staged conceptual photography plz. Jeff Wall.

>>3064004
disembodied legs at the top are a distraction that merit subtraction. take action or live with dissatisfaction.

File: woman at window.jpg (58KB, 640x479px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 640x479px

>>3064004
Gregory Crewdson

File: control room.jpg (212KB, 700x466px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 700x466px

>>3064004
Thomas Demand

>>3064012
>implying this isnt intentional, and the photo would be better without them

File: Zuma-33.jpg (404KB, 1008x814px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 1008x814px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Photographer	1996-98 AccuSoft Inc., All right
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3962
Image Height	3200
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2014:08:19 17:02:46
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1008
Image Height	814

>>3064291
Great series. One of my favorites. But not staged. It's just conceptual landscape.

>>3064296
i would argue that once the photographer intervenes in a scene, it is staged, by definition.

>>3064289
This is why we know Jeff Wall's name, but not the name of anyone in pol posting their weekend photoshoot with friends. If you're going to stage a photo, you need to extend the alternate reality beyond the frame. Or else, you need to be making a conceptual statement about photography by calling the reality of the frame into question like in >>3064277

>>3064298
I personally agree with this anon to a degree. However I've cleared a little brush before a landscape shot, and I still don't think it's really staged.

>>3064298
You're right. I had a brain fart and forgot how the images were made. For some reason I thought he'd found the houses like this, returning to them time and again to see what had changed. Not the case.

>>3064012
>doesn't see how the clothes on the legs is different from the soldiers, how all the weapons lie in a pile besides them and how the fabric match the only unharmed guy in the pit chilling with a gun, rummaging through the wounded soldiers backpacks
>doesnt see how these leg radically alters the meaning of the photo, elevating it from just a "lol so edgy" photo of gory soldiers.

File: P1010456.jpg (381KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1000x667px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-LX100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:26 18:07:50
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	23.60 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3064327
What is conceptual about this?

>>3064331
if i have to put it into words i guess the concept is "getting away with murder".
i apologize if i am misunderstanding the thread theme. if so, please enlighten me.

>>3064337
conceptual in this context means some grand theme or vague concept coupled with a formal exploration of the medium.
if you looked at the thread instead of just dumping your pic into it, youd see that all the images posted before you are images from more or less acclaimed photographers, and not personal photos from the posters of the board..

>>3064004
>conceptual
what's the concept? that war is bad? how fucking ground breaking

>>3064339
does the theme have to be grand or vague?
do i have to be an acclaimed photographer to do staged conceptual photography?

>>3064337
You have a staged photograph, but it doesn't seem like there is anything conceptual at work. As soon as the image is seen, it is registered and understood. What should I be dwelling on? "Getting away with murder" may be the thought you had in your head, but all that seems to be expressed is the literal nature of it.

The other images posted are not simply about what is in front of the camera, but are at least as much about their being there in front of the camera. The nature of their reality is called into question. Photography a medium, often considered (wrongly) the most truthful, is used not to document, or express, but to question the very conception of the witnessed image, or to show the mysterious metaphysical relationships between perception and reality.

Maybe I haven't spent enough time with it, but I haven't gotten any sense of that from what you've posted, beyond the inherent questions it raises by being a photograph.

>>3064346
These photographers are acclaimed because they are very, very good. The work is highly coveted, and are used as signposts in the relatively short history of art photography. It's not that you have to be acclaimed to do conceptual photography, you'd just be a bit of an idiot to make conceptual work and not even do a cursory study of these photographers. Art is a conversation. Why interject if you haven't carefully considered what you are about to say in the context of what's already been said?

>>3064344
You need to look at the picture longer. Really spend some time with it. Instead of looking to dismiss it, think of what it might be doing. Then look for any signs that what you're seeing was intended. Sometimes reading an artist statement or a professional review can help. To begin, consider that everything in the frame, more so than found photography, is entirely under the photographer's control. You cannot consider it without acknowledge the supremacy of the artist's intent. If you don't subject photos to a nuanced reading, you will never have a nuanced understanding.

>>3064347
>>3064348
>>3064349
what i, as the artist, would want you to dwell on is probably how the guy in the picture is feeling.
on second thought, i'd say the concept is "cold sweat". the snow and the heavy digging work as signs pointing to this. would that qualify more?
i guess not, if the concept has to be decided before the photo is captured.

in what way should the reality of the photo be questioned in order for it to qualify? doesn't the staging do away with reality, or does it have to be photoshopped?
can you link me a resource where i can read up on this? i obviously am not seeing what it is you're seeing in these pictures.

