Learning from the "greats:" James Ravilious

[Rachel Foster]

I like this photographer's work, overall, but this one puzzles me. What makes this one "work?"

I don't know if I can download and re-post the photo without violating copy right, so I am posting the link.

This is a photo of cookware in an open cupboard. This is exactly the sort of thing that appeals to me, but I'm wondering what "makes" this image. If it were mine, I would toss it. Obviously, I'm missing something.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I like this photographer's work, overall, but this one puzzles me. What makes this one "work?"

For me, as an individual image, it doesn't work. It's not very carefully executed (not shot square, cloth in a corner, cooky tray cut at the bottom). It's not clear if this is just a recording of a scene as it was, or a deliberate composition. In the former case kudos to the inhabitants for a symmetric placement of the objects, but in the latter case kudos for making it look so non-composed. Tonality is lacking. but that may be the result of a low quality reproduction for web use.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Ben Jones]

I like this photographer's work, overall, but this one puzzles me. What makes this one "work?"

I don't know if I can download and re-post the photo without violating copy right, so I am posting the link.

This is a photo of cookware in an open cupboard. This is exactly the sort of thing that appeals to me, but I'm wondering what "makes" this image. If it were mine, I would toss it. Obviously, I'm missing something.

I've been a professional photographer for almost 30 years. Back then a group of us started a professional photographic organization. Our images were usually crooked, out of focus, had ugly hard shadows and were quite boring and for the most part nobody paid any attention to us. So most of us went to photography school, we studied the masters, we attended seminars, we shot literally thousands of images, we got our work critiqued and judged, and we got a whole lot better. Some then even went further than others and spent thousands and thousands of dollars on getting their masters of photography degrees so they could put that little "M. Photog. Cr." after their name (not me.) They felt that they had made it! But then I began to notice that a lot of them began shooting images that were crooked, out of focus, had ugly hard shadows and were quite boring! But now people raved about how "beautiful" and "awe inspiring" the images were all because the image makers were now masters!!!

Ben

 

[Rachel Foster]

Exactly! I know there is a great deal I'm ignorant of, but sometimes the art world feels like there are a lot of emperors running around without any clothes.

 

[Tom Robbins]

Rachel, someone recommended the book, Landscape Beyond, by David Ward to me a year or so ago. The book wasn't particularly well edited, but the author was able to clearly state his opinions about a range of photography topics, including his take on the "art establishment".

If you have a moment to spare, it might be worthwhile to read. You will probably find some interesting ideas relevant to your original question. His subject was landscape photography, but his thoughts are applicable to other genres.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I've been a professional photographer for almost 30 years. Back then a group of us started a professional photographic organization. Our images were usually crooked, out of focus, had ugly hard shadows and were quite boring and for the most part nobody paid any attention to us.

Ben,

You account is hilarious and ironic. I'd love to see this early work of the group, fairly unspoiled by outside influences and discipline and then the latest pictures, side by side. The images that imitate spontaneity trounce the real thing!

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Thanks, Tom.


To my great chagrin, it seems my best images are still from when I first picked up my point and shoot and didn't know my ISO from my aperture.

 

[Graham Harris]

Rachel,

I think this image is as much about the title as the image. Whist Drives were an important part of British country life in the 50's. Before television the local, male and female inhabitants of a community met at the local community hall or church hall and played cards (whist).

About half way through the evening they stopped for refreshments, tea, cake, sandwiches and, for me, Ravilious has documented the occasion and because of it you can learn a lot about the people who attended. That's why I think it works.


If you are British and over 60 years of age he brings back memories of your childhood.

Graham

 

[Rachel Foster]

Thanks, Graham. So, the image itself is not the entire story. It's also the emotions/memories/past experiences connection. That complicates things.

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Thanks, Graham. So, the image itself is not the entire story. It's also the emotions/memories/past experiences connection. That complicates things.

Hi Rachel

Sorry I missed this earlier. And thanks Graham, you have made the point of JRs work absolutely. Although much of his imagery is beautiful, he was primarily a documentary photographer for most of his working life, being employed to document the disappearing way of life in his beloved Devon. Throughout this period he worked in 35mm film and his technique developed over time. Initially he was, apparently, quite disparaging of technical ability (and many of his early negatives are difficult to print as a result), but he later took to and learnt about sensitometry and that led very directly to the look of much of his later work as shot into the sun with carefully hooded lenses etc.

As Graham says, the pictures ask that you have an empathy for a disappearing rural England.

If you can get a copy of 'An English Eye' or 'Down the Deep Lanes' they are both a real treat from this perspective.

Mike

 

[Rachel Foster]

Good point. But that raises a question: How much of "art" is due to the piece itself and how much of its value is brought by the viewer? And if someone happens to capture an emotional trigger but does so poorly (and I'm not saying Ravilious' work is poorly done), does it have the same sort of value as well-executed works?

 

[Graham Harris]

Rachel,

In answer to your question; for me, I am not sure it is possible to have “art” without a viewer. The piece itself, like a photograph, can be a technically correct piece, can be identified by other artists as being a brilliant piece of work but if it doesn’t evoke an emotion I don’t think it is art.

So therefore the viewer brings all the value and some artist/photographers print their work to give the impression that you, the viewer, are taking the photograph. Some maintain that what they think when they took the photograph is of little importance because it is all in the hands of the viewer. Therefore, when taking a photograph it is impossible to know whether it will work or not because each viewer is going to have a different response.

Can you capture an emotional trigger poorly? Surely the viewer is either emotionally drawn to your work or not.

If you look at Raviliouis’ work it triggers an emotional response from me ranging from a wry smile to an all knowing nod and thoughts of my family. It captures a nostalgia of me growing up. But for you, who have not had my experiences it may not work. I just looks like the inside of an old style kitchen.


Graham

 

[Rachel Foster]

Well said! Excellent point.

I'm wondering what others think?