» Picture what?
Picture what?
Three weeks ago I sat down to watch the first installment of a programme called Channel 4’s ‘Picture This’, slightly disappointed that I hadn’t heard about the competition in time to enter, as digital photography and photo-sharing are a big part of my life.
By the end of the programme, instead, I was confused, angry and wanted to complain.
The fundamental flaw of the programme, established from the outset, was its lack of clarity. What kind of photographer are these judges looking for? An all-rounder, apparently - one who can do casual portraits, studio portraits, and documentary - and more areas, I gathered, in the two more episodes to come. I found this unrealistic, as most photographers find their niche and their style in one area and become renowned for that. It at least sounds more like the criteria of a bread-and-butter photographer, and yet, the competition rewards the final winner with an exhibition and a book, which alludes more to the fine-art photographer. Very confusingly, the judges seemed to want someone who can both be conventional and original, or at least, be conventional when they require it, and original at other times. As they judged the contestants’ final images, one person’s image was praised for being fitting nicely into what’s required for a left-spread in a magazine, whilst another contestant was criticised for their picture being the kind that is too often seen in magazines. Then another was mocked for looking like a shoot for a band’s new CD cover. What are they looking for, a photographer of commercial or fine-art value? It was absurdly unclear.
I cringed as I watched the programme precariously touch upon ‘retouching’. The contestant ‘has retouched the picture’, the voiceover trembled. The competition is apparently looking for ‘Britain’s best new digital photographer’, and yet, the traditional stance on photography demonstrated by the judges in the programme couldn’t be clearer. Is digital processing going to be treated like the plague in a programme that is supposed to be celebrating the digital age and the proliferation of photo-sharing - a programme sponsored by Flickr?
I have always upheld the notion that the ease and inexpense of digital photography has democratised photography, in that it has opened up the art to a whole world of people who might not have discovered it otherwise. To me, digital photography goes hand in hand with the proliferation of the use of digital post-processing in programs like Photoshop. In this programme, digital post-processing was represented as nothing more than ‘trickery’ and, referred to by Joy Gregory, as an ‘artifice’. The participant Tarlyn, who dared to manipulate her images, was rejected, and shown stating that she now wants to create ‘purer’ images. How much I wanted to get my point to her, that the judges are snobs of traditional photography and were in the wrong place judging a competition to find ‘Britain’s best new digital photographer’.
I personally hold strong the view that Photoshop is a tool like any other artistic instrument. I do not agree that it carries any less status than those techniques used traditionally, from filters fixed to cameras, to chemicals in the darkroom. All art involves having an artistic vision, and today, one’s vision has the opportunity to use computer-based tools, and that is a technological progression which we cannot ignore and should not be considered wrong. I find it absurd that some people think of Photoshop-based post-processing as ‘cheating’, as it can only add to a picture that has been composed well to begin with. Moreover, if the artist can create something magical from an initially poor picture, that is down to their skill on Photoshop. Photoshop is a challenging tool to use, and even the ‘Auto-correcting’ tools cannot necessarily be an instant answer to creating a successful image. It is when both production and post-production are intertwined skillfully that the results can be breathtaking.
As an exhibiting artist myself, in the judges’ eyes, I certainly can’t be a real photographer, but an artist of trickery and artifice. I was glad I didn’t bother trying to enter, only to have my hopes dashed by a set of sour ponces.
Picture shit
Little did I know that the third episode would rile me even further beyond belief.
I was personally unimpressed with most of candidates chosen by the producers to start with. But as I watched the final, and saw the stunning work of Lucinda Chua alongside her opponent’s, I was sure Lucinda would win. She clearly demonstrated herself to be the better photographer, if her professional use of lighting, setting, models and final selection of images was anything to go by. I was absolutely appalled by the ‘work’ of Elizabeth Gordon. She chose to document her history of alcoholism. In the judges’ eyes, she had a story, unlike Lucinda. Trouble is, she had no photographic skill to do anything with it. Was I the only viewer looking at a set of wonky outtakes akin to those that an amateur snapper would get developed at the local Max Spielmann’s? Hideously ‘composed’, poorly lit, and with absolutely no technical positives whatsoever, I could not believe this woman was in the final at all. That confused me enough, and yet, Elizabeth Gordon went on to win the competition and have a book and exhibition. I was speechless.
The first episode rejected Jay Mawson for having too ‘raw’ a talent; in the second episode, Ed Thompson was ejected for sticking too much to his usual professional documentary style and Aron Brown for not sticking to his style.
The final rejects Lucinda for having a look they apparently deemed too commercial and polished, and prized Elizabeth for having a ‘raw’ story.
Is it only me that sees massive and confused contradictions running throughout?
I can only come to the conclusion that this is a case of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Whatever the judges’ and the overall institution’s motives are for producing this show are evident in their choice of winner. At first, the privileges given to the arts-educated was clear. At the final hurdle, the tables are turned and the thumbsucking ex-alcoholic - whose deficient technical skills and generally blind habit of taking absolutely shit photos means she really should have gone at the first round - comes to represent democracy, ‘Britain’s best new digital photographer’. ‘I can’t believe I’m here!’ said Elizabeth at the launch of her book at The Photographer’s Gallery. Nah, neither can we.
Let’s face it, television as a medium is rubbish. The over-simplification, and condensation of matters it tries to ‘inform’ us about, might be invisible too much of the time, but becomes strikingly clear to the viewer who watches a programme themed on a topic close to their heart. TV is hardly the fairest and most democratic medium, but it will exploit illusions of democracy and meritocracy wherever it can.
I enjoyed watching the programme, not just because it led me to writing a heated response in which I can vent my energy, but because it taught me a valuable lesson. Not just that alcoholics apparently spit beer out into the air (perhaps that would solve the problem?) but that as long as you have a story, you can be an art photographer. All you have to do is take shitter pictures. (It makes me think of that massive crap amateur picture of a seagull on the weekend print stall by Brighton beach. Doesn’t matter if the photography’s crap, all you need is a stage.)
I’m off to ‘document’ my depression right now!
