Street View

In downtown Cali,

Peter Dexter said:

In downtown Cali,

Click to expand...

Peter,

I missed this when you posted it!

I am glad I discovered it at last.

Photographing crowds without celebrating one particular person gives us a quick overall lock at some of the pulsation a and energy of a society: folk smothering all the surfaces of a train in India, stuffed into the subway in Tokyo or here swarming across the road.

They seem to have common purpose, but this is only accidental. Each is in his or her own private and self-absorbed bubble!

Here, I believe, one man has his eyes on you!

This I like!

Hope for more!

Bump!

This is worthy of your attention!

Asher

I have paid attention Asher. I've had an inner dialog about Peter's street photos, which are similar to the ones I also take. It was about digesting and enjoying the scene shown and about whether it makes any difference if one thinks it is a "successful" street photo or not.

Thanks for sharing these Peter.

Cem,

My greetings to you! Allow me to imagine you addressed the idea of "success@ to me.

It does make a difference if we feel the picture is worthy of attention. Success? That means what? I guess, (at a minimum), from Peter's standpoint that it reached a level of reaction from himself that he was moved. But I think you may mean "success" outside of this work's creator. That is where we come, (in a small way), as we are part of the "world of appreciation" where his work might or might not create a ripple and some waves of interest and influence.

Or do we mean being recognized by a gallery or collector? If that happens, for sure that's success but not having such recognition might not preclude "success".

To the extent that my own time was absorbed for 30 minutes studying the picture and I was thrilled to discover the fellow staring at Peter, completing an unexpected memory between the two, was to me valuable. So the picture for me, at least is "successful". What more can we ask than someone else is also moved by a picture that we thought was significant. "Success" then might then depend on the number of folk like you and I who are recruited to pay attention to the work and so create an aura of "worth". That's the best I can do!

Asher

You are touching upon the points I have discussed in my inner dialogue. Such as, does sharing it mean that the photographer thinks it is significant? I do share sometimes even when I am not certain if a picture is significant in any way. So what makes you think that Peter considers this to be a significant picture? I am not saying it isn't, I am just asking.

I was referring to "success" as it is seen by the photography community at large. If there is a thing as such. No, not the gallery bit. That would be serious ****.

My apologies to Peter, to you and all, but it is very rare for me to spend 30 minutes looking at any photograph, even it was made by some deity. How can you do that seriously? I may come back to a certain photo at different times so that the total time I've looked somewhat approaches 30 minutes but not in one go. It must be my ADD at work here.

Cem_Usakligil said:

My apologies to Peter, to you and all, but it is very rare for me to spend 30 minutes looking at any photograph, even it was made by some deity. How can you do that seriously? I may come back to a certain photo at different times so that the total time I've looked somewhat approaches 30 minutes but not in one go. It must be my ADD at work here.

Click to expand...

we've touched on this topic in the past, Cem.
This possibly has to do with how we value photographs in a general, specific, monetary, artistic, informative, influential way.
How we value a photograph and how much time we are willing to spend with it go hand in hand (assuming we have an understanding of all the possibilities and all the time in the world.).

Most don't.

For example, a critic (the real ones) would spend far more time and look at the photo on far more levels than the passer-by, ill-informed, or those with other things on their mind (including those with ADD).

For example, if I take the time to go to a gallery I might spend a few minutes with each image and a longer time with one or two.

When I explore the possibilities of one of my own images I might spend hours over many days or even weeks before I see the full potential - or not.

When I teach criticism classes students are encouraged to write about the photo. That may take them many hours of observation, discussion, analysis and writing to complete the process.

There are 3 factors that stand out for me.

1. Content. How much is there to see?
2. Connectivity. How does the content relate to other parts of the content and how does it relate to the viewer.
3. Context. Where and how is the image viewed? How does the content relate to the context?

Those images which succeed are often those that flourish in each stage or overall. Its the ones that create conversation.

Aesthetics is also a factor and I would consider it part of the content although I'm shifting my position as we speak.

Being a good or bad image is subjective but is also related to how we perceive these factors. Being judgemental seems to be a need to fill with us humans. Its hard to avoid. I'm learning to cope.

