Well maybe I'm not in quite such a lonely place after all! I seemed to
have provoke some stimulating replies.
To explain my attitude.
Adam's work in the context of the 30s on is superb in quality, and
reflects his fascination with the breathtaking nature of the American
landscape. But it still seems very formulaic - hence the "rules" of
Group f64? I have seen his photos in a major exhibition, and yes, they
were impressive in technical quality. But they still didn't work for me!
Probably because their subject matter is too inaccessible?
Cartier-Bresson is different; living in London, Paris is accessible and
I do go to Paris from to to time. And CB has produced a some lovely
photographs. But many of his images leave me cold and disinterested.
For me photography is intensively personal, probably because I do not
make money from it. I am therefore not overawed by photographers with
whose work I cannot make a personal connection of any type.
Hey! I must be uncultured. Because having visited a major Turner
exhibition I felt rather similar . Brilliant in concept and exhibition,
but so far removed from my reality that I felt unmoved. There are many
times when I think that historically painters painted to impress other
painters.
And just, just possibly, it's also my antagonism towards personalities
held up by some critics held up as almost peerless. I always want to
challenge that...
Whom do I like? Robert Frank, Bill Brandt, David Bailey, Nan Goldin, Don
McCullin, Jane Bown, Fay Godwin, etc, etc.
Anyway, it was great to read the reactions!
Howard
P.S.
Will join the suggested group, then sit back and wait to be
critiqued....But Emily is right. Flickr and other web sites idea of
critique is "Wow" "Gosh" "Amazing" .....which means zilch.
Emily L. Ferguson wrote:
At 8:38 AM +0000 2/4/10, Howard wrote:
Which all goes to show that opinions about photographs are all very
personal. What one person likes....
I don't like Cartier-Bresson, nor Ansel Adams! Am I alone?
No. But you're probably in a pretty lonely place!
The interesting thing about that Flickr page is that the commenters
don't seem to have any thing to say except, sycophantically, "oh yes,
wise one, the photographs you've selected this week are indeed
inspiring."
Inspiring is not an adjective I'd use for those images - they don't
inspire me to do much except go hunt for someone who paints on
velvet. And, unlike the work of Adams and Cartier-Bresson, when I
look at the gallery, no one image jumps out at me and sticks in my
memory.
Either because we're so educated about the history and technique of
photography, or because we've simply been exposed to so much, we're no
longer impressed with yet another gritty face, especially when we've
stared at Steve McCurry's Afghan girl and Dorothea Lange's Migrant
Mother for a great deal of our education.
My personal opinion is that, in the case of McCurry and
Cartier-Bresson, some things are great because they're the first.
Steve's image turns out to be formulaic, if you go and track down more
of his work.
And here's the difference: Cartier-Bresson's isn't.