This entry was posted on Monday, January 21st, 2008 at 11:19 am and is filed under Essays, Links. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Blog
January 21st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
“Let’s face it, television as a medium is rubbish. The over-simplification, and condensation of matters it tries to ‘inform’ us about, might be invisible too much of the time, but becomes strikingly clear to the viewer who watches a programme themed on a topic close to their heart. TV is hardly the fairest and most democratic medium, but it will exploit illusions of democracy and meritocracy wherever it can.”
Very well put. Be reassured, anyone with a ‘topic close to their heart’, anyone seriously motivated by a driving passion, will find himself or herself totally let down when this becomes central to a conventional ‘old school’ television program format.
This will slowly change, very slowly. As far as photography is concerned I think that Flickr tells us much more about contemprary photography than any program put together by a ChannelFour producer ever could.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
hear hear. Early on I shared your confusion at the contradictions but also was amazed each week with the selection comments, the clipped process and the results! Bizarrely, I couldnt understand why Liz won - I guess becuase she needed the foot up most so perhaps this was a charitable decision!? I was pleased to hear Lucinda had obtained some good work since the program started. I presume Ed too went on to finish his degree.
I thought the program sounded great as a concept - shame it didnt really pan out that way.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
YES thanks for your comments!
@ Malcolm -”I think that Flickr tells us much more about contemprary photography than any program put together by a ChannelFour producer ever could”
- yes. Squeezing such a huge art/phenomenon into a total of three hours of TV, which tries to judge everything about six photographers’ talents (in ALL areas) and also give the three hours some kind of narrative is a ridiculously tall order… of course, that’s TV… but I don’t think the programme could have made things much easier for itself by focusing on one area of the art, and specifying what they want - e.g documentary photographer.
@ Grant - Yes, I saw Lucinda’s subsequent press work and I am glad she ‘won’ in that way. Her work is more commercial, that’s true, but that certainly doesn’t mean it’s not ‘art’ photography, work fit for galleries. When I first saw her work I immediately thought it was perfect for modern photography galleries. To be quite honest and blunt, I don’t think Elizabeth’s work is fit for any branch of professional photography.
——FYI:——
After the first programme, I sent my thoughts into C4 through the website. This was the reply:
“Dear Natalie
“Thanks for your comments about Picture This which we have taken on board.
“Digital post-processing is a contentious issue and has caused much discussion. Some people felt that it was wrong to include any post-processing whilst others, yourself included, felt that photoshopping images is an integral part of digital photography.
“In trying to a series of programmes that would appeal to a large audience (over a million people watched last Sunday) we had to take the editorial decision to not make the series feel niche or narrow in scope. It would have been quite possible to make a series which focused entirely on a single discipline within the hugely varied photographic world but chances are that we wouldn’t have made such an accessible programme. One of the reasons that Channel 4 commissioned this as a fully interactive proposition with a website running alongside was to encourage viewers to develop their interests online where more complex/technical photographic discussions can take place.
Best wishes,
Donna Clark
Executive Producer”
——
January 21st, 2008 at 4:13 pm
It seems im not alone in wanting to cry when I saw this terrible excuse for a photography programme. The winning ‘photographer’ is nothing of the sort, she couldnt take a photograph for toffee! I put my family/pet/messing about snapshots on flickr too, but I wouldnt dream of entering them in any sort of competition, let alone win!
January 21st, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Oh my- did I write this blog?! :S I must have because Ive been ranting about this since the programme began! Thank you so much Natalie for (in such lovely words) highlighting the ridiculousness of those judges decisions…
I will admit though I really enjoyed the programme in some aspects, made me feel excited about my career and was interested to hear about the different areas, but golly, the first episode…. I seriously cringed when the voice over said “retouched” (!!!) and they showed the original and final- it was ridiculous! it was a DIGITAL photography competition! How archaic could they be?!
Lucinda Chuas work was original, professional, interesting and intelligent imo, and she seemed lovely too
I liked Jays “eye” as they described too…. basically those judges, as you pointed out, seemingly had no idea what they wanted and changed it every week!
Hmph. Anyway, thank you very much for writing this, Im all riled up now though!
January 21st, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Nice to know that I am not alone in being totally confused by the judges decisions. Nicely summed up Natalie.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I was also frustrated by the programme, and glad I decided not to apply. The indecision and contradiction in expectation was appalling! But you have to remember that the judges were using these photographers as part of their own advertising campaign about themselves.
I liked Lucinda’s work and all the way through I thought she would win…until last night, and I am glad Lizz won. Yes, Lucinda is technically more proficient, but she showed so little creativity. Whereas Lizz had all the creative energy, but not so much of the technical skill. Which one of those can be taught? ONLY the technique - a creative eye is innate.
Lucinda’s work is good, and I believe she will go a long way, but her stuff is very similar to other upcoming photographers doing exactly the same thing. Lizz was bringing something of herself to the photography, and the pictures showed it. I think it’s unfair to judge the pictures, when we only saw a badly edited set of 10. Perhaps the book will show the rawer, more profound images, that she chose to leave off the tele.
Lizz showed a lot of courage, she risked a lot to present a message. That’s what photography is about: messages, impact, emotion. Going back to the point about the judges wanting someone they can ‘use’ - Lizz was the best person for them. They can shape and refine her vision. Lucinda showed she was quite set in her ways.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
@ Nick - lol!
@ Lucy - haha thank you very much, glad I could voice something similar to what you felt! It did rile me too, but it feels much better to share my views with others through this blog post.
Oh yes, I loved watching the programme for reasons other than getting wound up - simply watching people take pics was fun and made me want to go and take pics in Brighton on rainy days. Lol
@ Darren - my pleasure and thank you also.
@ Ruth - thanks for your contribution. I do disagree with you because I did not see any raw talent in Liz. I think she had a very bad eye for photography, so, whether she’s got innate creativity or not, she can’t translate those ideas into good imagery. Right from the click of the shutter. (in my opinion of course).
The show was never clear on whether they wanted someone with raw talent or polished talent. You say that Liz has raw talent, as the judges said, but what about Jaw Mawley, who they rejected in the first week for having too ‘raw’ a talent..?
Converse to what you argue about creative energy versus technical skill, I would insist it should be the other way round. It is more important to have someone with technical skill, an eye for images, than merely an idea about what to say. But to sum it up as those two opposites would be glib - because of course Lucinda has stuff to communicate in her work, as anyone else. That boils down to the oversimplification of the programme, being TV. But as the competition sought the best new ‘photographer’, I did, maybe naively, think that the winner would be good at photography. Not at simply having a story. Everyone has one of those.
