• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Why is that art and why is that also art?

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
About a week ago, I posted about Phases Photography Magazine (which is not really a "magazine").

Now, I would like you to consider the following web site, which you probably also know (and has been presented here over a year ago): One Exposure.

If you click around on the two sites you will find plenty of pictures, all of which are arguably very good. Yet, there is no overlap: you would not get the pictures from Phases accepted on One Exposure or vice versa.

I would like to discuss why the two sites are different. What do you think?

As a bonus question: can you cite photographs which would be considered of the same value as the ones from the two sites yet would not fit in either project?
 
About a week ago, I posted about Phases Photography Magazine (which is not really a "magazine").

Now, I would like you to consider the following web site, which you probably also know (and has been presented here over a year ago): One Exposure.

If you click around on the two sites you will find plenty of pictures, all of which are arguably very good. Yet, there is no overlap: you would not get the pictures from Phases accepted on One Exposure or vice versa.

I would like to discuss why the two sites are different. What do you think?

As a bonus question: can you cite photographs which would be considered of the same value as the ones from the two sites yet would not fit in either project?


Having looked through the phases website the other day, and only a quick look at the 1x, I think primarily the 1x seemed to be curated for images that would be more commercial - more mainstream and easier to sell to the public at large and the ones from phases are not and look more what may be curated for a museum. Those are my first impressions anyways.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
About a week ago, I posted about Phases Photography Magazine (which is not really a "magazine").

Now, I would like you to consider the following web site, which you probably also know (and has been presented here over a year ago): One Exposure.

If you click around on the two sites you will find plenty of pictures, all of which are arguably very good. Yet, there is no overlap: you would not get the pictures from Phases accepted on One Exposure or vice versa.

I would like to discuss why the two sites are different. What do you think?

As a bonus question: can you cite photographs which would be considered of the same value as the ones from the two sites yet would not fit in either project?


Jerome,

It's really stepping out into a stream, hoping for rocks and not crocodiles, in trying to answer your question with some degree of validity.

It seems to be, (and that fits in with Maggie's comment of museum-like curating), that "Phases Magazine" values the sense of timeless visions of us and the planet whereas "One Exposure" is more punctate, hitting "home runs", getting a peak action or a clever shot of a woman with a torn side view of her face covering part of her face head on, things that jolt one to attention to remark, "How original" or "How did they arrange that?".

I don't think Antonio Correia's portraits, or his "Chestnut Seller", here, would fit into either collection, but his work is as good photography, IMOP. Also George's Holroyd's more experimental and socially-challenging photography would, likely as not, be passed over by both sites as perhaps too sexually edgy and avant-garde, yet again it's as worthy of recognition as those the two website have chosen to feature.

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Jerome,

It's really stepping out into a stream, hoping for rocks and not crocodiles, in trying to answer your question with some degree of validity.


I am not trying to trap you, I am just interested on collecting feelings from other people about this particular subject. No argument is invalid here.

Interestingly, both you and Maggie answered the question by saying that the public of the two sites is different. Can you give some details on how you imagine the intended public? What kind of people could they be?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I am not trying to trap you, I am just interested on collecting feelings from other people about this particular subject. No argument is invalid here.

Interestingly, both you and Maggie answered the question by saying that the public of the two sites is different. Can you give some details on how you imagine the intended public? What kind of people could they be?

Jerome,

I have no fear of being "trapped", rather that there's a lot of work featured in each site covering a wide spread of subject matter. So one has to go for instinct and a sense of the gestalt and "presence" of each diverse collection as a whole, as parts and limbs and conversations of one being. That's a huge challenge for a scientist to rely on balancing out feelings to make such distinctions between complex mixtures of artistic expressions, one in the "Phase Magazine" and the other in the "One Exposure" collections. I only go for this as I feel that you might have some interesting ideas of your own to share down the road. So any contribution I make, is my downpayment for your own insights. After all, this is an intriguing question of, "Why do certain art styles/artists get collected while other, (arguably), equally fine work gets passed over?"

Neither of these "online" curators risk significant money in making selections, AFAIK, as they do not have to actually buy any art they showcase.

[This is very different from a real brick and mortar gallery which has to pay rent and has limited wall space to allocate to any one artist. In that case, the failure to recognize marketability could lead to financial ruin. There's relatively more freedom for the museum curator, as core permanent collections buffer new acquisitions covering occasional drifts from the tastes of the powers controlling the purse strings.]

I was not thinking of the "public" for the Phases Magazine site, rather a feelng of the taste of the curators. The second site, "One Exposure, however, does seem to catering more to immediacy and a public that wants to consume that.