I've needed to teach myself (well, others needed to teach me) how to measure the success of a photo and to persevere with examining a photo on its merits, even if my judgement is counterproductive or contradictory.

Pete's picture interests me, as it does with you and Asher, much for the same reasons. We stop and look, comment, create a conversation around it.

The conversation doesn't need to be about the picture. It can be about ideas that lead from it. Thats where the success comes from

I prefer VALUE rather than success.

In this context, Pete's picture has value for the very reason it has created this conversation.

That's what pictures can do.

If we take the time.

Hi Tom,

Great input, thanks for that. We have had this discussion in the past indeed and I remember all too well that for you the value is in the discussion itself. For me, it doesn't always work that way. Sometimes I am too impatient or unwilling to spend any time on discussing things (photos or not) which are not worthy of my time. And I decide, fully subjectively, what is worthy of my time in each given case. In this case, I have decided to engage in the discussion not because this particular photo is valuable to me but because I value you, Asher and Peter and entering the discussion is my way of appreciating that value.

PS: the following seems like a vicious circle to me. The more we value a photograph, the more we spend time with it and talk about it, and the more we talk about it the more value it creates.

Tom dinning said:

...How we value a photograph and how much time we are willing to spend with it go hand in hand....

In this context, Pete's picture has value for the very reason it has created this conversation.
.....

Click to expand...

Cem_Usakligil said:

Hi Tom,

Great input, thanks for that. We have had this discussion in the past indeed and I remember all too well that for you the value is in the discussion itself. For me, it doesn't always work that way. Sometimes I am too impatient or unwilling to spend any time on discussing things (photos or not) which are not worthy of my time. And I decide, fully subjectively, what is worthy of my time in each given case. In this case, I have decided to engage in the discussion not because this particular photo is valuable to me but because I value you, Asher and Peter and entering the discussion is my way of appreciating that value.

PS: the following seems like a vicious circle to me. The more we value a photograph, the more we spend time with it and talk about it, and the more we talk about it the more value it creates.

Click to expand...

Quite true, my friend.

Some days we just don't want to be bothered. If I see one more picture of a sunset, cat, dog, baby or George Cluney I swear I'll kill someone.

I also feel the same way about even the best image when I'm in a shite mood, which is often.

Value is relative. Having a clean pair of jocks is of value when meeting and greeting but in the current climate in Darwin the last thing you need is undies.

Those photos where I learn so much are those I value most. Not about photography but about the circumstances or people's ideas. Most times that sort of thing needs to be explained to me or investigated.

I don't have time for everything I see. But don't we do that with paintings in a gallery?

Try going through the Tate in London and spending equal time on each Turner to appreciate the full value.

That's why we have art books full of photos of such paintings. We can browse at our leisure.

Or not.

Tom dinning said:

Quite true, my friend.

Some days we just don't want to be bothered. If I see one more picture of a sunset, cat, dog, baby or George Cluney I swear I'll kill someone.

I also feel the same way about even the best image when I'm in a shite mood, which is often.

Value is relative. Having a clean pair of jocks is of value when meeting and greeting but in the current climate in Darwin the last thing you need is undies.

Those photos where I learn so much are those I value most. Not about photography but about the circumstances or people's ideas. Most times that sort of thing needs to be explained to me or investigated.

I don't have time for everything I see. But don't we do that with paintings in a gallery?

Try going through the Tate in London and spending equal time on each Turner to appreciate the full value.

That's why we have art books full of photos of such paintings. We can browse at our leisure.

Or not.

Click to expand...

Fully agreed Tom.

Very, very interesting discussion. I posted the photo not knowing or convinced it was worth posting I admit. To me the criteria for posting an image is really very simple: is it interesting in any way to look at or not. Does it invite me to peruse for more than the time it takes to see it. In many if not most instances I post photos that are illustrative of a culture or documentary of a subject from nature. Only occasionally do I think one of my photos has artistic merit. But I am doing unto others as I would have them do to me since what I am principally interested in seeing on a photography forum are peeks into a time, a place, a culture that others choose to share.