I agree that the judges had their own agenda going on!
January 21st, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Ma’am,
I totally agree - I was demoralised by the end of episode 1 and never stayed around to watch the end. To find out that Elizabeth Gordon went on to win means that I made the right decision and saved myself for something a little more useful (like watching Eastenders).
I don’t mind what they were after - but they should have spelled it out clearly from the start, followed it up with some help and advice from experts, and kept true to it to the end.
I also agree with most of your comments about Photoshop - but there are degrees… It is quite easy to misrepresent under some circumstances and I feel a bit uneasy about that. Where the use of PS is acknowledged (as with you for example) I have no problem at all - but in some cases elements are placed in compositions and the resultant picture is passed off as a “straight capture” - and I’m not totally comfortable with that…
In the meantime I have learned more from my time on Flickr from people like you, who are not afraid to share their work, than from any amount of tv programs or glossy magazines…
Thank you, Ma’am.
January 21st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
dear Miss Anela
Now that the Leeds Flikr group have gone off the boil, I am delighted to see you are taking over as the major critic of Picture This. I am sure that Lucinda will have no problems picking up assignments and I will be delighted that this will potentially happen. It will be difficult for Lizz to find another subject matter that is as poignant for her as re-enacting her previous alcohol problem. But she has boundless enthusiasm and I am sure even you would wish her well in this pursuit. The point I want to make is that you and all the other people that got so annoyed are doing exactly what is meant to happen. That is, we are all discussing photography as a serious and potentially engaging medium. It would be a dull world if we all agreed with each other. Should C4 re-commission this , I am sure they will learn from this process, as it was a new format, and had to be worked out as the programme deveoped.
Martin Parr
January 21st, 2008 at 6:34 pm
@ Martin Parr (assuming it is genuinely the judge from the programme),
Thank you for your comment.
Are you saying that sympathy led to Liz’s win? That’s what I interpret in your words “It will be difficult for Lizz to find another subject matter that is as poignant for her as re-enacting her previous alcohol problem”, as if she must be given the prize because there’s little else awaiting her in the arts. You insist she “has boundless enthusiasm”. So has a dog. I thought this was a photography competition?
Yes, we’re all talking about it. Yes, interesting issues have been raised. Quite frankly though, I’m quite shocked by the lack of research and focus gone into the aims of this programme before it ever started advertising for contestants. The producer Donna Clark insisted that the programme wouldn’t have been so “accessible”, presumably, if it didn’t attack all areas of photography, contradict itself, ask for everything from everyone and generally create a jumbled mess of art values.
You say in a rather sarcastic tone that I am “tak[ing] up the front line of Picture This bashing”. No, what I am doing is giving my opinion on various aspects of a TV programme as a disappointed, but engaged, viewer, on an art that I am actively engaged in myself. As an artist, I was personally offended by the attitudes to digital post-processing. As an art-viewer, I was simply disturbed at the choice of winner. As both artist and viewer I was simply confused.
You can disagree with me on these topics as much as you wish, but I do not consider your antagonism of my freedom of speech to be in good taste.
If art is in the eye of the beholder, it brings me to say that after reviewing the work in the judges’ portfolios, I find it easier to understand why they identify with Elizabeth Gordon’s images.
By the way, what happened to Joy Gregory in the final show?
@ Colonel Killgore
Thank you. Eastenders, lol!
I see what you mean about Photoshop and misinterpretation, mainly because of the awkward context into which it was put.
Thank you very much for your final comment. I agree, there are some jewels to be found on Flickr and those artists have inspired me beyond what I ever expected from the site.
January 21st, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Such a beautiful love story of an artist tortured by omnipresent absurdity.
January 21st, 2008 at 6:52 pm
That does sound pretty trashy.
I don’t like how traditionalists act like Photoshop is fake, when all it does most of the time is recreate actual dark room methods. Is it fake when they do that stuff in the dark room? All it does is put those methods in the hands of the common person, who in turn doesn’t have to spend years learning how to perfect it. God forbid something get easier, and progression actually happens. I don’t believe in altering photojournalistic pictures beyond lighting, but with portraiture and other things, all that matters is the final image. I think that’s right …
January 21st, 2008 at 7:15 pm
If I had a soap box on which to stand where I thought people would listen then this is exactly what I would have said.
I find Martin’s response “as it was a new format, and had to be worked out as the programme deveoped” kind of interesting. I read between the lines here that Liz winning would make good telly.
January 21st, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Most of the contributors to Flickr are as enthusiastically talentless as the “Picture This” winner. I suspect that Flickr had a say in picking a winner whose success would leave most site members feeling warm and fuzzy. Except for the writers on this blog!
January 21st, 2008 at 8:20 pm
That’s an interesting point, Gordon!
@ Jamie - I agree…
@ Richard - thank you. Yes I agree with your point.
@ Jestem - :>)
January 21st, 2008 at 9:16 pm
lizz won the competition because she a big idea and was able to find images that expressed her vulnerability during this phase of her life. So when I say it will be difficult to find a project with such a clear remit , I am sure you understand what I mean. As for implying that I was against you expressing your opinion about the programme, nothing could be further from the truth. Your points were valid and well argued. I may not agree, but as I mentioned before all good debate is welcome. I would also add that the producers main priority was to focus on the assignments, and eventually an opportinity for the finalists to persue their own projects. To have spent too much time on examining photo shop and the intracacies of digital processing would have made the programme too techy.
January 21st, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I couldn’t agree more with you. Like Master Shout on the BBC it struck me that the winner had already been selected before the programme had been made. It dismayed me to see somebody with a camera that appeared to be stuck on ‘auto’ (a bit like her creativity) throughout the series, actually walk away with the prize.
Bottom line is would anyone out there part with their hard earned cash to buy the book or tickets to the exhibition?
Personally I wouldn’t.
