I visited an exhibition yesterday...and got disappointed!

[milosh]

Although the exhibition poster did not advertise artistic photography, but only an exhibition by a photography artist, I was still expecting to see more.

Theme of the exhibition was ecology and it's held in a very high class cultural institution. IMO, out of 50 exhibited photos, only several were acceptably composed and aesthetically pleasing. Majority of them showed lake shores, old logs, tree stumps and fallen autumn leaves on water (all very up close and overexposed). There were a few photos of locally well known tourist sites which were processed so much that everything was pure red and only outlines of objects were white (totally unrecognizable). Also a few childish (with camera well shaken) light painting photos (with people, captured on New Years eve (!?)). Maybe 3 or 4 of all the photos were not overexposed and were composed to look nice.

Honestly, the whole exhibition looks like it was done by my sister who has an ambition for photography but she picked up a camera only three times in her life.

I was in total disbelief when I saw it, asking myself how can anyone get to exhibit such bad work.

I was in even bigger disbelief when I saw who the photographer was! He is a highly awarded local photographer born in 1936 who now lives abroad. I mean, this guy earned a title of the Yugoslavian Master of Photography back in 70s, later he was educated in Germany where he earned a title of Photography artist. He won numerous prizes and his photos were exhibited at more than 500 collective and 50 of his own exhibitions.

I was trying to see if I'm missing something here. The purpose of the exhibition is to show the contrast between non-polluted and polluted areas. I thought maybe it was his artistic way of showing the landscapes because some of the photos were done in a clear impressionistic way, but others were totally documentary photos (bad executed ones).
I don't doubt this guy knew what he was doing in the last century (maybe he still does), but I can't believe he is showing himself in such bad light. What is even more important, since 0.5% of people here know when they see a good photo, he might be building a wrong vision of photography for those who know nothing about it.

[ravncat]

No idea - i'd have to see myself I guess.
Perhaps he hasn't made the transition to digital well? Perhaps aesthetics change when you're older. I don't know.

[Dodge]

I suspect that we may be much more difficult to impress these days, when we can browse a sight like flickr, to name just one of many, and see quite often spectacular photo's or artwork, often by people that will never recieve any recognition for their raw talent due to the saturation of images that the internet has given us. Someone who was once considered 'great' may just be so-so by todays standards and still riding the wave created by their past reputation, made during a time when photography was much less accessible to most people, some of whom, given the opportunity, might have far exceeded anything else at the time.

Just a thought

[milosh]

Originally Posted by ravncat

No idea - i'd have to see myself I guess.
Perhaps he hasn't made the transition to digital well? Perhaps aesthetics change when you're older. I don't know.

Actually the description pamphlet says that he greatly embraces the digital age and uses it to express his vision.

Originally Posted by Dodge

I suspect that we may be much more difficult to impress these days, when we can browse a sight like flickr, to name just one of many, and see quite often spectacular photo's or artwork, often by people that will never recieve any recognition for their raw talent due to the saturation of images that the internet has given us. Someone who was once considered 'great' may just be so-so by todays standards and still riding the wave created by their past reputation, made during a time when photography was much less accessible to most people, some of whom, given the opportunity, might have far exceeded anything else at the time.

Just a thought

That also comes to my mind very often. On tv, I often see works of some of the old national masters and I don't see the quality the narrator says they have, and yet I see higher quality work almost every day, mostly online. I believe this is a good part of why it is much harder to be different and original these days. I can't find any photos by this photographer online to check them out.

[Biomech]

Personally, I find most photography galleries like that.
The poncy artsy reply is that "you clearly just don't understand it" - hence my "art" website experiment below :P

[OsmosisStudios]

He's gone senile.

[Biomech]

Oh dear, just realised I got my own link wrong for the past 2 months

[phil24]

I, too, recently went to a local exhibition that had a great billing of many talented photographers, stunning works and a theme of modern photography. Supported by the local University, I thought I was in for something special. The photos were poorly composed, poorly printed, poorly presented, and generally not as good as the worst photos ever posted on this site. Many of these "artists" were listed as instructors from different schools of art. None of this was because of a lack of money or places to get excellent printing and framing done, we have several excellent locations in our area. I wonder if the "art" world has become so interested in getting "away from the norm" that they have forgotten what they originally set out to accomplish. A great shot that tells a story, sets a mood or brings back a memory of a time gone by, guess I'll stick to looking at posts on here if I want to see quality work like that.

[andyw]

One reason why I rarely visit galleries.

Photography is (like) art and I am afraid the "art crowd" has taken it over to an extent.

When people raved about (and spent hundreds of thousands on) a dirty bed, half a sheep in formaldehyde or a pile of bricks then I gave up on art galleries.

I have more or less done the same with photography galleries these days.

But each to their own I guess.

[SwissJon]

I've recently come across an ebook called "Learning Landscape Photography from the masters of Painting".. Now the book is a bit shabby, I'll admit.. But as an idea, it's very good.. I've always thought that the difference between painting and photography isn't that great.. The rules for composition and so on are the same, and I don't "get" why people think they're better at composition than Turner, Rembrant, Constable etc. The reasons why these painters are seen as "masters" is because they "mastered" the composition.. I doubt they knew a lot about the rule of thirds etc, most of it is probably instinctual, but the reasons why these paintings live on to the present day is because they're good.

Now you can look at some of the painters that broke away from the norm and got away with it.. Munch, Picasso etc.. But really, you don't need to think too hard to "get" their work either.. What they do with their paintings is to depart from reality, but remain within the regular rules to some extent.. The Scream follows the rule of thirds, it has layers, leading lines, diagonal lines, textures and so on.. The cubist work of Picasso is strange, but he's really just departed from reality by taking the traditional rules of composition, the rule of thirds, layering, diagonal lines, leading lines, geometric shapes and textures, to their logical end.. This is why, although we find it strange to the eye, we don't need to try too hard to "Understand"..

There's a difference between jazz and a bunch of people playing random notes on random notes on instruments.. One has structure and reason and some people enjoy it, the other is just random noise and unpleasent to virtually everyone.

When someone totally ignores the basic concepts of "Art" to create something completely random, then it's not going to work. Work within the basic concepts, but push the boundaries, and you might be able to find somethign different in your photography that people enjoy.. There's nothing wrong with bringing Jazz into your photographs, just as long as your photographs remain harmonious.. The moment they start to become discordant, then they're just the ones that should have been thrown away.. I've got TONS of those, I don't need to go to an exhibition to see them, it's the other kind I want to see.