Asher
 

Chris Heilman

New member
From the limited time I spent on both sites, I'd say the difference is between single images on the One Exposure site (duh) and series (or bodies of work) on the Phases site. I tend to work in the latter, being quite poor at the formet.
 
The reason I think 1X is more for people looking to buy art for their home is just that the images there are more decorative and pleasing to the eye. Their beauty is immediately apparent. At Phases - you only really see the beauty of the images by seeing the entire series of each artist. Although some of the images on their own are quite beautiful and I would put on my wall, for the most part they are not. I'm not inclined to put a photo of some junk on the floor because on its own, it has no context to make it interesting and is visually not that pleasing.

Even the way the websites are set up are much different as Phases concentrates and trying to help you discover work and artists they like and find interesting. 1x on the other hand puts emphasis on types of photography that may interest you. It isn't expressing any "we like this artist - come see his work" they offer the work by categories, Do you want to see abstracts? - no? Landscapes?

Delving a little further, Phases does allow you to contact them with your work if you think it might interest them. That's it. No special money needs to be exchanged, no contracts for how many images you may send them, nothing. They really do seem to be doing it simply to help people become aware of works that they find worthy. Do they make money? I can see perhaps that they may receive donations to keep up what they are doing, but other than that, it doesn't appear this is what their main objective is. There still are people that do things for the greater good and this feels like that. Asher has a forum here, and I'm sure he does it for the greater good and not because he hopes to make money here.

As for 1X, it is quite different. You can get a free account, (yes, anyone can join) allowing you to upload up to 10 photos a month, and 1 a week for consideration by the curators. If you upgrade to Pro - you get unlimited uploads and 10 photos a week for consideration, also a homepage, being higher up on the list of photographers etc., No matter what type of account you make, you can sell your images. 1x takes 50%. They also have affiliates that can sell your images and any profit from the sales are shared 50/50 between you and 1x, (yes, after the affiliate takes its profit). I feel images that are curated are chosen for their saleability.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
We can fairly say the Maggie an I share the view that while Phase offers contemplation the 1X site provides immediacy. I didn't realize that the latter was a merchant site and that then makes sense.

I gave Antonio and George as two photographers here with images worthy of being valued long term. Well, unless portraits, (by size, technique or famous photographer), endow status or bragging rights, this art is often too specific for use in hotels, Board Rooms or Law Offices, places that can afford expensive art. Private homeowners are unlikely to get portraits where decoration is the main objective. So that means that Antonio Correia's market gets shrunk. Likewise, most corporations avoid sexually suggestive or provocative photographs for fear of helping to justify a litigious claim against them for harassment or an hostile work environment, while in private homes, that very same work might have a market, (albeit smaller than a pastoral or beach scene or some abstract work). The advantage of George's work long term is that it is not only immediately interesting, but also serves as a basis for contemplation, bringing one's own emotional and intellectual filters for ever evolving experience and reinterpretations. Although such work might be passed over initially by some such curators as Phase Magazine, eventually, with persistence, a good following is likely to develop, depending on continued productivity. To that end, the more such magazines there are, the better!!

Asher
 

Antonio Correia

Well-known member
When I saw this thread I subscribed it expecting to be able to say something about later on. Time passed on, others posted and now I visited the mentioned sites.
I already knew 1X but I did not know phasemag.
I have there some images but I did not want to make a subscription. I like their presentation and so but I am not needing another site to manage and worry about. We have no time for everything we would like to do in life and one has to make options.
Phases looks more a place targeted for conceptual images while 1X is more dedicated to the "wow" pictures, to those involved in the process of manipulation via software mastering LR, CS5 and other programs.
They are in fact quite different one from the other with a distinct target of public. I really wouldn't feel at ease participating in phase. The images I tend to produce are not very conceptual.

I am flattered that Asher mentioned my images. :) I do not consider my self as very good but...
Yes Asher my market is very small. Oh, what the heck ?! I like to do my portraits ! I do them with pleasure and commitment !

I read the post by Maggie and like Asher, I didn't realize that Phase was a merchant site.

I am not sure if what I am telling is of any use for this discussion... sorry for my lack of confidence in this matter.
 

George Holroyd

New member
I've looked at 1x before, it seems designed to make money by selling subscriptions to photographers, not unlike 500px. As for Phases, I scanned through the home page and recognized some names. There are a lot of online magazines that publish selected portfolios at no cost to the artist. I've sent work to a number of these over the past couple of years and have had work featured in a few. Other than the ego boost, they are probably just a waste of time, so I don't spend much effort submitting to them anymore. Although, I still do send work when I think my style fits.