A Flickr group I moderate has picked up on this (where I picked up you blog) with some ‘interesting’ responses.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/miltonkeynes/discuss/72157603758309420/
January 21st, 2008 at 10:16 pm
ah that wasn’t just me then! I’ve noticed this trend a lot across galleries recently, auto + subject + pretentious bollocks = AMAZING photo, Sometimes maybe they are, I’m still confused about the blur between art for the sake of art and what a photograph should truly be but it did seem hugely unfair that Lucinda lost just because the other one had something to exploit. It could have easily gone the other way and martin parr would have been there saying ‘this was such an obvious route to go down, been done a million times before etc etc’. From the number of times the judges had completely opposing opinions on things you can see just how almost randomly subjective it is unfortunately.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:02 pm
I didnt think much of any of the pics in the programme
think theres lots better on Flickr overall.
Any post prossesing is a must and has been for ever since photography started so why they sniggered at digital post production snobby ###
i think of it as part of the experience these days .
why didnt anyone know about the show and Flickr
didnt say either ??????
thers a record attempt at the minute to beat a record for the most pics
bbc.co.uk/whereilive
January 21st, 2008 at 11:26 pm
oh dear,
you folk honestly think mr parr would justify the programme on here. you’re almost as naive as lucinda. personally i thought jay deserved more of a chance but as outlined above, was the program about ‘discovering’ raw talent or fine tuning the art-house brigade (i think 5 of them were educated at a higher level in the arts - jay was economics). hmmm, that’s made me think - did the producers fear having those less articulate or more liable to utter a swear word.
so the next show (i think overall the idea did work) i want to see diversity in age, experience and user-friendliness. at times lucinda’s tweeness was painful.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:26 am
I’m not going to enter into this here (Natalie knows my position) but will confirm for any doubters that the gentleman posting as ‘Martin Parr’ is indeed Martin; he’s contributed to various forums on Flickr on this topic over the last few weeks and the prose/argument is very much in line with what has gone before.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:07 am
Clearly…You are one of the BEST photographers in the World!!!
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:29 am
Okay, so I’ve been thinking long and hard about this topic.
I understand why the use of Photoshop in photography is a contentious issue for some people. Before digital cameras and digital editing software became easily accessible by the majority of the population, photography, as an art form, was generally perceived to be based primarily in a relatively objective* reality despite how fantastic or surreal an image was created using post-processing techniques, lighting, and angles. With the advent of Photoshop, the reality of the scene is now in question. Granted, many of the tools used in Photoshop are the same actions that can also be created in a darkroom. Much like film photographs can be “saved” from a slightly incorrect exposure or processed to create a certain effect, Photoshop can also provide these benefits to the photographer. Also, the same rigorous standards**–composition, exposure, aperture, iso settings, focus–must be met in both film and digital photography in order for the image to be considered aesthetically evocative. However, the difference, and where the problem lies, is when the digital image moves beyond what is considered traditional manipulations of photography and transcends into the blurred boundaries between painting and photography–such as Miss Aniela’s photography–or into the area of composition. Photoshop does allow artists to extend into an area that previously was unattainable through traditional photography methods, and artists can end up with an image that is nearly unrecognizable from the original photo, which, to some, contradicts entirely with the purpose and artistry of photography. Unfortunately, this also leads to the devaluation of artwork that is created using Photoshop, which is unfair and discredits artists and their work. Potentially, the answer could be to delineate between photography and digital manipulation (which will possibly evolve into its own category as an art form) based on the extent of Photoshop used. But, of course, there is no distinguishable line to draw, which is why expanding our definition of photography can give credence to those who use Photoshop expertly. However the end result is created should not affect the appreciation of the work. Simply because something is new should not prevent people from expanding their view of what is or isn’t considered art. I understand that coalescing traditional photography with modern technology is difficult given the definition and ideals society has created around photography, but that does not necessarily mean that the difficulty should get in the way of appreciating and valuing what are impressive and innovative images.
I also looked on the Picture This website at the contestants photos. Television likes the rise above trouble and strife. It makes a good story. It makes people human and interesting. Television executives believe it will sell. And it does…at least for the duration of the show. As well, giving people who are not as professionally accomplished the opportunity to succeed is charitable and uplifting for the viewing audience which creates this aura that the viewer too has the ability to succeed. As an avid watcher of America’s Next Top Model, I have seen model after model win the competition based on her victory over adversity or their dramatic improvement over the course of her competition while the models with both modeling skills and looks disappear quickly. However, those models often continue on to have successful print careers based on their abilities that are not continuously associated with a reality show. That being said, I could not appreciate the work done by Elizabeth Gordon. I agree with Miss Aniela’s assessment that the lighting and composition suffered from choices that were uninspiring and mediocre. I am not sure if the photographers needed a requisite number of photos for the last round, but her portfolio could have benefited from some pruning as some photos did stand out more than others.
I thought about this all day. Hence the long-winded reply. Cheers.
*I actually strongly believe that photography in any form or style is inherently subjective, but I think a lot of people view photography as being a more objective art form than painting for example.
**As varied and subjective as these standards may be amongst photographers and viewers.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:28 am
Miss Aniela,
Interesting rant you have here, I was directed to this blog from your last posted photo on flickr. Unfortunately I have not seen the show you are referring to as it is not aired in Canada. At any rate, I thought I would share a view of my opinions on some of the concepts you discussed.
For starters, as you well know photography is very subjective and what is art to one is dogshit to another. I am often amazed at the rubbish I see in some galleries that people pass off as ‘art’. However, the bottom line is that some people are better salesmen then photographers, and while their work may be crap to us…they are often able to convince others that it isn’t…..and often sell the work for ridiculous amounts of money. The bottom line is that we all have different tastes. Keeping this in mind, I think you should be careful when you call others’ work ’spectacular shit’ as I believe you put it. With that said, I haven’t seen the particular photos that you speak of, but I’m sure my opinion of them wouldn’t differ much from yours.
I think people use what they can to try and sell their work…be it charisma, some socio-economic psychobabble bullshit that appeals to the ‘art’ crowd, or even sex. Many would argue that you, while quite talented receive much of your attention based on the fact that you are a pretty girl rather than solely for your Photoshop and photog skills.
If I were to play Devil’s Advocate for a second…an argument could be made that a much older woman of lesser beauty, or even a man with a similar skillset to you would not be nearly as successful with a portfolio consisting almost completely of self-portraits. I know you have probably been told this before, and I am not judging one way or the other, I simply think it’s a reality. Does this detract from your talent as an artist?
I don’t think so. Does this help you sell your work…absolutely.
