What makes a photographic icon??

[dod]

This isn't quite the question I had originally planned, but as that would probably bring the purists down on my head with hobnail boots from a great height, this is a safer option

So in your opinion, what makes a photographer great and worth remembering?

 

[Warspite]

In my very inexperienced experience of photography, I say it would be someone that inspires others through their work, their work has got to be more than good on a technical level, infact you see quite alot of ok, or poor images where the concept or story is excellent, like the shot of Kim Phuk after experiencing the horror of a napalm attack in vietnam. And this leads onto being able to make their audience think about what they are seeing aswell as just absorbing the scene.

 

[Sean_Mcr]

I'd ask the question you was originally going to ask Dod, we're big enough and ugly enough to have an open and grounded debate pal

Warspite really said much of what i'd say.

One of many of my Heroes is Eugene Smith:

He casts a huge shadow over documentary and photojournalism, and is considered the father of humanistic photography. He was notoriously hard to work with, his personal life was a complete mess, but he took images that help change the way that people shot people.

His shot of Tomoko Uemura in her Bath netx to her mother is considered one of the best photos in the genre of concerned photography that has ever been taken, it is both beautiful in concept and execution. It devastated the chemical company that had brought about Tomoko's birth defect. He was badly beaten for trying to bring the plight of the people of Minamata to world, but brought it he did


W. Eugene Smith, Tomoko Uemura in her Bath, Minamata, 1972

He feared nothing:

While on the east coast of Okinawa photographing an essay titled "A Day in the Life of a Front Line Soldier. He was hit by shrapnel that entered his left hand, ending up in his cheek under his eye. It cost him two years of his life in recovery, not taking a photo in that time.

He said in hospital

"I forgot to duck but I got a wonderful shot of those who did... my policy of standing up when the others are down finally caught up with me."


Ernie Pyle, another great war correspondent, who was on Okinawa with Smith and was not so lucky, wrote of him, "Gene Smith is an idealist, trying to do great good with his work but it will either break him or kill him."

Dream street:

Dream street is with out doubt one of the finest books on street photography ever made. It was at that time considered most complex and ambitious ever attempted by a single photographer. He but every ounce of his being in to that book, amassing a huge debt even with the aid of the Guggenheim Fellowship who expected the project to be completed in two months, it took two years

For his teaching:

In addition to photographing, Smith taught a class in photojournalism (titled "Photography Made Difficult") at New York’s New School for Social Research and served as president of the American Society of Magazine Photographers. Of himself he says: "I am an idealist. I often feel I would like to be an artist in an ivory tower. Yet it is imperative that I speak to people, so I must desert that ivory tower. To do this, I am a journalist—a photojournalist. But I am always torn between the attitude of the journalist, who is a recorder of facts, and the artist, who is often necessarily at odds with the facts. My principle concern is for honesty, above all honesty with myself..."

In that drive for honesty, truth and beauty. He was attacked many times, shot & almost blinded, which led to a fall years later that led to his death.

So he's worth remembering for many reasons

His Bravery

His commitment

His honesty

His passion

His teaching

His philosophy

His legacy

His photographs, which all came about because of the above

 

[Matt]

for my shame, i dont have a favourite photographer, i think this stems from the fact that i came into photography from using a camera to take some pictures that i needed for something(cant even remember what now)and wanting to know why they didnt come out right. My interest developed from seeing some of the cracking shots that people on various forums where getting from their cameras, which made me try harder..

a chap at work gave me the names of a few photographers to look at such as Magnum togs Martin Parr, Erich Hartman and David Seymour, which i did, but sometimes i feel i dont understand some of the shots, so it kind of makes it hard for me to be intellectual about the arty side of photography(if you know what i mean)

 

[dod]

I know exactly what you mean Matty

I'd ask the question you was originally going to ask Dod, we're big enough and ugly enough to have an open and grounded debate pal