Peter Dexter said:

Very, very interesting discussion. I posted the photo not knowing or convinced it was worth posting I admit. To me the criteria for posting an image is really very simple: is it interesting in any way to look at or not. Does it invite me to peruse for more than the time it takes to see it. In many if not most instances I post photos that are illustrative of a culture or documentary of a subject from nature. Only occasionally do I think one of my photos has artistic merit. But I am doing unto others as I would have them do to me since what I am principally interested in seeing on a photography forum are peeks into a time, a place, a culture that others choose to share.

Click to expand...

I understand it Peter, I am not that much different myself.

.......and if it happens, once in a while to be "art" for whatever reason, that's a bonus. In this case, that fellow looking at you Peter, that counter observation, makes it here for me.

Asher

Peter Dexter said:

Very, very interesting discussion. I posted the photo not knowing or convinced it was worth posting I admit. To me the criteria for posting an image is really very simple: is it interesting in any way to look at or not. Does it invite me to peruse for more than the time it takes to see it. In many if not most instances I post photos that are illustrative of a culture or documentary of a subject from nature. Only occasionally do I think one of my photos has artistic merit. But I am doing unto others as I would have them do to me since what I am principally interested in seeing on a photography forum are peeks into a time, a place, a culture that others choose to share.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't get too carried away with the conversation, Pete.
It's like going to a funeral. As soon as the body has been viewed, the mourners get on with discussing each other's business.

I was in a gallery in the Netherlands admiring a Rembrandt, a small one but an important work. A woman sidled up beside me with her friend an took a close look.
"I wouldn't hang that in my house," she yelled. "I just bought new drapes and it wouldn't match at all "
I nearly choked.
"That painting is worth more than your house, madam" I intervened, feeling that Rembrandt was probably taking a turn in the coffin.
"Not to me it isn't", she objected in a strong, typically arrogant Dutch accent. "I paid a lot of money for my drapes" then stormed off, possibly to look for something in blue; a Monet perhaps.

Your photo, like pretty much everything here, especially mine, are just snaps. We get a bit carried away from time to time wit our own importance and sprout all sorts of bull shie but in the end it's just 'Show and Tell'.

I kind of like your shots. They are busy and informative. What caught my attention in this picture was the remnant of Russian influence on the wall in the background and the affinity for poor countries have for motor bikes. Panama hats and plastic shopping bags.

Since there are no converging lines, I'm surprised Asher could find anything at all of interest.

Just pretend it's the family living room here and you're pulling a few shots from the album to show the visitors. We'll pay attention until something better comes along.

There's no art here, although some are pretentious enough to suggest there is. Art is to be found in places where you can't afford it and it doesn't match the drapes.

Xxx

Tomm

Peter Dexter said:

In downtown Cali,

Click to expand...

Peter,

I beg you ignore the dismissive, albeit humorous comments that Tom is dispensing as if he is the wise teacher who uniquely appreciates a multi-million dollar Rembrandt and can shame a peasant house wife with his quick wit. My job is to take risks and find good work and commit. I believe here that my judgement is valid.

Your work is art. The quality of art is, of course, subjective. If positive interest gets traction with more folk, my view will be supported. Why is it "art" for me? Not merely because I was entertained.

Rather as your disordered picture moved me to think of and then recognize different possibilities for art and then successively move the boundaries of what I might view as art. Once I recognized the unique stare back of the fellow who probably noticed you and your camera, I realized this work is indeed energized, worthy of attention and continued interest. So, for me, at least, it is art. I will take it to the curator of a good gallery in Hollywood and get a second opinion.

It takes no insight or consideration to pee over the birthday cake or over the sandwiches. But destruction and dismissal is always easier than recognizing the rare differences between ordinary and uniquely valuable and without needing to add a smudgy cat, although Tom did that very well elevating an ordinary snap to a balanced image.

I am pretty certain of my judgement here that your picture is pretty damn good! So I stick my neck out.

Asher

P.S. Just in case, on the rare off chance that you, yes you, Tom are still reading, leading lines are not the sine qua non of art design! Not even in artsy fartsy Los Angeles, LOL!

#streetview it's good 'cus I say so! ??

A fleeting moment frozen in time..uniquely your's.

Best.