So what’s my point??? I guess it’s to live and let live, we are all guilty of leveraging ourselves in the way we can best, be it thru sex appeal, or the ability to sell complete shit photos to a gallery and call it art.
By the way, I like your last shot you posted from Milan!
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:58 am
@ Pete - thanks for your comment and for the link!
@ Martin Parr,
Thanks for your encouragement, I agree debate is a good thing.
In understand your point. I don’t think I would have particularly wished for the show to concentrate on the techy parts of Photoshop processing, just to welcome it as part of the process as much as it focused on the camera photography setups themselves - to which they did devote moments.
On a side note, this debate had led me to think about emotion in art, and why in this case, fans of Liz’s work will consider her work emotional because she acted the ‘emotional’ part at the time the shutter clicked.
As a self portrait artist myself, I know that my instincts rarely go that way, I always want to dramatise my images to the point where they become illusions. Does this mean that the end result is something false and meaningless? No, because we forget that the viewer brings something to the meaning/emotion of a pic. For example, those people who tell me that my work evokes particular memories for them - memories of their own lives. I’m not showcasing my own life as such - well, as much as Liz in her series. However, I do count my work as autobiographical in a different sense. Depression was a big part of my early work, and some pieces directly tried to incorporate the experience visually; also, written narrative is a big part of my Flickr photostream content, but the concept in my artwork usually comes after I have taken and processing the picture.
All I’m trying to suggest here is Photoshop/heavy post-processing of any kind doesn’t necessarily eradicate any emotion that was there to begin with, as if the ‘emotion’ can only be ‘contained’ at the point of capture. It can indeed enhance it, as a painter would work.
That’s not only in response to the issue of Liz’s images, but also in reply to your comment on Flickr users yesterday in the Leeds group. I would like to explore this issue, of emotion, further in another blog or Flickr post.
@ Mark - i thought so too, i thought that ‘they could easily have gone down another route’ at any point in the programmme..had a different attitude to someone/something… the point where I most didn’t ‘get it’ was when Ed Thompson, the documentary photographer, got kicked off for fulfilling the brief.
@ Beasty
yeah I agree. Thanks for the link.
@ Paul - I had no idea that Martin Parr would turn up here, and I am pleased that we can have direct opinion from one the judges themselves. Yes, I expect him to justify the programme, doesn’t mean we can’t have a debate.
I didn’t notice Lucinda’s ‘tweeness’ or naivety but I thought she was a good photographer, which is surely what mattered.
@ Jay - thank you.
@ Juliet- yeah, i thought about it all day, and night too ….and all night after the first programme. Haha. Cheers for your input, interesting points.
@ Clint - You have an interesting point about people’s individual leverage. Of course, I don’t like people undermining me because they believe I am stunning in real life and that my job of taking SPs is made magnificently easy, but I do accept that my youth and body may provide me with a certain ‘leverage’. I try to say this whilst insisting that sometimes I feel like the ugliest person in the world, and that I can’t bare to see myself move and speak on video camera, and also that self-portraiture is, most of the time, a visual refuge for me to ‘fix’ an ideal mirage of myself.
As for my blunt words on Liz - perhaps I didn’t expect as much of a response as I have received, or maybe I just ignored the fact that someone would be reading my words after I’d posted them. All I know is that I felt disgruntled enough to write that way, although I think I will try to be a bit more rational and composed now!
>>>
I don’t mean to patronise by addressing everyone with ‘thanks’ and ‘I agrees’, I just want to thank everyone for joining in with this discussion, whatever their opinion. At times like this I realise how great a tool the internet is…
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Miss A,
You sucked me in here, damn you! I read your blog and enjoyed the rant, and then felt that I couldnt comment without expressing massive bias toward your point without seeing the programme for myself. I cranked up 4OD and watched the programme:
For me there was a clear winner, (robbed) in Lucinda. Now, I acknowledge your point about subjectivity and a personal view here, but given the structure of the programme from the outset, I feel that they denied themselves their own natural response in favour of a sensationalist reaction to a photo series with a drama of a personal tradgey (reminds me of the Tracey Emin myth). TV is a sucker for a facile story and sees this as meritorious. But then the producers of the programme are probably right in their judgement of the reaction of the general public to this kind of choice; the public constantly seem to vote for the familiar, base, standard, innevitable, rather than anything that offers any delight, intention, or precision. I think that this conclusion was a crying shame but it is so often true of TV that the ‘judgement’ handed out by specialists or indeed the public, favours the mediocre.
You refer to a ‘topic close to your heart’ , and here I can empathise. I am an Architect, and I suffer the continual erosion of a profession and an art through the middle-minded opinions of TV personalities and ‘experts’ alike. As far as I can see, the debate in any artistic forum can not be held on TV; it is debasing. You certainly shouldnt reflect your work, and your pursuit of something extraordinary in my mind, in the content of the TV debate. Had you submitted your work; whatever the outcome, it would have been devalued through it’s ill founded celebrity, and ultimately that would be destructive. You are better than that and then some.
Further; (dare I, but you started this so you only have yourself to blame!)Regarding the ‘Photoshop’ debate:
This is a continuation of a debate that I have had with another photographer over the last few years, one that was recently galvanised in my mind. Photography has always involved pos-production as far as I can see, film has always been processed and printed. The true image only exists on film before the chemical, (or our eyes) have touched it. Great photographers have used ‘post-production’ techniques and image manipulation forever, albeit masks and blurs at the printing stage. For me this is no different from Photoshop.
Flickr is a great resource to evaluate where we feel great photography lies and the strength of the best work on Flickr is still born out of great photography. I count your work amongst the best that I have seen, and that is because you are a great photographer, and then a great image maker; you show immense skill with the tools that you use. There are numerous examples on Flickr of work that has been ‘tinkered-with’ and yet not rescued from being a terrible photograph. I am convinced that there is room for pureist photography, (however that is defined) and I am absolutely sure that the is room for, and merit in, creative imaging; Exemplified by your work.
Your work is truly excellent, and your prolific portfolio is testament to your artistry and your endless imagination.
Keep working, and thanks for the diatribe!! Never be shy!