Okay, what was it about Bresson that makes people consider him an icon. I'd readily admit he has a couple of decent shots, but an awful lot of what I see as well is pretty dull portraiture which could be/is inferior to some of the work I see shown on this relatively small forum on a regular basis. The only thing significant about most of it is that the subject may have had some sort of celebrity status. That doesn't make him a good photographer, it just means he had good access (although I'd concede that he may only have had good access due to his ability,and then messed it up by taking average snapshots )

Out of focus, blurry shots (despite using high quality equipment) are "art" and creative, but if shown on most forums would get shot down in flames. I don't understand Bresson, sorry :shrug:

 

[Matt]

its all about subjectivity

 

[jobe]

Like Matty I also dont have favourite photographer but I do have a favourite photograph....

James Dean in Times Square taken By Magnum Photographer Dennis Stock

But few years ago I decided to take A-Level photograhy, part of that was an essay on a photgrapher of our choice, at the time I knew of only a few Photographers, Snowdon, Bailey, Cartier Bresson etc, which I was sure everyone else would choose, so believe it or not I went to the photography section of my local library, closed my eyes and just picked a book. I had chosen a book about Jean Loup Sief ( http://www.jeanloupsieff.com/# ) a french photographer I had never heard of, he worked for most of the Fashion Houses at the time and also worked for magnum, in his later years he's interests turned towards fine art, especially nudes but he was particularly fond of womens bums. Although I dont class him as my fave photog I do know or did know quite a lot about him.

Wayne

 

[Sean_Mcr]

I know exactly what you mean Matty



Okay, what was it about Bresson that makes people consider him an icon. I'd readily admit he has a couple of decent shots, but an awful lot of what I see as well is pretty dull portraiture which could be/is inferior to some of the work I see shown on this relatively small forum on a regular basis. The only thing significant about most of it is that the subject may have had some sort of celebrity status. That doesn't make him a good photographer, it just means he had good access (although I'd concede that he may only have had good access due to his ability,and then messed it up by taking average snapshots )

Out of focus, blurry shots (despite using high quality equipment) are "art" and creative, but if shown on most forums would get shot down in flames. I don't understand Bresson, sorry :shrug:

I've got friends here so i will give a short reply at least for now. But i can't tell you who to like, nor would i try.

But for me, he was a master at composition and a master story teller and a giant. Nobody could use a leica better then he could. Sharp shot's mean little by themselves, and he took every kind of shot there was to take.

To call them snaps, well i can't find the words to be honest. But you like what you like

Much more of his work here

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/F...tfolio_DocThumb&V=CDocT&E=2TYRYDZAJK8T&DT=ALB

There are no bressons on this or any other forum

 

[Diego Garcia]

This is a great debate.

For me, what sets apart great from good is the eye. Its about seeing the shot before you take it, sometimes in an instant. Its about making everything work in an instant, a true photographic brain if you will.

When you look at Bressons work, actually look at it dont just see it and things become aparent. There is far more going on that at first meets the eye. Likwise with all the greats.

I love Eamonn Mccabe

http://www.duckspool.com/duckspool/tutors/eamonn_mccabe/eamonn_mccabe.htm

Who also writes about Bresson here

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,11710,1276164,00.html

Dont forget that these guys did not chimp.

Pete.

 

[neonpollen]

I'm the same as Matty I don't really know about any famous photographers, most of the names you guys mention are new to me (though I intend to correct that). One guy I have heard of and who's photo's I do really like is Arthur Fellig (Weegee)

 

[IanC_UK]

So in your opinion, what makes a photographer great and worth remembering?

Their Photos ?

I dont have a favourite tog either, havent really looked at the likes of Bressons work, im not out to be a great, just take pics i am happy with, and if other people like them its a bonus. A lot of people on here do inspire me though, wont name em though we dont want them getting big headed LOL

I should go and look at the "greats" work some time, and see if i can appreciate them, or not, it may just be i cant get them, as they arent a style of photography i like to do personally, or i may love them ! until i look i wont know ! lol

 

[CT]

I'm a massive fan of Bresson I must admit, and find it difficult to understand how anyone can't appreciate his work. He was largely about capturing what he called "The decisive moment" and he either caught it or didn't bother. :shrug:

Ian gave the the obvious answer... their photos! I have huge respect for war corrspondents who put their necks on the line to bring us the horrors of war in all it's gim reality, but that doesn't mean I'm inspired enough to go and do it... thanks very much.

