Why do I never see photography intentionally planned and framed?

File: 032-gregory-crewdson-theredlist.jpg (284KB, 1826x1181px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1826x1181px

>>2979258
mfw this op

>>2979258
You see it a lot, AND IT FUCKING SUCKS.
You have shit taste.

File: mortensen.jpg (36KB, 400x472px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 400x472px

>>2979258
>Why do I never see photography intentionally planned and framed?

Because you're a scrub who doesn't know anything.

There is a long history of pictorial photography, starting (most obviously) with the Pictorialists around the twentieth century, like William Mortensen (pic related). Thanks to a vicious smear campaign by the landscape photographers of the 20's like Ansel Adams and his ilk, it fell out of fashion, though that doesn't mean it disappeared.

There is a strong pictorial sense that guides most portraiture. Any of one Annie Leibovitz's editorials look like a modern painting. There's also Joel Peter Witkin who beautifies the grotesque within a Baroque style. Yasumasa Morimura more explicity typifies the "painting style" with his series of self-portraits meant to pay homage to actual, real paintings.

File: goldenskythreewomen1.jpg (293KB, 1397x1112px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1397x1112px

>I would like photography more if it was just painting instead
Look into pictorialism, I guess.

File: 1409116558310.jpg (979KB, 2000x1384px) Image search: [Google]

979KB, 2000x1384px

>>2979261
That's great. Saved.

>>2979267
Thanks for the info, friend. I'll check those names out. I'm interested in seeing this kinda stuff.

>>2979258
Interestingly photography was only intentionally planned and framed for all of its early history. Even works considered "documentary" for newspapers like this one from the Civil War were completely staged due to the long tradition of painting. There are still plenty of examples of people working like this nowadays. Some examples that come to mind are Tim Walker, Jeff Wall, Gregory Crewdson, Andreas Gursky, Cindy Sherman (old), Thomas Struth.

File: 04337v.jpg (184KB, 1024x822px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1024x822px

>>2979275
Forgot image

File: image-30.jpg (85KB, 714x560px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 714x560px

>>2979258

File: saudek_199-which-star-is-mine.jpg (137KB, 1050x1030px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1050x1030px

>>2979258
or dis

>I feel like I would enjoy photography a lot more if I could actually find more photos where everything had been planned and placed in such a way that it created an interesting picture. It seems like most people who're into photography just take pics of whatever random shit they find.

Please see all of my previous diatribes about how photography is the cancer on Arts ass. Completely saturated medium which few people use for its greater purpose - to communicate things which words cannot efficiently.

nice bait op!

>>2979258
> Why do I never see photography intentionally planned and framed?
Try looking for "pornography". It's all intentional.

File: Wang-Qingsong-Follow-You-2009-C-print-180x300cm.jpg (231KB, 900x540px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 900x540px

Check out Wang Qingsong

Hes good at making images with underlying commentary.

Go to a fucking art gallery every now and then. Your comment is only relevant if the only place you look at photography is /p/.

>>2979299
t. janitor and "curator" of the dying art establishment

Projecting your own dejected attitude towards your own art onto everyone is so pathetic. Maybe you could just improve your own work, John.

>>2979310
translation for the 2 writings on the right is mixed up.

>>2979319
Ooh, you got me. I am so disappointed by my own work...
And that whole "janitor" thing is so crisp...
Keep trying dickhead, you'll get a rise out of me one day.

>>2979267
you sure f/64 was against posed photography?they took a lot of arranged still-lifes, ansel adams included

>>2979339
>one day
today? lol!
why is your work so derivative if you know so much about the arts??

>>2979339
most traditional artists don't communicate anything deep either
most classical scenes were just an excuse to paint sex and violence
face it, the only reason photographers seem like such plebs today is the other representational arts died a deserved death

>>2979343
>your work


the eternal shitposter jani has a "work"? where can i see it? i dont remember him posting a damn thing besides words.

>>2979342

They were against the artifice and low technical image quality (seriously, f/64 was /p/'s grandfather) of pictorialism. Ansel Adams had a bizarre personal vendetta against William Mortensen, and he used his connections in the art world (and to Jihn Szarkowski and Alfred Stieglitz specifically) to ruin his career and cast his work into disrepute.