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:20 am
I haven’t seen the show, but can well imagine the frustration you and others here felt, the subject being so close to your hearts. As for your argument inre the integral role of post-processing in the digital age, my opinion, for what it’s worth is that photography (like cameras) is going through a transition period at the moment, making the art unclear or perhaps just too complex for people to process using the traditional understanding of what photography is (just as the digital SLR is complex). There needs to be a lot of catch-up work done on the part of the viewer/user. Having said that, however, I am also of the opinion, being an analoque nut, that digital technology and photo-shopping can move photography further away from what i personally love about it, which is its ability to capture the complexity of human life in natural light. I realise that, since Daguerrotype, there has always been a spectrum of manipulation in photography, after all, it is a medium, and also that my view is a very restricted one these days, but it is my view. One of my favourite photographers is Wolfgang Tillmans, for the reasons stated above. He is able to capture nature (human or otherwise) with the minimum of fuss.
I therefore view your self-portraits (and the portraits of Lucinda Chua, which have a similar feel, perhaps explaining your affinity for them?) as a kind of fantasy or fantastic photography, which is nearer to painting. The softened light and unnatural colouration/saturation are examples of this fantasy. Don’t get me wrong, I like some of your pictures, for their originality, composition, and the light you create/enhance using photo shop, but I much prefer photos taken with the minimum of manipulation before/after the fact. I also prefer analogue to digital and B/W to colour. Call me old-fashioned, but I am in the David Hockney/Jean-luc Godard camp when it comes to photography today, i.e. photography should be truth. I agree with you that Liz whatshername’s photos are shit though.
Keep on keepin on!
Phil Sawkins
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Fantastic work!!
Can I use some images in my blog?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
dear Anelia
I looked at your self portaits. You are an attractive woman and therefore the images look good. However
I am not sure what your images are about,this is where Lizz scored because she had a strong message she want to communicate through her images. Remember we are all most critical of the work that is like our own.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:40 pm
@Martin, I disagree entirely, Lizz didn’t have a strong message, she had a transparent, glib message that was easily pigeon-holed and defined in the programme. I wouldn’t dare speak for Lucinda, or Miss Aniela, but to me their work is deep and layered, considered and imaginative, and derived from a pursuit of something particular, rather than the facile, immediate false-reportage seen in the work by Lizz. For me, this programme was an example of the common TV obsession with a simple narrative.
(I hope you don’t mind my slightly presumptive response, but I felt that I wanted to comment on your statement.)
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:44 pm
I too was left a little confused when I viewed the 2nd half of the final. However, no more confused than by the art of the likes of Damien Hirst! The styles were very different and I was surprised that Liz won.
I was further confused at the end of the program by the winner’s images of the shoes of fellow alcoholics (with their feet in them)! Subjective, yes. Creative? No, not to me anyhow!
January 24th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Gosh, this has fleshed out a lot!
I think people are being overly harsh. I’m sure even Lizz knows that her technical skills need working on. But to say that she has a ‘glib’ ’simple’ message is actually quite offensive. The only reason I can see for people thinking that, is their OWN perception of what alcoholism is (simplistic…drink and get drunk etc). Lizz was showing what alcoholism was like for her…what is the problem with that? I really cannot understand why people have a problem with her using her personal experience. Do you have a problem with Jo Spence’s work, because she documented her experiences as ‘phototherapy’? Somehow I doubt it. Is that because it was about cancer, and not some “self-inflicted” mental disorder?
Autobiographical work is brave…and no, that’s not a reason to win on its own…but when the images show their message and meet the expectations she set in her project, then she has succeeded in the task. She achieved what she said she was setting out to do.
I don’t think the judges felt Lucinda had fulfilled anything coherent - I certainly didn’t really understand what she was trying to do with the series…the only thing that seemed coherent in the work was that it was all shot in a library.
I DO hope that Lucinda goes far though. She is a very good photographer, and seems lovely! She mentioned in the last show that she has a residency in the states coming up. Perhaps that will offer her more than winning the comp would have done. Things generally happen for a reason if your heart is in the right place, which hers evidently is!
January 24th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Martin Parr is “I am not sure what [Natalie's] images are about…”
Hmm, then according to his criteria I should henceforth dismiss the work of photographers, past, present and future, whose images resonate somehow for me, fascinate and inspire me, in spite of my not having the foggiest notion of ‘what they are about’.
January 24th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
@Ruth; You misundertand my point; it is not that her former condition was glib and simple per se, but that it is an istantly accesible story for a TV audience. This, I fear, is why it was seen to be sucessful.
January 25th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Ha, Martin Parr’s immature response,
“You are an attractive woman and therefore the images look good. However
I am not sure what your images are about”
All I can say is cheers to Pheasant and Malcolm for their excellent comebacks. Any respect I had for this photographer, whom obviously has some recognition in the photography world, has gone straight out of the window… not only regarding that crap last sentence, but that naive, school-boy’s assumption that my pictures are born of some ready-made natural beauty that is recorded effortlessly on camera. Some people have no idea how much work goes into the self-portrait process (and I’m talking about images a little more complex than Lizz Gordon’s Snappy Snaps).
Note to M. Parr - My name is spelt ANIELA.
January 25th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Natalie, you have done more to stir up the debate here than a roomful of producers could ever do and that is a brilliant thing. I know the point has bit made but this was about ratings and potential sales/ agendas of all those involved, (publishers, flickr pro accounts, the judges etc). The final winning edit was incredibly naive and I agree that both technically and emotionally the winner was floundering in an area she didnt understand herself yet, this could have led to some very brave and emotionally raw images but instead left me feeling empty. I learnt nothing about either her personal battle with alcoholism or the subject matter itself. It must be difficult to pick an area that has been dealt with so many times by photographers that can convey at least some part of the wide gamut of emotions an alcoholic or any addict must go through. It would have been far more honest of the judges and indeed liz’s mentor to have helped her gain some insight into how to convey any emotion- but as a producer ratings chasing is paramount- hence clips of an emotional crying and heartfelt Liz, but a complete lack of feeling in her shots. It was shocking that not one of the judges felt strong enough to point out the images should be able to stand alone in their own right. But like i said it has led to some very interesting discussions and probably a surge in Flickr sign-up.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Miss Aniela,
I’m sorry, but I agree with Martin Parr’s (albeit admittedly clumsy) comment about your photos which I think, in your haste and anger, you have misunderstood. Your pics would not look half as good, nor attract the number of comments on Flickr, if you were fat, ugly and flat-chested. That is not “an immature response” but a sad reality of life (and photography). That is NOT to say that your work on the images (pre and post) is worth nothing. It is clear that you work hard and add value through that work. However, that does not change the fact that what you are working with/on is already halfway decent because of your looks. Surely you cannot be denying that? If so, I’m afraid it is you who is naive, and Martin Parr (if it is the real one) who reveals his experience in the photo business.
