1. I find this to originally be street photography based on my limited experience as a naive photographer, but it looks like street behind all of the gobbledygook.
2. I don't find it to be interesting, not as a street image/art/both, because I see no emotive quality in it, nor anything particularly fascinating. I post, believe in, aspire to make, etc. images where the former qualities are evident. This appears to be a small family on the street, and if there is something making it more than that, perhaps it's hidden behind the processing.
3. I have no qualms with heavily manipulated imagery, provided it falls within those qualities I mentioned. To me, this is something applied for the sake of being applied. But, to you, it may be more important than that.
I feel the same way about the image "...something inside..." as well. Just to save myself the posting.
Please feel free to discuss the photographic and artistic merits of Neil's work.
However the discussion of "is this street photography?" is over. Any further comments on that topic will be deleted. Thanks for your cooperation.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Super moderator is under your name. Does that apply to this forum?
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Name dropping? Well, I haven't met any of those photographers who are some of the best known photographers working today in the genres covered by this forum. I was certainly not trying to impress, as you imply, merely attempting to have an intelligent discussion here using well known contemporary photographers as a common point of reference to make a point. But if there is no common point of reference ....? My bad.
Nothing implied. Gratitude expressed, and repeated here. Keep it simple dude.
Perspicacious comment, though you might not have realised how.
The majority of cartoons, I think, are enacted on the street!
And do you see signs that cartoons are a fad falling by the wayside, after how long? four centuries?
Historically cartoons were the way to expose and explore the topical, to caricature public life, to hold up a mirror to society, especially its excesses and failings. The illustrations to Dickens are cartoons.
Should ring a bell?
Neil
I am an amateur photographer not a clairvoyant. One more thing ,the image looked chaotic to me,
like it was rushed maybe that was intentional. Good luck with your vision and be safe while out photo shopping.
1. I find this to originally be street photography based on my limited experience as a naive photographer, but it looks like street behind all of the gobbledygook.
2. I don't find it to be interesting, not as a street image/art/both, because I see no emotive quality in it, nor anything particularly fascinating. I post, believe in, aspire to make, etc. images where the former qualities are evident. This appears to be a small family on the street, and if there is something making it more than that, perhaps it's hidden behind the processing.
3. I have no qualms with heavily manipulated imagery, provided it falls within those qualities I mentioned. To me, this is something applied for the sake of being applied. But, to you, it may be more important than that.
I feel the same way about the image "...something inside..." as well. Just to save myself the posting.
I said pretty much the same when discussing this image in my first 2 or 3 posts at the beginning of the thread, you might like to refer there.
As for the image in the other thread, I think it is much more successful. However, how things taste is affected by what you've been eating, just as if you have been looking at red everything else looks blue. Many street images in this forum attempt to deliver entertainment, their staple is that of the gutter press - the odd and grotesque and freakish flotsam and jetsam of people that are safely not ourselves, the maudlin and sentimental, platitudes, puns and predictable and pathetic humour, etc, etc, ad nauseam. A zoo of curiosities and horrors. Exhibitionism, voyeurism, disengaged and cheap. Dirty eyes clean hands. The girl in my pic with the sublime expression in the complex disconnected anonymous environment of the city is just so you and me, just so ordinary, just so beautiful.
Fair enough. Also check out Australian photographers Trent Parke and Narelle Autio. Two of my favorites, they're married, and he's in Magnum.
You can see their work at in-public, a very fine collection/collective of contemorary street photographers from around the world.
Trent Parke and Narelle Autio: had a look at some of these 2.
Autio very much about the sensation of "in flight" (whether in air or water), the tension between gesture and its meanings, and the abstract values of tone, colour and composition. Parke about copying and pasting scenery, and what happens to it meanwhile (nothing much!).
There is a great deal of pleasure in using our eyes, just that, simply that. That pleasure is the capital with which these (and not only these) photographers finance their images. Just the pleasure of seeing, looking. A sophisticated use of our eyes. A sophisticated entertainment. A natural body function. What our bodies give us on a carnival ride. Thrills. Sophisticated visual thrills. Sophisticated visual games. Carnival alley sideshows.
I love them, truly, and I appreciate what they have to give, the work in them. They are not trivial. But I find them limited. These people and these scenes could be plastic dioramas, for all that we *engage* with them, as opposed to just *seeing* them, just *looking*. *Fellowship*(/empathy/identification, or your better word?) is not there. For me, *fellowship* is a reward of Street which takes the pleasure of seeing, looking and playing to a level beyond sensation. Another class of thrill altogether!