>>2979349
yeah the point I was making is a lot of the f/64 still-lifes are also incredibly artificial
didn't know about the mortenson thing though, neat

>>2979343
my "work"? You mean my hobby? The shit I post here sometimes on my day off? On this board where I come to jerk off and shit talk?
You dont know what I do outside of this board - so, you know, fuck off.

You know, Ironically, I've probably still made more money out of this shit than you.

>>2979344
>other representational arts died a deserved death
Really? So i'm guessing you prefer photography over all more traditional forms of art. What a boring life.

>>2979345
>the eternal shitposter jani has a "work"?
I'm... not even sure where to go with this guy. Who is Jani. I cant even... so, just fuck off I guess.

File: Portrait of Myrdith Monaghan as a Witch c. 1930, Silver Print. William Mortensen.jpg (284KB, 700x542px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 700x542px

>>2979349
>ansel "cliche landscape faggot" adams hated this

what a homo!

>>2979361

Yes, I really enjoyed the leitmotif of "ripe, heavy titties" that the pictorialists did such an excellent job of exploring in their work. It gave it a very worldly, yet familiar feel.

>>2979358
>You dont know what I do outside of this board - so, you know, fuck off.
Goodness Mr Wolfe, we're testy today. We've met before, you know.

Your industry is dying, and you are thrashing about with it. Sad.

>>2979349
isi vs moopco: 20th century edition

>>2979366
I dont know why you think the art industry is dying - but hey off you go thinking that.

>We've met before, you know.
*sigh* no, no we havent. You 've just looked at my Flickr.
God, dude, come on, 8+ years i've been here. I've done the whole "I know you" thing 30 times.

>>2979369
oh I must have met some other John Wolfe at the Landan meetup then, carry on sir

>>2979258
not everything is street photography

there's plenty of stuff like what you're describing

shit, even when it comes to weeb toys, you will find carefully composed toys and dioramas

>>2979374
Yes, tell me about where we started... You'll know that.

File: 132863876876086.jpg (109KB, 915x596px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 915x596px

>>2979258
You know nothing

>>2979384
Million dollar shot and he missed focus.

If you look at a high res version of it you can see strange aberrations all around his wife, like she has been awkwardly reshot and pasted in.

Everything about the shot feels rushed. Everything from the awkward son, the missed focus, the plants cutting into shot, etc, make it feel like the photographer was sent up to the penthouse and told to "hurry the fuck up and get out".

>>2979387

STILL S A L T Y

lol democrats.

>>2979368

They're literally the same photographer with the same mental issues, but it's cute how you try to frame every argument on the board in those terms.

>>2979404
wrong country friendo.

>>2979310
very subtle "underlying" commentary

>>2979413

lol @ proxy democrats. embrace ur salt dude.

>>2979358
>I'm guessing you prefer photography
you misread me, the only real art is abstract art, representational art is inherently a pale imitation of the real thing and therefore the consummate kitsch

>>2979535
hey kevin can you photoshop isi's face in here?
thanks in advance

>>2979361
He's a disappointment in so many ways

>>2979522
>the only real art is abstract art

Praise it, brother

>>2979258
You might just try thumbing through any publication. You do realize that advertisements are staged. Right?
Or Google for still life, and as said porn. It is not as if you just happen upon some people going at it in the street, or the wild.

>>2979258
That's..... a good idea

>>2979546
>Scarred for life

>>2979267
If you haven't read "the command to look" yet please do so.

It's genius, and not a Fibonacci spiral in sight.

>>2979541
>>2980254
What SJW janitor just deleted my fucking shoop of isi and moop? What the fuck has this board come to that we can't even make shoops without some faggot janitor getting buttmad cause he has a hard-on for isi.

>You were issued a warning ;_;
>Please only upload images that you, the photographer, have taken.
You'd better delete this whole fucking thread then faggot, along with 80% of all threads on /p/

>>2980346
lol.

The difference between painting and photography (if considered independent artforms) is that a painting looks as the painter wanted it to look. In photography, also historically, the most basic form is a staged shot (landscape, portrait, etc.). Streetphotography/Reportage and the work of William Eggleston, Cartier-Bresson, Stephen Shore etc. are then a more intermediate stage as they tend to show life as it is, but still follow the old rules of composition in a large part. The complete randomization of the fleeting moment in life captured in a photo can then be found in the work of e.g. Bruce Gilden and even more randomized in the work of Mark Cohen.