Perhaps the Martin Parr here would be so kind as to prove his identity by answering this simple question: At which German airport did you shoot in 2007?
January 25th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
@ Phil - Perhaps my looks makes it easier for people to look at my pics. Doesn’t make it any easier to create them.
For Martin Parr to put forth that one single remark after looking at my work is indeed, in my eyes, an immature response. There is no allusion at all to my craft as an artist in the sentence “You are an attractive woman and therefore the images look good”.
I do not let my anger, if I do ever feel angry, push me away from rationale, but my response to those viewers who get sucked into the beauty of my pictures is often slight amusement - that they cannot see further than the model and seem to forget she is also the artist, working completely independently in juggling both sides of the camera.
@ DarkDaze - I think you are right.
I’d say that Ruth’s response to Lizz’s work is quite human and acceptable but it is the televisual staging of the work, and her winning the competition, that makes her work to seem ‘empty’ to others like you and I, but of course, as Pheasant says, that cynicism is not toward the alcoholism itself.
Cheers for your comment.
January 25th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Wow, another thread! and Martin and Jay beat me to it! lol, I did finish the MA, got a distinction for my Texas Hill Country series (it’s currently being exhibited in London at the printspace gallery/prolab at 74 Kingsland road Shoreditch, i recommend seeing it as my own work is shot on medium format film and it certainly looks better as a c-type print than on a TV screen or monitor) Currently doing the rounds with my portfolio in London, I’d worked for five years before the show professionally and I continue to power through the grind that is working as a freelance photographer in London. Photography or Die!
January 26th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
dear aniela,
i have been inspired by your photos, your writing style and in general, your pursuits. however, i’m curious to know what it is that you do for a living? you seem to have a whole lot of time to take photos, write and in general, ‘free’ time.
just curious.
a
January 27th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Well put. I have not seen the program as I do not live in the UK, but the way you describe it does not surprise me. Perhaps photography more than any art has a number of snobs that seem to think they know what photography is and any one not sticking to their rules in their view is hardly worth talking to. I seem to remember someone commenting on your phototream in flickr that your portraits were not properly ligthed, unlike the ones she made herself, whereas upon checking hers, I indeed perfectly ligthed but otherwise dull and boring portraits.
I like to think that it is the impression a picture gives is what counts, not the way in which a picture is made. If e.g. you could make your pictures, including the multiplicity ones, without photoshop, great, but does the fact that photoshop was used make these pictures any less worth looking at and appreciate? Still, however, there are people, fossiles in photography consider anything ‘new’ as a threath and therefore not right. Could it be that they are afraid of new techniques because they are not good in it? What makes a ‘pure photo’? is dodging and burning in the darkroom allowed? Is a lightmeter allowed? is actually anything else but a pinhole camera or perhaps a Daguerotype allowed to make ‘pure pictures’.
As for the obvious lack of direction in the criticism of the judges, I presume this show is just a spin-off of ‘Idols’, X-factor, or ‘America’s next top model’ where it sometimes seems the criticism is what needs to draw the viewers. Let me make a bold statement on the judges in this case: “if they were good photographers themselves, they would not be on that show but they’d be out taking pictures”.
Since the unevitable comment of: “your photo’s would not attract so much attention if you were not attractive yourself” (yawn), I’ll say something about that too. I kinda like Jessica Alba. I think she is gorgeous and I do not mind seeing one or two pictures of her, but if I see 5 or 6 I already get bored. I cannot remember ever being bored by one of your pictures. Mind you not every single one of them is a masterpiece, but they are good and they make me think. Yes, there is T&A in your pictures but there is T&A all over the internet, including flickr that perhaps solely on T&A quality can compete, but not on overall photographic ‘interestingness’. One of my most favourite pictures (but also a heart wrenching one) on flickr by the way is one of a definitely unattractive woman (a sea gypsy) in a boat. Do I care that you use photoshop. No, often it even puts me in awe thinking ‘how the f*ck did she do that’. Apart from pure (but not any less interesting) ‘gadgetry’ (as in use of photoshop) your pictures have, they also are showcases of pure unadultered creativity. Knowing how to pres a shutter and how to use photoshop is one thing, deciding what picture you are going to make is another. I can make a multiplicity picture, it is as simple as making thea, but mine are just what they are: a picture with me in it more than once, nothing more, nothing less. Yours are pieces of art.
Anyway, I am focusing to much on you rather than on the ‘essence’ of the ‘Picture This’ programme, so let me conclude my rant (English is not my mother tongue so I cannot put it all so to the point as I’d wish) with an example of something similar that actually got me pissed, years ago.
No doubt you know the violinist Vanessa Mae Vanakorn. She is an internationally known and succesful classical violinist. Years ago, when she was still young, she made a few ‘popularized’ versions of classical violin pieces (e.g. ‘toccata in fuge’). At that time, several classical musicians, who claimed to be now it alls, said that she had made herself completely ridiculous with this and that no serious concermaster would ever hire her again for any serious work. Well, Vanessa Mae went on with classical violin and is now considerd to be the richest young entertainer in Britain whereas I have completely forgotten who her critics were. In a more recent past: remember Jennifer Kate Hudson? who was heavily criticized in ‘American Idol’, was thrown out and went on to star next to Beyonce Knowles in the movie ‘Dreamgirls’ for which she received over a dozen awards, including a Golden Globe Award and an Acedamy award for best female support role. I am sure Aniela that if you had had time to join into ‘Picture This’ you may well have been out in the first round for ‘not sticking to groundrules of photography’ and ‘overuse of photoshop’. I personally would have seen that as a compliment! And as far as T&A have anything to do with it: I look at yóur pictures whereas instead I could roam the internet for porn and tons of T&A. Come to think of it: My local Media Market invited me for today to come and shoot a couple of Playboy models with some new Olympus camera, but here I am looking at your pictures. I guess that settles the T&A issue.