For me, the images of these photographers are glamourous fascinating skin, without penetration.
I said pretty much the same when discussing this image in my first 2 or 3 posts at the beginning of the thread, you might like to refer there.
As for the image in the other thread, I think it is much more successful. However, how things taste is affected by what you've been eating, just as if you have been looking at red everything else looks blue. Many street images in this forum attempt to deliver entertainment, their staple is that of the gutter press - the odd and grotesque and freakish flotsam and jetsam of people that are safely not ourselves, the maudlin and sentimental, platitudes, puns and predictable and pathetic humour, etc, etc, ad nauseam. A zoo of curiosities and horrors. Exhibitionism, voyeurism, disengaged and cheap. Dirty eyes clean hands. The girl in my pic with the sublime expression in the complex disconnected anonymous environment of the city is just so you and me, just so ordinary, just so beautiful.
Neil
I agree on the taste buds comment, Neil, but I do try to spit the stuff you mentioned out, for the most part.
Wow. What a mess. I am new here and hope this is not an indication of things to come here.
I hope this kind of "critique" is not am indication of things to come. Its OK not to like an image but if you're going to offer a critique make it constructive.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I hope this kind of "critique" is not am indication of things to come. Its OK not to like an image but if you're going to offer a critique make it constructive.
I think a lot of constructive criticism is embedded in the thread, but it's been lost in the noise. In my view, the work loses it for lack of core content given the artistic interpretation. If the interpretation were stronger, then the content might have become secondary and the composite successful. As it is, the idea in it's few posts needs a rethink.
If the OP is really looking to replicate comic book work in live shots, I'm all for it. It really is an iconic genre that can withstand "street' interpretations. But study that work and give us something that shows a single frame of dynamism it represents that is still based in photographic captures and I will be jumping through hoops to applaud it.
I think a lot of constructive criticism is embedded in the thread, but it's been lost in the noise. In my view, the work loses it for lack of core content given the artistic interpretation. If the interpretation were stronger, then the content might have become secondary and the composite successful. As it is, the idea in it's few posts needs a rethink.
If the OP is really looking to replicate comic book work in live shots, I'm all for it. It really is an iconic genre that can withstand "street' interpretations. But study that work and give us something that shows a single frame of dynamism it represents that is still based in photographic captures and I will be jumping through hoops to applaud it.
This isn't it.
Just my thoughts.
I have no problems at all about critiques and a lot of the discussion that centered on the photographic merits of Neill's image. That's helpful to all viewing it and hopefully for Neill.
I do have a problem with the inclusion of side issues that have been previously talked to death. The end result of that is a hijack of Neill's thread. I want the discussion to be about Neill's work. Its a courtesy due him and anyone else who posts their work in this forum.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
What interests me about Street is where it is placed now with respect to all the other media identities which have exploded into a space that used back when to be inhabited only by relatively primitive cameras and cartoonists. Nearly all the Street greats of that photographically distant past whose works appear in university courses' slides lists were never published in daily newspapers. They were in intention salon works, and their pedigree was traced to, but they were not an imitation of, the greatest interest in early photography namely documentary which was done outdoors, in part because of the technical need for all that light. This early documentary was mostly done independently of the press, it was mostly academic, and its subjects were influential people, exploration of new geographical territories, associated ethnography, and the dramas of science and technology. When the press started to employ photographers it was for a quite different purpose, and quite different too to the cartoons. The Street greats created new photographic territory, as I said - salon works which were crossover works between documentary, newspaper, and cartoon, and which also put the photographer in the centre of attention, along with the subject. But not just those things. Another distinctiveness was that these works were psychological and meditative in nature. Putting any of the Street greats in a newspaper would have been, and still would be, like putting Plato in a waiting room. They don't fit comfortably on the internet, come to that.
My point is that if anyone is going to assess/critique contemporary Street images it is critical, if they are going to make any sense, to be aware of what colour glasses they are wearing, the limits they are commenting within. Obviously, we have people in this forum who favour nostalgic print media coloured glasses, others who favour the tattooed lady and associated freaks show coloured glasses, others who favour a copy and paste of scenery with people coloured glasses, and so on. It is also critical to making sense that when people have their critiquing cap on they can sympathetically relate to the photographer. Much of what aspires to critique here is just a statement of approval or disapproval of the image as determined by the coloured glasses being worn.