Thanks for mentioning me in this thread. I've yet to make a dime from my photography and I doubt I ever will. Commercial viability is a consideration for me in determining how to develop my series, but I don't have any illusions of becoming a successful artist. What I shoot isn't what gets published as good emerging art and that's an unfortunate bit of timing but I can't change what moves me as an artist.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Thanks for mentioning me in this thread. I've yet to make a dime from my photography and I doubt I ever will. Commercial viability is a consideration for me in determining how to develop my series, but I don't have any illusions of becoming a successful artist. What I shoot isn't what gets published as good emerging art and that's an unfortunate bit of timing but I can't change what moves me as an artist.

George,

What's in your favor is that you do not appear to be a clone of anyone else and seem to have your own voice. It's not important right now that you be popular, but rather that you hone in your skills at representing your view of the world near you, your personal window, uncontaminated by fashion. Expanding your portfolio without getting off track is the next stage and you're doing just that. As someone true to your own ideas and making sure that your pictures and collections show that, is the basis for recognition.

There are many skilled photographers and retouch artists but those with original voices are much fewer. I believe that you are emerging as one of them. Moreover, I have faith in your capability and stamina to survive this difficult build up stage. If Phase Magazine would show your work, that's fine, but no sweat if you are passed over. A real brick and mortar gallery will represent you when your body of work seems to them like a great treasure to exploit. You need to have the collection to show and discover the galleries with a taste for your work. It's that simple - your substantial collection on an ipad when you get to visit them.

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I understand that the two sites have a different business model. What I find fascinating is that the aesthetics of the two groups of pictures are different.

All of the pictures from Phases could have been taken with film: the colours are somewhat muted (for the colour pictures), the contrast is restrained, etc... If you looked at the histogram, I am pretty sure it would never extend all the way from pure black to pure white. The subject choices, composition and processing (grain or colour palette) reminds me of works by the new topographics. Sometimes, I wonder if it has not been taken from Stephen Shore or William Eggleston.

On the opposite, all the pictures from 1x look as if they have been digitally enhanced. The colours are oversaturated, the contrasts extreme. If you looked at the histogram, I am pretty sure it would always extend all the way from pure black to pure white.

I posted my opinions about 1x in another thread long ago. At first I was impressed, but later I realised the problem with their choices. The pictures are always empty. They are always technically proficient, but they are always devoid of feelings, of humanity. I find it telling that the only pictures from Antonio are his landscapes and no portrait, for example.

On the opposite the pictures from Phases appear to tell stories. Or do they? Will I find out after a while that there is a problem with Phases as well?

I really wonder. The pictures are grouped in series and the pictures in a series obviously relate to each other. But do they really tell something or do they only pretend to? After all, they seem to imitate the pictures from the masters, would it be possible that I am only imagining stories because they use the same vocabulary as the masters did, but the words would be empty?

Quite frankly, I am not really sure what to think of it.

I shall discuss the art market in another set of threads.
 

Chris Heilman

New member
I understand that the two sites have a different business model. What I find fascinating is that the aesthetics of the two groups of pictures are different.

All of the pictures from Phases could have been taken with film: the colours are somewhat muted (for the colour pictures), the contrast is restrained, etc... If you looked at the histogram, I am pretty sure it would never extend all the way from pure black to pure white. The subject choices, composition and processing (grain or colour palette) reminds me of works by the new topographics. Sometimes, I wonder if it has not been taken from Stephen Shore or William Eggleston.

On the opposite, all the pictures from 1x look as if they have been digitally enhanced. The colours are oversaturated, the contrasts extreme. If you looked at the histogram, I am pretty sure it would always extend all the way from pure black to pure white.

I posted my opinions about 1x in another thread long ago. At first I was impressed, but later I realised the problem with their choices. The pictures are always empty. They are always technically proficient, but they are always devoid of feelings, of humanity. I find it telling that the only pictures from Antonio are his landscapes and no portrait, for example.

On the opposite the pictures from Phases appear to tell stories. Or do they? Will I find out after a while that there is a problem with Phases as well?

I really wonder. The pictures are grouped in series and the pictures in a series obviously relate to each other. But do they really tell something or do they only pretend to? After all, they seem to imitate the pictures from the masters, would it be possible that I am only imagining stories because they use the same vocabulary as the masters did, but the words would be empty?

Quite frankly, I am not really sure what to think of it.

I shall discuss the art market in another set of threads.

Oh dear. So it's a could-be-film vs digital thing.
 

Antonio Correia

Well-known member
... I find it telling that the only pictures from Antonio are his landscapes and no portrait, for example...

Very clever Jerome !

In fact when I posted those images - some time ago - I was subconsciously understanding that the site has a majority of "empty" pictures or at least I had that perception at the time as now, that I review it !
 
Top