Sorry for my long story
EdMD
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I have several views on Picture This. I agree the criteria weren’t clearly thought out but I think what the judges were looking for were photos which were both visually exciting and had content. A lot of photos I see on flickr are there for visual purposes and no other - which is fine as it is with fine art, formalism etc., - but I personally think photography’s formalism is ultimately based in the narrative. I agree that the technical quality of the winner’s photos weren’t great but they told a story and had narrative content, which I believe is what photography is, ultimately, about. Lucinda’s pictures were images without any true content, I thought. They didn’t speak or say anything, they were simply very good technically. Then again, I’m a press photographer and come from the school of thought that photos should be based in the real world rather than the imagined. I’m aware that photography can also play with the dreamed and imagined to contest this notion, but I think the judges were looking for content as well as technicality…
February 13th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Whether the winner was the correct choice I’ll leave for others to discuss. What has disappointed me the most is people stating she wasat least telling a story!! I could happily go along with this if it wasn’t for the fact that when it came to picture selection Liz bottled it. Her failure to display her more emotional “and best” pics was like failing to right the final chapter of the book
February 16th, 2008 at 1:56 am
Hello Aniela,
I love your pictures and your blog seems interesting, but the small print size you use makes it hard to read…
Just wanted to give some feedback.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Aniela
An interesting debate, but one that will never be settled I guess until people realise that a darkroom, a diffusion filter, chemicals, paper, bleach and a brush create an image of the same subjective quality and finish, as a memory card, laptop, photoshop and an inkjet printer. Both types of images are ‘valid’ because all images are subjective, and whos to say what makes a photo good?, who knows?. Who can actually sit on a pedestal and dictate that. There are basics in composition / tonality / subject and lighting that we as photographers can apply but equally some opposites to the rules work also especially when good photography is in the eye of the beholder. I saw the programme, and to be honest hadn’t really bothered to make an opinion of the content, because what I was watching were people ‘having a go’. Fair enough we are all critics and thats what gives photography some energy and spirit. The pictures may not have been all that great to us, but to those people they meant something. I concur that the best image makers were culled early on because of their experience (or at least thats how it seemed), and the likely outcome (by the sheer fact that FlickR were sponsors) would mean that more mainstream / pro-am type images would shine through, and yes with a narrative of some kind (something hip and mainstream like alcoholism??!)…. To that end if you blog yourself you will realise that all of us are different and see things in a totally different way, and people comment on your posted work, dependant upon their mood at the time, the social climate, the context of the image, and whether they just plain like something they see…. its all subjective.
Excellent self portrait work, I am in awe… over here from a link to Northlainephotography.com.
csj @ id7.co.uk - http://www.id7.co.uk
February 20th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Most interesting thread!
Miss Aniela: are you sure it’s the real Martin Parr who’s posting here? Could easily be faked of course.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:14 am
It really is a beautiful sight. The colors are just smashing.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Dear Miss,
Love your work. By the by, considering the travesty television spectacle you’ve been discussing and their limited agenda. Are they lobotomized? Or do they voluntarily suspend disbelief wholly during their waking hours? Since Daguerre packed up his plates, when has a photographic image been limited to no manipulation? (What do they imagine, an in-camera result only on a single print-paper grade?) I’m not sure why there is even a discussion about Photoshop use considering the fact that photo labs, processors by nature, have been push/pulling the negs and salvaging/manipulating the prints of film photographers forever. I personally grew up on film working in pro labs, and think digital is liberating and totally ace. It sure doesn’t smell as nice though.
MJR
PS. I must say your photography/image making is awesome, however it is done.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Dear Miss,
Love your work. By the by, considering the travesty television spectacle you’ve been discussing and their limited agenda. Are they lobotomized? Or do they voluntarily suspend belief wholly during their waking hours? Since Daguerre packed up his plates, when has a photographic image been limited to no manipulation? (What do they imagine, an in-camera result only on a single print-paper grade, only?) I’m not sure why there is even a discussion about Photoshop use considering the fact that photo labs, processors by nature, have been push/pulling the negs and salvaging/manipulating the prints of film photographers forever. I personally grew up on film working in pro labs, and think digital is liberating and totally ace. It sure doesn’t smell as nice though.
MJR
PS. I must say your photography/image making is awesome, however it is done.
March 14th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
sorry about the multi-entry, download got logg-jammed
May 5th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
I have to agree, the Picture This show was disappointing in every respect. The winners photos aren’t strong in any sense at all, they’re just as self indulgent snaps of alcoholism as any self indulgent snaps of beauty would be.
So I find it rather appalling that a major cultural photography icon would try to calm the criticism towards this tv program failure by using the words “you’re an attractive woman and therefore your images look good”.
I don’t think Aniela is trying to position herself as playing on being an attractive woman. There are may interesting shots in her stream, and beauty is the last thing on my mind when I see them. However, if you’re defining beautiful narrowly as “slim” or “nude”, then by all means, have a ball with it.
I wish the winner of Picture This all the success in the world and I don’t think anybody wants to take away the fact that she’s got enthusiasm etc, which we all do, by the way.
But the rather ridiculous photographic result of her subject matter is hard not to laugh of, especially the “portraits” of shoe wear worn by recovered female alcoholics included in her show.
Anybody can have a hard time with the cards life deals them.
Few can turn it into something meaningful that doesn’t feel like a worn out cliche.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
So I just came across http://www.elizabethgordon.org.uk/
Hmmm. Now I understand why you were so pissed off that she won. While I freely admit that - were she a contact of mine on Flickr - I’d probably favouritize a couple of her shots, as I like the gritty realism, you are completely correct about her general lack of ability. It beggars belief that she can be “best new digi photographer in Britain” when I see better shots than hers every half an hour on flickr, and some of my own discarded snapsshots are more interesting than stuff she’s exhibited. Maybe she makes up in personality what she lacks in artistic skill, but I’d be very surprised if we hear from her again.
November 1st, 2008 at 1:43 am
this is why photography is an art - everyone judges differently, but there are artistic principles & virtues that develop over time, and personally i think they should be respected or referenced to every now and then. art is not for hermits, it’s for getting what you wanna express across, even documentary
very nice read, thanks for writing =]
cheers