OK to me.
... the deluge of long exposure HDR rubbish positioned from the exact same tripod holes.
It would be interesting (or not) to know what your credentials are that give you qualification to pronounce so assertively on his work, being of the type it is.Perhaps because most people would, like myself, view it as crap?
It would be interesting (or not) to know what your credentials are that give you qualification to pronounce so assertively on his work, being of the type it is.
Going to tell us?
Ah, yes, of course. So has the sheep I can see in the field next door ...I have a pair of eyes.
Talking of sheep. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/feb/19/my-best-shot-jem-southamAh, yes, of course So has the sheep I can see in the field next door ...
Jem Southam - is he taking the p**s?
The Painter's Pool is a load of crap - I've thrown out better - and a lot of the rest look like the kind of thing we might take when we first got a camera!
No wonder I'd never heard of him!
I reckon what some people have difficulty with is pictures that aren't of what they are used to seeing pictures off, particularly 'boring' stuff. There's a widely held view that photographs have to be of something special, extraordinary and they always have to be stunning.
But I am still completely baffled why they can't allow any space for people who do want something different.
Probably a manifestation of that comfort thing again. They see anything different as a threat in some way and have to run it out of town.
Albert ('Peter') - I sense that culturally you are a simple soul. Nowt wrong with that, except when you lash out in an uninformative way against stuff that you haven't managed to grasp.
The use of emotional language that smacks only of the bar room isn't unusual on these forums, and it demeans them.
If you want to make a statement, then you owe it to us to give a reasoned account.
On the other hand, if you don't understand the subject, it isn't necessary to over-compensate by adopting a dismissive, chip-on-the-shoulder attitude and lashing out.
This isn't about your value as a person, and I hardly understand why some people can get into such a dismissive stew about material that others appreciate and they currently can't.
I have no problems with anything different and do not see it as a "threat."
Saying 'obviously' is so confrontational. Is this how you behave in public?I do understand the subject, far more than you do obviously.
Also, is it right that photography was once your livelihood? Would that qualify you to pronounce on every sphere of it? Are you maybe fuelled here by some kind of professional jealousy?
And are you like this with everything in every realm?
I have no vested interest in this matter, I just feel that I ought to defend Jem since his work's been maligned in public.
I'd be careful with that, in public ...we can all sprout off