This must be the worst meme ever in photography. I HATE this

>>2914629
Too bad only the most ignorant of ignorant consider that photography.

Great thread, you two.

>>2914629
> I HATE this shitty piece of garbage

So you would say the piece evokes a strong emotional reaction from you? Is it the image itself or the underlying message that bothers you so much?

>>2914629
Just found out:
>Extraneous details such as dog-walkers and a factory building were removed by the artist using digital editing. Justifying this manipulation of the image, Gursky said "Paradoxically, this view of the Rhine cannot be obtained in situ, a fictitious construction was required to provide an accurate image of a modern river."

I am disapoint

>>2914652
>Just found out

>>2914652
See
>>2914632
Gursky doesn't claim to be a photographer. Cameras are just part of his toolset, and a relatively minor one at that. There's no point in talking about him as a photographer, because he's not one.

>>2914648
>So you would say the piece evokes a strong emotional reaction from you?

Only a retarded fuck would get that from what i posted.

I literally said i hate the meme aka. narrative the (((curators))) created around it. The piece itself is forgettable as fuck.

>>2914655
This.

If more people realised this I guarantee they wouldn't be so mad.

>I dislike postmodern photography

Get over it, its not going anywhere soon.

>>2914652
>"a fictitious construction was required to provide an accurate image of a modern river."
>accurate image
>shopped to hell and back
>accurate

Hans took way too many hard drugs.

>>2914661
Hes saying that its ironic that he had to edit the photograph so much just to make it adhere to what people imagine a river to look like.

Its postmodern. It does not seek to impress beauty, just to define a river, despite Gursky having to ironically doctor the image in order to achieve that end.

>>2914655
>Gursky doesn't claim to be a photographer
#artist
>Cameras are just part of his toolset
To produce photographic prints
>not a photographer
that photographs

I get it now.

Select all images with rivers lol

File: 290364.jpg (79KB, 407x800px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 407x800px

>>2914673
So this is a photograph then?

>This must be the worst meme ever in photography.

It would be if it was a meme. Its pre-existent status as a prominent work of art precludes its recognition as a meme.

File: 290392.jpg (90KB, 638x768px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 638x768px

>>2914675
This?

>>2914677
>>2914675
Those would be photographic collages

>>2914680
Actually, just collages, but it's the exact same thing. Just because a photograph is some part of a work does not make the work a photograph. A piece is not the whole. If you were to apply paint to a sculpture, it doesn't magically become a painting.

The term mixed media exists for a reason. What Gursky does is just digitally mix media.

>>2914675
>>2914677
>>2914683
>digitally mix media.
Edits photographs with photoshop, gimp and mspaint.

>>2914683
Andreas Gursky is first and foremost a photographer.

Just because he edits his photographs does not make them any less photographs - the overwhelming majority of the work is based in a single image.

By your definition all photographer are just "Mixed media" artists - because all photographers manipulate their work in order to create an ideal image. Where do you draw the line? Correcting exposure? Or removing mistakes?

If Canaletto dripped some of his paint on his canvas, would you forbid him from wiping it clear?

File: Dubai II.jpg (13KB, 270x187px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 270x187px

>>2914692
>Andreas Gursky is first and foremost a photographer.
No, Andreas Gursky is first and foremost an artist.

He doesn't hold sacrosanct the "photograph". A picture, or pictures, are his palette. His goal isn't to create a picture, it's to manifest his vision irrespective of what steps, photographic or nonphotographic he has to take. He rarely just "edits" his photographs. Seriously look up his workflow. I could agree with you if he were even slightly interesting in capturing what his camera saw at that moment or exhibited even slightly the belief that his photographs were anything but pieces with which he can realize his vision, but that's not the case. He doesn't care the slightest about verisimilitude, realistic representation, or purity of the medium.

Well I HATE you

>>2914696
>Andreas Gursky is first and foremost an artist
Sure, why not.

He studied and practiced photography. His photographs are in galleries so now they're works of Art.

A plumber can be an artist. I'd buy a drainpipe that made rainwater go up.

>>2914705
Henri Cartier Bresson studied literature and painting, practiced both. That doesn't make pic related a novel or a painting.

I realize that I am engaging in what can be described as a bit of no-true-scotsman, but I think it very necessary for understanding Gursky's works. To that end, I'm defining "photographer" to be someone who sets out intending to end up with a photograph. Gursky doesn't set out to end up with a photograph. I will admit if you use the more general idea of a photographer as being someone taking photographs, yes, by all means, he is one; however, that puts the wrong set of expectations and context to Gursky's works. I posit that the standards by which his pieces should be judged and interpreted are necessarily different from those who do set out to create an artistic photograph (obviously, there are nigh universal considerations of aesthetics and influence that apply to basically any work, and I'm referring to when one drills down). For example, the discussions of say subversions of verisimilitude are very different discussions when you consider the works as examples of photography versus digital media. This begs the question of the importance of the distinction, but I think both the history of photography in general and especially in the modern age frames this distinction as very important.

File: hcb.jpg (13KB, 274x184px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 274x184px

>>2914718
umm, I mean pic related here.

my favorite part of this thread is how we're having the exact same conversation we had 100 times in 2011.