 

[condyk]

I'm not sure 'talking about' this stuff helps. It intellectualizes what, to me at least, is a subjective emotional engagement with the moment of exposure. We bring to a shot our own history, a host of cultural and sub-cultural drivers for 'a good shot' too, and these can get in the way of the essense of the shot. We need to let them all go.

It doesn't really matter much what a shot is like technically to me, i.e. noise, composition, exposure, etc.; they are all just boundaries of 'techical goodness' as currently defined and some people stop there. Their perception and their own shooting style is driven towards technical perfection. Well, I think that is an empty endeavor myself. Those shots will never truly touch anyone. They are too easy.

We know a good shot in our heart when we see it but we need to open our eyes when we look. Trying to pin it down kills it. You can't go away and copy a good shot. You have to create it from your own self.

 

[Mohain]

Dont forget that these guys did not chimp.

I often hear this, especially when refered to Bresson. I bet he would've if he could've! I recon Bresson would have been a right chimper

For the record I think Bresson was a genius with the camera.

 

[Sean_Mcr]

Obviously i'm fan of them mans work, so i love his photography.

But he's an icon for many reasons, he really did make a generation want to pick up a camera and he's still doing that to this day. He did help bring photojournalism and documentary photography to the world and made it an art form rather then a photo record.

Co created Magnum, the finest photography agency in the world, they are the bench mark.

Practically invented candid photography. His philosophy on the decisive moment inspired a legion of photographers

These are but a few reasons, each one being enough to make him an icon

But that does not mean you have to like his photographs, any more then you have to like John Lennon's music, but both are icons with good reason, like them or not.

Photography like music has many genres. I can't sit down and listen to Elvis, but i don't need to have him being an icon explained to me, i know his history i know why he's an icon.

I can't see how anybody could know Bressons history and ask why he's an icon.

90% of his subjects were unknown to the world and to him, he was a candid shooter to the core.

When i've got paying wages on my mind at the end of a not so great week, getting the bills paid, trying to keep all the plates spinning-which i thrive on but it's no picnic. I sit down make a cup of Coffee, i open his retrospective, which is a book i'd recommend to anybody http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/bresson.shtml and i simply forget everything.

You can not copy a man like Bresson, he shot moments in time that can never be repeated. Decisive moments

 

[Sean_Mcr]

I'm not sure 'talking about' this stuff helps. It intellectualizes what, to me at least, is a subjective emotional engagement with the moment of exposure. We bring to a shot our own history, a host of cultural and sub-cultural drivers for 'a good shot' too, and these can get in the way of the essense of the shot. We need to let them all go.

It doesn't really matter much what a shot is like technically to me, i.e. noise, composition, exposure, etc.; they are all just boundaries of 'techical goodness' as currently defined and some people stop there. Their perception and their own shooting style is driven towards technical perfection. Well, I think that is an empty endeavor myself. Those shots will never truly touch anyone. They are too easy.

We know a good shot in our heart when we see it but we need to open our eyes when we look. Trying to pin it down kills it. You can't go away and copy a good shot. You have to create it from your own self.

I think it's good to talk about it David as it might introduce somebody to a new idea or way of thinking, maybe somebody that's not even a member here or somebody that's not contributed to the thread's gained something.

We've spoke of other photographers, i'm a big fan of weegees work to.

Always say it, but there's not many artists that have not been inspired by another artist. Somebody has picked up a pen, a camera, and a guitar as the result of inspiration by what they've heard, read or seen. Inspiration is not duplication

 

[dod]

Their Photos ?

And that's why I raised the question Ian, I'm still not getting Bresson. I honestly find it pretty boring. It's no more than documenting a period in history.