The glasses I most often put on when I come to this forum are the psychological-meditative colour. I find looking through these that some of the photos here don't go beyond something to look at as opposed to looking at nothing at all. Some I find disrespectful to their subjects and to life in general by only gawking and not engaging. Some destroy the subject by the photographer standing in front of it with a placard asking to be appreciated for their cleverness. With my psychological-meditative coloured glasses on I am looking for what makes me value people and life more. Insight, engagement and enhancement.
I have candidly described my three recent images to the forum as explorations. This should alert viewers that they might not be able to see them if they keep their usual coloured glasses on. In most cases where something sensible has been said their shortcomings are mutually recognised by viewers and myself. My aims are to create a psychological and emotional connection between the subject and their environment, and to connect the viewer to it, by using the visual reality of the subject and their environment as a catalyst. I want to expand the image to include what the subject sees and what I see, what the subject edits and what I edit of that reality, the subject's and my selective attention and perceptual projections, the subject's reactions to and explorations of the moment and mine. So I reconstruct, and reconstruct, and reconstruct until those kinds of things emerge, just as the subject is constantly doing for themselves. The camera alone cannot do this. The camera alone didn't do it for those Street greats of the past that we all admire so much. The tool alone is never enough.
What we, subjects and photographers, are aware of most is mostly ourselves. How to do it, if you are interested at all in my wanting to?
I have no problems at all about critiques and a lot of the discussion that centered on the photographic merits of Neill's image. That's helpful to all viewing it and hopefully for Neill.
I do have a problem with the inclusion of side issues that have been previously talked to death. The end result of that is a hijack of Neill's thread. I want the discussion to be about Neill's work. Its a courtesy due him and anyone else who posts their work in this forum.
Hey Harry, maybe the honeymoon is over.
I agree, the inclusion of side issues have no place here.
Yet, you have no problem with the inclusion of paragraphs of facebook like self indulgent drool that have nothing to do with photography.
The burning issue is whether composite images belong in Street & PJ. You have not addressed that, but just came on board to quell a fire (that may have some merit). BTW we are not all here to serve Neill, I liked the first post and said so: I don't like the fact that he set fire to this place.
You may wind up gutting this forum, a result you may not want.
You are the custodian of a forum the Management (Baldy) has determined that might help them increase the Smugmug subscriber base (I have a pro account).
You might ask yourself, am I doing my job?
But I have an idea, why don't you move Neill's stuff to the wildlife forum. The subject is LA wildlife right? Let's see the response.
First I refer you to my earlier post about limiting responses in this thread to the merits or the lack thereof in the posted imge. If you feel this forum is on "fire" you may want to stop adding fuel to the "fire".
I am fairly confident that street photography and western civilization will survive the posting of this image in this forum.
If you feel that composite images aren't street photography you can start a spirited discussion by starting a new thread to discuss this burning issue. you could show what "real" street photography by posting some of your fine work in new threads. If you are upset over this thread being in this forum stop posting in it and will quickly fall off the radar.
As for me doing my job, the last time I looked I was retired so I don't have no stinking job. I just use this moderating stuff as a cover to tell my wife I don't have the time to mow the lawn.
The last time I looked this can be a good place to discuss photography. If you want drama I would humbly suggest taking in a play or movie.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
There is another aspect of these images which I have overlooked mentioning, and I would like to share it with you now. It relates to a six year period of living in Saudi Arabia. As you probably know, photography, especially of people, and even more especially of females, is irreligious, and therefore almost automatically illegal in Saudi Arabia. The big feature advertising photos in the malls, for example, have the faces edited out. People in the street are veiled, many of the women not showing a sign of skin anywhere. From the back, a group of Saudis are anonymous figures. Like the Saudi joke about someone searching for his friend: "What does he look like? What's his name?" "Oh, he's got dark hair, he's wearing a thobe, a guttra and sandals, and his name's Mohammed.":D
In Islamic visual culture, the vocabulary is to a greater or lesser extent repeated patterns, which themselves are to a greater or lesser extent abstract. Also, Arabic calligraphy is used to "draw". The text of the Holy Quran is also used to "draw". Coming from this visual environment back to the West, I felt the differences very strongly. The result is that I am also exploring in these images how much of reality, and especially of people, can be conveyed photographically without showing that reality and those people directly. What adjustments can be made to the photograph to make it less *literal* and more *representational*. The idea is not altogether alien to us in the West when you think of just that happening in the abstract art movement.