Nostalgia/10

>>2914718
Please tell me this is a troll post. I honestly can't believe that anybody would write this unironically.

>>2914696
>He doesn't care the slightest about verisimilitude, realistic representation, or purity of the medium.

That doesn't mean he's not a photographer, it means that he's not a documentary photographer. There are many many thing that can be called a photograph, and equally many ways to be called a photographer. I don't think you know enough about the history of photography to make the distinction that Gursky isn't one.

>>2914727

And we had this exact same conversation in 2010, and 2009, and 2008, and 2007. Don't be a wiener. It's important that we have this conversation continually to help newfags learn to think about photography on a deeper level.

>>2914718
>subversions of verisimilitude
kek

Art is what I say art is. Anyone who disagrees with me I ignore. Some people think I am making art when I am just painting. I don't usually correct them. It is nice to do as you please. Whenever I have tried to please others with my craft it ceases to be art (and almost always turns out crap).

If I have done an art and people ask how, why, when, who? Then I am happy. If not then they are idiots. lol

>>2914739
>I don't think you know enough about the history of photography to make the distinction that Gursky isn't one.
Are you saying that I'm unaware of stuff like Group f.64's opposition to pictorialism, championing modernism and how that parallels this very discussion? If this is a strawman, I apologize but you didn't state what exactly you were referring to for me to address.

I still maintain that this case, while similar is distinct in that both pictorialism and the likes of f.64 still made photographs as their final product. Gursky's works are far more akin to collages than the darkroom manipulations of pictorialists.

File: literally you rn.jpg (27KB, 450x320px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 450x320px

>>2914657
>Only a retarded fuck would get that from what i posted.
see:
>>2914629
>I HATE this shitty piece of garbage.
wew

>>2914696
>>2914718
>>2914705

This is a very interesting tension that often arise when one tries to ground aesthetic evaluation of artworks in a (n often imprecise) conception of medium-specificity. Should an artwork be evaluated on the extent to which it fulfils the aesthetic potential of a specific medium? If photography is understood to have a set of distinct characteristics (let's say it's iconic and indexical transcription of physical reality), and must be evaluated on the basis of these characteristics, wouldn't this also be a restrictive essentialism? This tension have become more prevalent today, as the modernist understanding of distinct art forms based on different materialities (photography =celluloid and camera) have gradually become undermined both by postmodernism's breakdown of borders and framings (think fluxus) and more recently by the computer as a meta-medium.

>>2914752
>restrictive essentialism
Would you talk to your Grandmother like that! Wash your mouth out with soap young man.

>>2914742
So how about you answer this simple question: At what point does editing a photograph make it no longer a photograph and make the photographer no longer a photographer?>>2914742

>>2914629
Quick, somebody post the suburban parody of this

>>2914752
These are important questions that matter to contextualize work, but are we capable of answering them while they're going on?

>>2914629
>meme
im sorry?

>school gets back in
>/P/ suddenly grinds to a halt
It all makes sense now.
Shouldn't you be in school op? You better not skip, you don't want to turn out like your parents.

>>2914629

It's a pretty powerful visual statement famalam. Don't know why anyone should get mad about it.

>>2914841

I dont know what you meant by all that, mr projector.

>>2914951
>I don't understand you but you're projecting
>I don't understand simple English
Please go away and don't come back. 4chan is 18+

>>2914953

I cant go away, mr projector, im about to post some legit stuff. Stay tuned, fucknugget

>>2914735
>unironically

I'm just a layman enjoying photos on here, why is that picture causing so much butthurt?

>>2917241
>In 2011, a print was auctioned for $4.3 million (then £2.7m), making it the most expensive photograph ever sold.

This mostly.

>>2914667
I thought he meant that he wanted to take a picture of THE RIVER, not the shit around it, blocking the view of the river as it would look naturally (without man-made structures), and yet modern (the river would probably look different if it wasn't for said human activity)

>>2914632
Oh oh... photosnob spotted. Only his opinion matters *pinky finger in the air*

>>2914655
Andreas Gursky (born 15 January 1955) is a German photographer and professor at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, Germany.

But... he's not a photographer.

>>2914683
No, he's right Photographic collages.

>>2914696

This is from the MoMa website.

Introduction
German photographer, Düsseldorf.
Nationality
German

Gender
Male

Roles
Artist, Photographer

Name
Andreas Gursky

I'm kinda sure that says PHOTOGRAPHER...

>>2914735
The post might be a troll, but the rest of these photosnobs are actually serious. Sadly.

File: 1471219614388.jpg (26KB, 251x242px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 251x242px

>>2914652
>in situ

>using medical terminology

inferiority complex detected

is gursky the worst living "photographer"?

>>2919025
>he thinks >>in situ is jargon
damn son, are you retarded, or just american?

File: Screen Shot 2016-09-07 at 03.51.42.png (4MB, 1798x1360px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1798x1360px

fav gursky

>>2919025
I know you are but what am I?

>medical terminology
wut you talkin' 'bout willis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw9oX-kZ_9k

>>2914629
only a nazi can like this picture

>>2914757
when you pay yourself by the hour