The decisive moment to me is just another catchphrase. There is no decisive moment in an image of a stone temple, similarly with a woman sitting in a booth, they're just there.

Plenty of others did it, why did Bresson become so popular? I'm putting it down to a bigger marketing budget.

 

[Sean_Mcr]

There is no deceive moment as such in a temple because that temple will be there the next day, the day after and the day after that, but even that is actually short sighted. The decisive moment is one instance that comes together in one moment, when all things converge to make one photograph in one moment in time. He was simply a master a picking those moments and telling stories about life, he was not a historian, he was a painter, but he did it with a camera.

You can't have any understanding of candid photography or street photography at all with such statements

Plenty of others did do it and plenty of others became icons to, but few matched him. To but it down to budget is frankly laughable beyond words, and that might seem harsh, but in some ways you're telling us that we're all blind along with most of the photographic world, that we've fell for marketing. That's actually quite a put down when you think about it, and because of that, i have to be honest and say that i can't understand that somebody that has been in to photography for 30 years could come out with such a statement.

It's fine not to enjoy an artists work, but to tell us all that we've basically fell for marketing is ridiculous

Bresson became so popular because he was a master with a camera, i think now days more then ever, it's proven time and time again that you can not buy your way in to photography.

When he escaped after being a prisoner of war for three years at the hands of the Germans he was practically destitute. I'm not sure you know anything about his history at all, and if you're going to make a stand against something, which i like seeing people do. At least know the history so you will be taken seriouly

Sorry if my words seem in any way harsh, but any logic says that your statement says that we are blind, and i have respond to that.

 

[dod]

Thanks Sean, now we're starting to get somewhere . Every thing you say is true, I don't know his history, I don't understand candid photography and I still don't understand Bresson.

During the thirty years I've had a camera I've never paid any serious attention to other photographers, if it hadn't been for the internet I probably still wouldn't.

It's fine not to enjoy an artists work, but to tell us all that we've basically fell for marketing is ridiculous

I know it is, hence the winky smiley at the end of it. I'd hoped people would pick that up. And it was a deliberately imflammatory comment, unless people get emotive enough about it their real argument will never come out. And if the reasons don't come out I'll be left just as ignorant as I was before wondering what all the fuss was about. I'm not really making a stand against him, apologies if that's not clear

Oh, and the world's flat

 

[CT]

LOL. And while you two are arguing about this stuff, there's at least one person asking for critique of pics you're both more than experienced enough to provide. Put something back in!

Not everyone wants to get some message across or touch anyone with their work, there's room for everyone in photography I would sincerely hope.

 

[dod]

LOL. And while you two are arguing about this stuff, there's at least one person asking for critique of pics you're both more than experienced enough to provide. Put something back in!

Hmmph, now may not be a good time, I'm just in from unblocking the septic tank

 

[CT]

Wash your hands before you have that bacon butty!

 

[Sean_Mcr]

Thanks Sean, now we're starting to get somewhere . Every thing you say is true, I don't know his history, I don't understand candid photography and I still don't understand Bresson.

During the thirty years I've had a camera I've never paid any serious attention to other photographers, if it hadn't been for the internet I probably still wouldn't.


I know it is, hence the winky smiley at the end of it. I'd hoped people would pick that up. And it was a deliberately imflammatory comment, unless people get emotive enough about it their real argument will never come out. And if the reasons don't come out I'll be left just as ignorant as I was before wondering what all the fuss was about. I'm not really making a stand against him, apologies if that's not clear

Oh, and the world's flat

I'm sorry pal, i never meant any offence at all. Bit of passion, get's the better of me at times though

I wasn't trying to convince you to like him, i have no right to do that. I just tried to answer your question, sorry if that came across in the wrong way.


Cheer's mate

 

[Ally]

I'm the same as matty, I don't really have a fav photographer. I think I maybe should for the amount of stuff I look at. The only person I really know enuff about is Andrew D. Bernstein he is head photographer at the staples center in the US the home of the LA lakers and does some really awsome stuff.

http://andrewbernstein.com/