>>3064373
That still doesn't qualify. This is going to sound harsh, but on some level your photo is stillborn. How are we supposed to gather from the work what you're saying you wanted it to be about? And of course the concept has to be decided before the photograph is taken. If you are staging a photo, you are responsible for everything in the frame. It's not street photography, where you can just capture what catches your eye, and find the meaning later. If you don't have any purpose for the scene, then why have you made it?

Read "The Crisis of the Real" by Andy Grundberg. You might also want to read "Monuments of Passaic" by Robert Smithson.

>>3064373
It's not about what you are required to do, but what you must contend with. Any work you make can only be seen in context of all the work that already exists. If you make work without understanding your relationship to that work, then you severely handicap yourself.

Jesus, what a pretentious cunt.

>>3064422
Who, exactly?

>>3064423

>>3064346
if the concept is too literal or straight forward, if you can look at a pictrure and say "with this image, <photographer> wanted to say that <9/11 was an inside job>" the picture is gonna seem really contrived and hamfisted. you ignored the essential part of my comment, that a conceptual photo usually tackles some formal problem within the medium

the acclaimed photographer comment was about you failing to read the tone and content of the thread.

File: 584c82ffb19efe364ee4e7b7e173914b.jpg (100KB, 736x595px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 736x595px

I tried to read a book on Jeff Wall's work but when I read the explanations to me it felt like overanalyzing. I see this in art a lot. I will see an artpiece that looks pretty mundane but then the artist or critic interprets all kind of things into it.

Maybe artists are just a lot more sensitive to the world and see it differently? So things that seem mundane to me actually captivate them?

I think I will try to read the book again with a more open mind.

>>3064434
Depends on the work. It doesn't help to only look at low(er) resolutions online. But a characteristic of Jeff Wall's work is an appearance of the mundane that belies a greater perplexity. For example, when you spend a lot of time with this photo, you start to realize a subtle strangeness to the composition. You are quickly drawn to the bundle of clipped branches, and when you look there, the photo seems empty and pointless. But somehow you keep looking at it. And your eye begins to wander. The more you stay with it, the more the lines and forms take precedence over the content of the image, and you start to realize a strange geometry. For example, the tree feels as though it is perfectly vertical, coming from teh ground at a right angle. After all, it looks straight, the frame looks level, but still it juts out at an unsettling angle. Then you consider that the contents have been altered, been set up. The dirt around on the sidewalk has been deliberately spread. This is where the apparent mundanity of the image doubles back on itself. Just how manicured is the image? And if it's manicured at all, why is this way? But what other way could it possibly be? The more you dwell on the odd lines, the more intoxicating it becomes. It's a subtlety you rarely get to appreciate in photography. Notice how the curb doesn't actually follow the lines of perspective. It's bent and disjointed. And then, what exactly is it in the street? It looks like dappling sunlight. But then some of it is 3 dimensional, and when you follow it along, the color joins with the edges of the cut branches and the trash in the dirt. When you combine that with the shades of concrete, which are darker in the foreground and lighter in the background, the whole z space is confounded. It's not an iconic image, in fact it's almost deliberately opposite, disregarding almost all photographic and artistic conventions, and yet the composition is exceptionally effective and nuanced.

>>3064454
>But somehow you keep looking at it.

Wouldn't you say that it's because it's from a famous artist so I believe that there is a deeper meaning in it?

This is what I mean. It seems to me like just because a photograph is displayed in a gallery in a large format you start to look closely and (over)analyze it. I think you could analyze any snapshot from the internet in the same way.

Again maybe I just need to open my mind...

>>3064317
>assumes that someone didn't notice everything in the frame and feels compelled to enlighten said person he believes to be uneducated in critique.
are you fulfilled?
did you notice how strange the three subjects in the center are posed?
i don't like disembodied legs unless they are used for scale, etc. i wish the subject were included more for context or not at all.
also, subject "rummaging' through the bag could be more dynamic. he/she blends in to the background too much. maybe dumping the bag out; after the fact though. maybe he's having a sandwich during the shoot? maybe the photographer wasn't skilled enough to capture that motion and the rest of the scene.
but then again, maybe my tastes are my own.

