One woman, one gay, more straight men. Sigh!
@AT Ban cis male art!
Too clever by half.
Originality does not equal quality.
I cannot know what the photographer intended the photo of those two people astride a scooter. Much is implied, and much is left up to the mind of the viewer. Visually, it is an interesting framing of shape, pattern and color. I think that the man’s prosthesis is meant to be startling, but the only thing alarming to me is the woman’s crazy, dangerous shoe. It looks like pain and limitation to me, whereas the prosthesis looks like coping and power and adapting to loss. So this is an interesting image and a successful composition. I like the contrast of the strong, practical, unadorned, false leg on a soldier in army fatigues, with the daintily tattooed but purposely (because of the horribly crippling shoe) hampered — yet healthy and well cared for — leg of the woman. I assume that I should be getting some kind of sexual implication from this image, but I’m not.
Of the images included here, none of them held my attention for more than ten seconds ie the time it took me to review them for visual interest and make a decision they were not worth added time. They were not visually compelling. Photography that is not visually compelling is either record keeping, or poor photography.
As records they would invite a longer look, where I could for instance evaluate the dirtiness of the mattresses or other details one finds in a purposeful stare. They might have some so called "context" or excuse for being whereby the set to which they belong, along with that context, adds value. As stand alone images they fail to deliver as art.
4
It is somewhat surprising that some of these are quite retro. Erasing elements with Photoshop reminded me of long established Soviet Union practice of erasing figures from photographs. What's new?
Aegerter's example is a shout out to Luigi Ghirri's work (1970s). Beautiful idea, nicely executed, though looking back.
Some are all about gimmick (such as the house to be destroyed).
Maybe there are other examples that truly introduce something original, besides the ones covered here.
It is hard to move an art form forward, particularly in this era of hyper hipness.
2
@EB - We aren't in an age of hyper hipness. We are in an age of narrowing of scope, loss of knowledge of history, self absorption, aesthetic equivocation and excuse making. If you want to get into a gallery, know somebody and make up some vapid quasi intellectual justification.
3
Hooray! Thanks for this. I live about a half hour from Arles and was planning to go to les Rencontres.
Very intriguing selection.
1
When words are needed to explain an image, to me at least, the image fails. Maybe I'm old and cranky. I've been a shooter for almost 50 years; seen all the trends; been a part of them as well. Photography as an art form is the Great Anarchy for me. I love the energy of these 6. I admit, I don't 'get' their imagery. But hey, it's all subjective. Keep shooting!
12
@linhof, I think your first statement goes too far, even though it holds an element of truth. A couple of the images here are, in my opinion, weak because they need to be over explained. In other words, they have no context or meaning because they are simply bland and uninteresting images if you take away the text that explains them. But I think that a series or collection of photos can provide context for any one of them. That’s true of Pixy Liao’s work, and I think that her photography should be viewed as a progression of thought.
David Denil’s Photographs are interesting and meaningful compositions even if the viewer doesn’t know the full story behind them. They imply and suggest. They make you wonder about the people in them. I agree with his statement about the storytelling potential in photography: “One single image can combine what is visible and what is outside the frame, suggesting the narrative of what came before and what comes after, just like a movie.”
@linhof - To say "it's all subjective" is to say nothing, you could not be more weak in a comment on artistic merit.
@CK Perhaps you're correct. I was being diplomatic. I was unmoved by their work. Their words were needed for context and meaning. I also said 'subjective' because I'm in my early 70s and have been a shooter since 1970. I accept that now, like 50 years ago, I'm one step ahead but two to the left...sort of...Have a good day...
2
Thanks to the author and the paper for a pleasant distraction, loved it!
6