What kind of street photography would be acceptable to the Islamic world yet still survive as photography? Wanna play?!
What kind of street photography would be acceptable to the Islamic world yet still survive as photography? Wanna play?!
Interesting concept if completely off-base. There are many "Islamic" countries where street photography as it is normally understood wouldn't be an issue at all. Saudi Arabia isn't Islamic, it's totalitarian. Go play.
It looks pretty much like the most of the work posted in this forum.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
One last comment before this thread goes on down the line: Everybody seems to be criticising Neil's work on the basis of photography. That's not hard to understand since this is a photography forum, but I don't see Neil's work as photography. As photography it fails, but as fine art it succeeds. I don't know what to call it, but it's good work. Keep at it Neil.
It looks pretty much like the most of the work posted in this forum.
Yes, I have always enjoyed Yaqub's work, and I have watched his photographic journey over the last half decade here on Dgrin. I find his work is very respectful of people, sympathetic to them, very personal. He engages with people and his photographs invite us to be engaged, and he typically finds something positive about his subjects to show. His photographs are usually vivid and lively.
The Islamic world is very diverse, true. However, that does not mean that there is not a basic consensus in it about a core of fundamentals. As I understand it (and I am a naive observer of the phenomenon of Islam) the Holy Quran and associated teachings which define at least the outlines of Islam for all Muslims, discourage the making of images of any creatures. That is up to Muslims themselves to sort out in the present age, and I am not going to make any comment. I take it as representing a core value in Islam, whatever the particulars of its application are from culture to culture.
I therefore feel justified in exploring how photography could be done with reference to that core value without trespassing on this issue further. If you have a look at the graphic and plastic arts which are collected in museums in the Islamic world you will quickly see how alive this issue is right now.
There are also other groups of people in the world who are not comfortable being photographed, and for a not insignificant portion of our own Western societies photography of people in public is controversial. I am really not interested in getting into debates about such things here. My interest is in exploring what talents photography might have in relation to them. I am not convinced either by the cultural totalitarianism of the West, and I would rather photography didn't fall unthinkingly into line, such as by delegitimising any form of street photography that is not literal. Again no arguments, please, unless you do it with photographs.
Here is a photograph of an Egyptian Muslim boy where I am doing just that exploring:
Comments
1. I find this to originally be street photography based on my limited experience as a naive photographer, but it looks like street behind all of the gobbledygook.
2. I don't find it to be interesting, not as a street image/art/both, because I see no emotive quality in it, nor anything particularly fascinating. I post, believe in, aspire to make, etc. images where the former qualities are evident. This appears to be a small family on the street, and if there is something making it more than that, perhaps it's hidden behind the processing.
3. I have no qualms with heavily manipulated imagery, provided it falls within those qualities I mentioned. To me, this is something applied for the sake of being applied. But, to you, it may be more important than that.
I feel the same way about the image "...something inside..." as well. Just to save myself the posting.
Please feel free to discuss the photographic and artistic merits of Neil's work.
However the discussion of "is this street photography?" is over. Any further comments on that topic will be deleted. Thanks for your cooperation.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Super moderator is under your name. Does that apply to this forum?
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Nothing implied. Gratitude expressed, and repeated here. Keep it simple dude.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I am an amateur photographer not a clairvoyant. One more thing ,the image looked chaotic to me,
like it was rushed maybe that was intentional
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
I said pretty much the same when discussing this image in my first 2 or 3 posts at the beginning of the thread, you might like to refer there.
As for the image in the other thread, I think it is much more successful. However, how things taste is affected by what you've been eating, just as if you have been looking at red everything else looks blue. Many street images in this forum attempt to deliver entertainment, their staple is that of the gutter press - the odd and grotesque and freakish flotsam and jetsam of people that are safely not ourselves, the maudlin and sentimental, platitudes, puns and predictable and pathetic humour, etc, etc, ad nauseam. A zoo of curiosities and horrors. Exhibitionism, voyeurism, disengaged and cheap. Dirty eyes clean hands. The girl in my pic with the sublime expression in the complex disconnected anonymous environment of the city is just so you and me, just so ordinary, just so beautiful.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Fair enough. Also check out Australian photographers Trent Parke and Narelle Autio. Two of my favorites, they're married, and he's in Magnum.
You can see their work at in-public, a very fine collection/collective of contemorary street photographers from around the world.