File: destroyed room.jpg (92KB, 750x505px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 750x505px

>>3064457
No. You keep looking at it because it is a strong composition. You should be less afraid of people only liking a photograph or a piece of art because the artist is famous and more afraid of dismissing a work because you don't know who made it. Ask yourself this--how did any of the famous photographers become famous? Were they conmen? They might be famous now, but they weren't always. It often takes more work to recognize the quality of older work because much of what was new and original has been done and redone. The ideas contained have already been devoured. No one alive today could catch beatle-mania. Given the problems of fame and time, turn to the work. If someone was successful, first acknowledge the possibility it was deserved. Analyze from that perspective. Say to yourself "Okay, I don't see it yet, but what about this piece could make it so well respected? What possible explanation is there?" Once you've done that, ask yourself if it's valid, or if it's bullshit marketing. Basically, double-check your work. Post another picture, from a famous artist, or a random snapshot, and let's see. I immediately recognized the amateur nature of >>3064327
It's true, my familiarity with Wall's work allowed me to analyze this picture more quickly, but that is a privilege of a known artist--benefit of the doubt. If I know you've made good work before, I will follow you further out on a limb. The Destroyed Room is a good intro to Wall--first you see a destroyed room. Feels like it could be anywhere in middle America. Then you see the painted bricks of the studio, and the wooden supports holding up the wall. The room is constructed. Now the picture is a lot more interesting.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2005:10:13 11:28:47
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	750
Image Height	505

>>3064463
You haven't noticed everything in the frame, and you're clearly not paying attention to the image. The artist is not there to give you what you want. The legs deconstruct the image. They are there for context--the context of the making and staging of the photo. They break the frame. That's why it's a good image, and not a forgettable cartoon, or a cliche of war and gore. Your suggestion further demonstrates why we know Jeff Wall's name and not yours.

>>3064471
so, you're saying that the reason this is a "good image" is due to the legs in top right?
as stated before, opinions are at play here, but instead of comparing them, you choose to mock at every turn. Wall's name is known because he has been doing this for over 30 years and to pull reputation into it is not the issue. after all, we don't know your name either, anon, does that mean you haven't accomplished anything? i'm sure you've accomplished more than being just fanboy.

>>3064467
>>3064454
>people actually believe this
lel I scrolled thru this believed someone uploaded his ugly snapshits of their first week of photography and then realized it's something from some 'artist' because of this autistic long text you wrote.
Come on man, the destroyed room is neat but that tree picture is literally dirt.

>>3064748
No. I haven't accomplished anything, and it would be dishonest to say otherwise. My primary trade is as a writer. I have some string photographs, but if I'm honest with myself, I'm better at critical analysis. Not just in photography, but across mediums. Photo is just my favorite. And while I was being a little facetious, I'm quite serious when I say the legs in the top right are one of the most important elements to the photo. Without them, this photo would basically be "lel so edgy". As I said before, they break the frame. The self awareness of the photo is what makes it more interesting than an off-color(literally and figuratively) scene. It's what Jeff Wall is known for. That's why his works are included under Conceptual photography.

>>3064803
Why do you even bother with photography? You clearly don't want to understand it.

>>3064852
Yeah dude tell me more how I don't understand a literal pile of dirt and branches

>>3064854
>Thinking the subject is the photograph
>Being this dense

>>3064467
>You should be less afraid of people only liking a photograph or a piece of art because the artist is famous and more afraid of dismissing a work because you don' t know who made it.
this is so well put.

>>3064900
>pulling schizophrenian stuff out of a simple picture of dirt

>>3064454

All right, new poster here. I'm genuinely trying to learn something. Can you back up what you're saying about this photo? Like, what's "unsettling" about the angle of the tree? Looks just slightly off-vertical to me, which is a normal way for a tree to grow. What makes you say the dirt has been deliberately spread? I can't tell. The lines of the curb converge as they move further from the camera, it looks like a normal perspective to me. What's so special about the sunlight, or the concrete? I first started reading about photography a few months ago and I'd like to say I'm better at "seeing" than I was at first but I'm clearly not seeing any of the things you are.

>>3065130
It isn't sunlight. It just looks that way. It tricks you into thinking it its, but it isn't. If you look at the tree, it's very straight. Where it meets the ground, it looks as though it's growing straight up. A straight tree, going up 90 degrees from the ground should exist frame 90 degrees from its origin, no? You might say the camera's tilted, but the other perspective lines of the ground work against this. As you try and confirm this, you'll notice that the curb is bent, but where it bends is behind the tree. If you really want to see it, use a straight edge. Then, look at how the edges of the dirt are bent and rough as well. This is hidden by the way the mud is spread around on the concrete. While the back edge looks like it's just mud that's been tread, notice how none of it extends beyond the curb, and see how upfront it looks like it's been smudged by hand. Notice how the dirt inside the square seems completely undisturbed. Keep looking at the branches, and you'll realize several appear to be placed there, because they don't follow the natural growth of whatever was there.

The whole scene is presented to you as though this is the way things are. But everything about the photo is showing you the evidence of activity, of pruning. The piece of trash was once full of gum, now pruned of its fruit. The bush is gone. The leaves fell form the tree above. Mud as a record of human activity. A mess in the street. All in a composition that presents itself as permanent, timeless, that hides its artificiality, while simultaneously giving you many little threads that you can tug on to unravel the whole thing. Strangely, once you actually look into the frame, there is no clean exit. Everything brings your attention back to center, where there is seemingly nothing, so you keep wandering. But there is nothing, because it has been chopped out.

>>3065178
I can't help but feel like this is an overanalysis.

>>3065181
Maybe it is. But it's a better way to live

>>3064936

This, a picture might be worth a thousand words but I'm not reading them in this thread, wtf.

>>3064851
>I'm quite serious when I say the legs in the top right are one of the most important elements to the photo.

OP here, and in agreement, part of the reason I have respect for Wall. His attention to details such as these are amazing.

>>3065242
Try reading any serious essay on photography and art. Maybe you'll learn something.

>>3065194
>"ah well this is just a picture of dirt, let's check out the others"
>"how DARE YOU. You should read a fucking book about the art of photography and then come back here how can you tell me this picture of dirt isn't some kind of magical stuff, look at the lines look at how the dirt is blown from the wind look at how it look there like it is just a random picture... but it is not ... because this picture of dirt is .... made by an professional. how DARE you say im overanalysing things"

like I honestly didn't read more than the first wall of text you wrote, come on brother

File: 3295778036_c550f7865a_o.jpg (116KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 500x400px

>>3064276
When I see this, I think of the idea of womanhood, of the outlook of life and aging, and with the nudity and the warm glow behind, of the idea of bearing children and the passage of life. Now I only see this because I know it's a Crewdson and know it's constructed. If I saw this on a photojournalists site, I might be inclined to take it as part of story on something else, possibly on a story about what nudists do in the winter. Thats because thats the photographic conversation that the pj is trying to make, by capturing a scene as is. If this was on some lifestyle photographers site, I'd just be like "oh tight, naked chick, artsy woodsy clothing campaign or someone paid by Ryan McGinley".

>>3064434
It's constructed, but I throw in the towel, its sticks to me.

>>3064467
This shows to me a more poignant view of the authors actual outlook on life and ideas. I feel that showing the construction of the set drives home the idea that this photographer is making commentary on what is in the room, what makes up a room, and how these objects interact with each other. The image itself is not of interest, but rather what the objects individual and combined value define about the photographers opinions. This one is more obvious as it is a constructed set.
An alternative commentary to this would be Simon Norfolk's image “A controlled explosion of an American fuel convoy in Iraq being filmed on the set of Over There, a Fox TV production about the life of a US Army platoon in contemporary Iraq. Being filmed in Chatsworth, just north of Los Angeles, Sept 2005.” The caption alone dictates what the image is about, and shows a created space and shows the photographers perspective of the events but was not constructed by him.
This direction provides for both an interpretation of a constructed reality and the outsider observer perspective of a documentary photographer.
I'll post another pic right after this.

File: set-in-the-street-new-york-artists-designboom-03.jpg (196KB, 818x545px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 818x545px

>>3066391
follow up


In the image I attached, Justin Bettman creates spaces on NYC streets and photographs them, then leaves the spaces up for others to photograph in. What portion of this would be the most poignant commentary? The creation of the space? The photographers own interpretation with models? Permitting others to use the space at will? In my opinion, the underlying message to the whole project is the commentary on the usage of space. It's a great project and multifaceted beyond belief. All the materials used are found on the street or headed to the dump from photoshoots, which is commentary on the fluidity of our commodities and the wastefulness of society. Great images and an amazing project. Of course you can find commentary in the imagery alone but backstory creates a mindset that allows you to really dig into the ideas behind every part of the image, including framing, set location, model choice, and so on.

or maybe I'm just totally wrong. I don't like Susan Sontag's writings and a professor once told me that would lead me to be a poor photographer so...