>>2980377
the latest development in this historical context is the vast amount of photos produced by the masses. Already by their digital nature and availability, none of these are "art" by the traditional means, however they are going to be the most complete body of work and historical evidence of our time.

>>2980346
In this case it's too much moderation.

A) it was art, like it or not, and available internet wide (with and without cock)

B) the shoop was the finest yet of our star crossed lovers, we should all be tipping our hats to anon

C) we're not fucking facebook (yet)

I'm guessing it was some latent homophobia at work

>>2980346

you are a weirdo. i hope they ban you.

>>2980346
Serves you right for pretending to be Kevin.

>>2980346
this, in a nutshell, is why isi threads are shit and everyone serious just ignores her now. she set herself up to be bullied and trolled by not using a tripcode, and through her conduct. in the old /p/ she would have been viciously bullied and trolled, and she would have either left or grown from it. but in neo-/p/, the mods give her a safe space because every mature, reasonable person understands that cyberbullying is a serious crime, and she's allowed to pollute this board with her crap because microblogging is a right
tl;dr fuck this gay earth

>>2980377
but concurrent with this arthouse masturbation is the advent of photo manipulation techniques that actually DO allow for photographs to look as the artist intended

File: 14705838_10154676592762238_10119145495569732_n.jpg (27KB, 480x320px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 480x320px

>>2980395
>>2980384

>C) we're not fucking facebook (yet)

File: 1476985080036.jpg (37KB, 417x426px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 417x426px

>>2980346
>post porn to a blue board
>get mad when it gets deleted

>>2980396
Not without artificially altering reality. Contrast/WB/Color have always been open to alteration and I wouldn't consider them to be an attempt to falsify reality. Manipulating the content of a photo clearly falsifies reality, but even in darkroom prints and negatives, photos could be manipulated regarding their content, so this is nothing new.

>>2980526
not quite sure what you're trying to say, when you paint the world the way you want it to look you are "altering reality" too. the only difference is the expectation of honesty from photography, which is rapidly disappearing. and as to the argument that nothing has changed, photoshop and more sophisticated manipulations allow for seamless alteration in a way darkroom work never did. indeed it is likely in the near future we will be able to create entirely computer-generated images that are indistinguishable from photographs

>>2979522
>the only real art is abstract art

Except art was originally conceived to portray that which could not be appropriately or completely described verbally. It is a language which requires no words.

Abstract art is traditional art filtered down to its core principles. It plays with aesthetics in order to achieve a reaction without the need for comprehensible content.

Abstract art expanded the field of aesthetics, but it is not preferable to traditional representation (as we see by its comparatively poor performance in the auction room). People generally prefer information over a general sensation or leaning.

>>2980395
>this, in a nutshell, is why isi threads are shit and everyone serious just ignores her now. she set herself up to be bullied and trolled by not using a tripcode
How new are you? isi only stopped using a tripcode recently. Presumably to annoy people who had filtered her trips.

>>2980582
>It is a language which requires no words.

This is a contradiction in terms, nice analogy f4g

>>2980592
Well, its as close as you can get without words anyway. Visual communication.

>>2980582
>Except art was originally conceived to portray that which could not be appropriately or completely described verbally
[citation needed intensifies]
pretty sure cave paintings were literally just storytelling
and I'm pretty sure the only people who prefer representational art to abstract art are cave people

>>2980535
The difference between a painting and a photo is that the photo is until today the more accurate way of showing reality. This is a significanct difference and for that reason photography should be considered an art.
However, intentionally manipulating the shown content can also be found in both, painting and photography. Consider that the majority of photos taken today and uploaded to the internet might be unaltered in regards to their content (e.g. mobile shots).
Digital photography is just the next logical step, as art has to keep up with modern life in order to develop.
Creating a computer-generated image is something entirely different from photography. It's digital art, as photography involves reality, always.
This concept should not be considered from the reciever perspective: The product is the relevant part, but its production is secondary. Before an alteration can be made to a photograph, it has to be made by taking it. In this moment reality is captured as it was during the time the shutter has been released. No matter what comes after that, the photo with its content during this particular time at this particular place in this perspective in unaltered form exists.

>>2980636
are you putting this through google translate? I cannot for the life of me figure out your point