OK then.
Folks get your pixels in order, these nature guys are peepers....
Trent Parke and Narelle Autio: had a look at some of these 2.
Autio very much about the sensation of "in flight" (whether in air or water), the tension between gesture and its meanings, and the abstract values of tone, colour and composition. Parke about copying and pasting scenery, and what happens to it meanwhile (nothing much!).
There is a great deal of pleasure in using our eyes, just that, simply that. That pleasure is the capital with which these (and not only these) photographers finance their images. Just the pleasure of seeing, looking. A sophisticated use of our eyes. A sophisticated entertainment. A natural body function. What our bodies give us on a carnival ride. Thrills. Sophisticated visual thrills. Sophisticated visual games. Carnival alley sideshows.
I love them, truly, and I appreciate what they have to give, the work in them. They are not trivial. But I find them limited. These people and these scenes could be plastic dioramas, for all that we *engage* with them, as opposed to just *seeing* them, just *looking*. *Fellowship*(/empathy/identification, or your better word?) is not there. For me, *fellowship* is a reward of Street which takes the pleasure of seeing, looking and playing to a level beyond sensation. Another class of thrill altogether!
For me, the images of these photographers are glamourous fascinating skin, without penetration.
I've bookmarked and will be following them.
Again thanks.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I agree on the taste buds comment, Neil, but I do try to spit the stuff you mentioned out, for the most part.
Jose
You don't give me much hope!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I hope this kind of "critique" is not am indication of things to come. Its OK not to like an image but if you're going to offer a critique make it constructive.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
I think a lot of constructive criticism is embedded in the thread, but it's been lost in the noise. In my view, the work loses it for lack of core content given the artistic interpretation. If the interpretation were stronger, then the content might have become secondary and the composite successful. As it is, the idea in it's few posts needs a rethink.
If the OP is really looking to replicate comic book work in live shots, I'm all for it. It really is an iconic genre that can withstand "street' interpretations. But study that work and give us something that shows a single frame of dynamism it represents that is still based in photographic captures and I will be jumping through hoops to applaud it.
This isn't it.
Just my thoughts.
I have no problems at all about critiques and a lot of the discussion that centered on the photographic merits of Neill's image. That's helpful to all viewing it and hopefully for Neill.
I do have a problem with the inclusion of side issues that have been previously talked to death. The end result of that is a hijack of Neill's thread. I want the discussion to be about Neill's work. Its a courtesy due him and anyone else who posts their work in this forum.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
My point is that if anyone is going to assess/critique contemporary Street images it is critical, if they are going to make any sense, to be aware of what colour glasses they are wearing, the limits they are commenting within. Obviously, we have people in this forum who favour nostalgic print media coloured glasses, others who favour the tattooed lady and associated freaks show coloured glasses, others who favour a copy and paste of scenery with people coloured glasses, and so on. It is also critical to making sense that when people have their critiquing cap on they can sympathetically relate to the photographer. Much of what aspires to critique here is just a statement of approval or disapproval of the image as determined by the coloured glasses being worn.
The glasses I most often put on when I come to this forum are the psychological-meditative colour. I find looking through these that some of the photos here don't go beyond something to look at as opposed to looking at nothing at all. Some I find disrespectful to their subjects and to life in general by only gawking and not engaging. Some destroy the subject by the photographer standing in front of it with a placard asking to be appreciated for their cleverness. With my psychological-meditative coloured glasses on I am looking for what makes me value people and life more. Insight, engagement and enhancement.
I have candidly described my three recent images to the forum as explorations. This should alert viewers that they might not be able to see them if they keep their usual coloured glasses on. In most cases where something sensible has been said their shortcomings are mutually recognised by viewers and myself. My aims are to create a psychological and emotional connection between the subject and their environment, and to connect the viewer to it, by using the visual reality of the subject and their environment as a catalyst. I want to expand the image to include what the subject sees and what I see, what the subject edits and what I edit of that reality, the subject's and my selective attention and perceptual projections, the subject's reactions to and explorations of the moment and mine. So I reconstruct, and reconstruct, and reconstruct until those kinds of things emerge, just as the subject is constantly doing for themselves. The camera alone cannot do this. The camera alone didn't do it for those Street greats of the past that we all admire so much. The tool alone is never enough.
What we, subjects and photographers, are aware of most is mostly ourselves. How to do it, if you are interested at all in my wanting to?
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Sure. For me, not so much "too much" as not the right much!:D
Damonff, *you* could say some more about the coffee shot I think!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Hey Harry, maybe the honeymoon is over.
I agree, the inclusion of side issues have no place here.
Yet, you have no problem with the inclusion of paragraphs of facebook like self indulgent drool that have nothing to do with photography.
The burning issue is whether composite images belong in Street & PJ. You have not addressed that, but just came on board to quell a fire (that may have some merit). BTW we are not all here to serve Neill, I liked the first post and said so: I don't like the fact that he set fire to this place.
You may wind up gutting this forum, a result you may not want.
You are the custodian of a forum the Management (Baldy) has determined that might help them increase the Smugmug subscriber base (I have a pro account).
You might ask yourself, am I doing my job?
But I have an idea, why don't you move Neill's stuff to the wildlife forum. The subject is LA wildlife right? Let's see the response.
:hide
First I refer you to my earlier post about limiting responses in this thread to the merits or the lack thereof in the posted imge. If you feel this forum is on "fire" you may want to stop adding fuel to the "fire".
I am fairly confident that street photography and western civilization will survive the posting of this image in this forum.
If you feel that composite images aren't street photography you can start a spirited discussion by starting a new thread to discuss this burning issue. you could show what "real" street photography by posting some of your fine work in new threads. If you are upset over this thread being in this forum stop posting in it and will quickly fall off the radar.
As for me doing my job, the last time I looked I was retired so I don't have no stinking job. I just use this moderating stuff as a cover to tell my wife I don't have the time to mow the lawn.
The last time I looked this can be a good place to discuss photography. If you want drama I would humbly suggest taking in a play or movie.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
In Islamic visual culture, the vocabulary is to a greater or lesser extent repeated patterns, which themselves are to a greater or lesser extent abstract. Also, Arabic calligraphy is used to "draw". The text of the Holy Quran is also used to "draw". Coming from this visual environment back to the West, I felt the differences very strongly. The result is that I am also exploring in these images how much of reality, and especially of people, can be conveyed photographically without showing that reality and those people directly. What adjustments can be made to the photograph to make it less *literal* and more *representational*. The idea is not altogether alien to us in the West when you think of just that happening in the abstract art movement.
What kind of street photography would be acceptable to the Islamic world yet still survive as photography? Wanna play?!
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Interesting concept if completely off-base. There are many "Islamic" countries where street photography as it is normally understood wouldn't be an issue at all. Saudi Arabia isn't Islamic, it's totalitarian. Go play.
Here's a good example of street photography in the Islamic world http://www.awaisyaqub.com/Street-Scenes/Rawalpindi/6026898_sqqTbx#!i=645243242&k=GxGSX
It looks pretty much like the most of the work posted in this forum.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
www.FineArtSnaps.com
Yes, I have always enjoyed Yaqub's work, and I have watched his photographic journey over the last half decade here on Dgrin. I find his work is very respectful of people, sympathetic to them, very personal. He engages with people and his photographs invite us to be engaged, and he typically finds something positive about his subjects to show. His photographs are usually vivid and lively.
The Islamic world is very diverse, true. However, that does not mean that there is not a basic consensus in it about a core of fundamentals. As I understand it (and I am a naive observer of the phenomenon of Islam) the Holy Quran and associated teachings which define at least the outlines of Islam for all Muslims, discourage the making of images of any creatures. That is up to Muslims themselves to sort out in the present age, and I am not going to make any comment. I take it as representing a core value in Islam, whatever the particulars of its application are from culture to culture.
I therefore feel justified in exploring how photography could be done with reference to that core value without trespassing on this issue further. If you have a look at the graphic and plastic arts which are collected in museums in the Islamic world you will quickly see how alive this issue is right now.
There are also other groups of people in the world who are not comfortable being photographed, and for a not insignificant portion of our own Western societies photography of people in public is controversial. I am really not interested in getting into debates about such things here. My interest is in exploring what talents photography might have in relation to them. I am not convinced either by the cultural totalitarianism of the West, and I would rather photography didn't fall unthinkingly into line, such as by delegitimising any form of street photography that is not literal. Again no arguments, please, unless you do it with photographs.
Here is a photograph of an Egyptian Muslim boy where I am doing just that exploring:
Compare -
http://www.artkuwait.org/2012/04/boushahri-gallery-a-selection-of-contemporary-iranian-art.html
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix