login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > A Great Photographer Search   Reply
first1234567last
Photographer
L A U B E N H E I M E R
Posts: 8,639
Seattle, Washington, US


Mike Collins wrote:
Actually, humans have no "instincts".  We learn things by observation.  If we saw no one or was encouraged by another to walk upright, we wouldn't.  We are born with the ability to walk but we still have to observe and then learn it.  Just like everything else we do.  Besides breathing, eating and sleeping.  But those are functions and not instincts.

+1

last year i photographed devynne, and as she was on the couch i noticed a photograph. i noticed a photograph that just seemed right to me. it wasn't instinct. it was because of a photo i had seen a while back by observation.

my photo:
http://archives.marklaubenheimer.com/image.php?image=/models/2013/08-03-2013_Devynne/devynne2web05.jpg&quality=70&width=554

and the photo (by annie leibovitz) i had observed a long time ago before i had shot my photograph.

http://filmmakeriq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Francis-Ford-Coppola-and-Sofia-Coppola-by-Annie-Leibovitz.jpg

that's why i saw a good photo, because i had observed a similar one before i even picked up my camera.

think of music. great musicians aren't born with all the best chord changes/progressions/licks. they listen to a lot of music and draw their inspiration from all that they hear.

Mar 06 14 06:40 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Natalia_Taffarel
Posts: 7,665
Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina


Zack Zoll wrote:
Like I said, you're clearly not interested in hearing competing opinions.  I would recommend you stick to your blogging, rather than using a forum where people might call you out.

Because I disagree? Irony...

Mar 06 14 06:59 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
BlueMoonPics
Posts: 4,335
New York, New York, US


Mike Collins wrote:

Actually, humans have no "instincts".  We learn things by observation.  If we saw no one or was encouraged by another to walk upright, we wouldn't.  We are born with the ability to walk but we still have to observe and then learn it.  Just like everything else we do.  Besides breathing, eating and sleeping.  But those are functions and not instincts.

Humans have no instincts?
We are not separate from the animal kingdom.
Yes, we have instincts.

Mar 06 14 07:06 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Art Silva
Posts: 9,378
Santa Barbara, California, US


Mike Collins wrote:

Actually, humans have no "instincts".  We learn things by observation.  If we saw no one or was encouraged by another to walk upright, we wouldn't.  We are born with the ability to walk but we still have to observe and then learn it.  Just like everything else we do.  Besides breathing, eating and sleeping.  But those are functions and not instincts.

I have to disagree to a degree.
Everything you mentioned is called inspiration and true inspiration that drives us to do certain things and affect how we think.
Instinct is our ability to perform successfully in a pinch and make it our own that defines us.

Mar 06 14 07:11 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MMDesign
Posts: 18,647
Louisville, Kentucky, US


L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:
my photo:
http://archives.marklaubenheimer.com/image.php?image=/models/2013/08-03-2013_Devynne/devynne2web05.jpg&quality=70&width=554

Not meant as a critique, but I quite like this... even if it is in color.  smile

Mar 06 14 07:20 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 15,846
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand


Mike Collins wrote:
Actually, humans have no "instincts".  We learn things by observation.  If we saw no one or was encouraged by another to walk upright, we wouldn't.  We are born with the ability to walk but we still have to observe and then learn it.  Just like everything else we do.  Besides breathing, eating and sleeping.  But those are functions and not instincts.

I want to address this because it happens to fall into my other professional area of expertise - training.

Humans learn by 4 methods, observation is one of them. The others are experimentation (doing), cognitive (reasoning) and interaction (discussion). Different humans learn more effectively or less effectively with the methods. Observation is not actually a way of learning that generally rates all that highly or effectively for most humans (experimentation - doing something - generally rates the highest on average).

And human beings certainly have instincts.  Fight or flee, the crying instinct, the diving instinct, and a number of others. Whether some people are born with the instincts/traits that make them leaders vs. followers or whether that those traits are developed because of observation and environment is still argued, but no one seriously claims that the three I've mentioned (or a number of others) aren't human instincts.

Mar 06 14 08:12 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 15,846
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand


L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:
that's why i saw a good photo, because i had observed a similar one before i even picked up my camera.

think of music. great musicians aren't born with all the best chord changes/progressions/licks. they listen to a lot of music and draw their inspiration from all that they hear.

If what you claim was ENTIRELY true, nothing new would ever be created....

And yet, we know that isn't true..... using music as you suggest, the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix were both influenced and inspired by Chuck Berry - but they both created something beyond what Chuck Berry ever created - they did more than just observe and copy that which had come before, they built on it and created something new.

Mar 06 14 08:18 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15,425
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom


Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Because I disagree? Irony...

Some people just can't admit that they are in the wrong ... I call it the Putin syndrome.

Mar 06 14 08:38 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
gopherlove
Posts: 79
Chicago, Illinois, US


Al Lock Photography wrote:
If what you claim was ENTIRELY true, nothing new would ever be created....

And yet, we know that isn't true..... using music as you suggest, the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix were both influenced and inspired by Chuck Berry - but they both created something beyond what Chuck Berry ever created - they did more than just observe and copy that which had come before, they built on it and created something new.

LSD wasnt around for chuck berry either smile

Mar 06 14 08:39 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
L A U B E N H E I M E R
Posts: 8,639
Seattle, Washington, US


Al Lock Photography wrote:

If what you claim was ENTIRELY true, nothing new would ever be created....

And yet, we know that isn't true..... using music as you suggest, the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix were both influenced and inspired by Chuck Berry - but they both created something beyond what Chuck Berry ever created - they did more than just observe and copy that which had come before, they built on it and created something new.

but was it instinct?

Mar 06 14 10:27 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Wye
Posts: 9,770
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


A great photographer is one who creates great photographs.

What's a great photograph? I don't know.  But like porn.. I know one when I see one.
Mar 06 14 11:27 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15,425
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom


Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Rules haven't changed since Leonardo da Vinci.

What rules you speak of?

John Hegarty, one of the world's most famous advertising creatives.. ' There are no rules'.

Mar 06 14 12:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Natalia_Taffarel
Posts: 7,665
Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina


The Something Guy wrote:

John Hegarty, one of the world's most famous advertising creatives.. ' There are no rules'.

Funny I majored in advertising and everything is based on them smile

Mar 06 14 03:04 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
BlueMoonPics
Posts: 4,335
New York, New York, US


I don't know but I feel rules are often times created after the fact.
Once somebody does something and, hey, it works, that's when others try to quantify and qualify it.
Mar 06 14 03:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
L A U B E N H E I M E R
Posts: 8,639
Seattle, Washington, US


BlueMoonPics wrote:
I don't know but I feel rules are often times created after the fact.
Once somebody does something and, hey, it works, that's when others try to quantify and qualify it.

even if a rule is created after the fact...it still becomes a rule for the next person.

Mar 06 14 03:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 2,479
Glens Falls, New York, US


Art Silva wrote:

I have to disagree to a degree.
Everything you mentioned is called inspiration and true inspiration that drives us to do certain things and affect how we think.
Instinct is our ability to perform successfully in a pinch and make it our own that defines us.

I think you guys that are discussing instincts are confusing the instinct for survival and self-preservation with the ability to perform a task without instruction, or even having seen it done before.

Here's a scenario where they overlap, and maybe it will help make sure that we're all on the same page.

Let's say that you get dropped in the middle of a deserted island, Bear Grylls style, with nothing but a knife and some rope, and absolutely no survival training whatsoever.  Your instinct may encourage you to walk towards the coast, as the coastal air smells fresher than the jungle.  Your instinct may also tell you to build a shelter even if you don't know how, because you know you need to stay out of the elements.  However, your instinct will not allow you to tie a bunch of different rope knots(sorry for the inevitable pun); unless you understand how knots work, you're literally just twisting the rope around until something useful happens.  And when it does, you'll (hopefully) remember it, and use it again later.  This is how 'rules' of artwork are created:  someone experiments until something works, and other people eventually jump on the bandwagon.

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:
that's why i saw a good photo, because i had observed a similar one before i even picked up my camera.

think of music. great musicians aren't born with all the best chord changes/progressions/licks. they listen to a lot of music and draw their inspiration from all that they hear.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
If what you claim was ENTIRELY true, nothing new would ever be created....

And yet, we know that isn't true..... using music as you suggest, the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix were both influenced and inspired by Chuck Berry - but they both created something beyond what Chuck Berry ever created - they did more than just observe and copy that which had come before, they built on it and created something new.

Al, it can be both - you can learn AND create.  But 'instinct' implies a complete lack of prior knowledge.  If you listen to early, Hamburg-era Beatles, they sound like white Chuck Berry wannabees.  But at some point - either because of drugs, new musical influences, boredom, whatever - they started screwing around with new sounds, and some of them sounded pretty cool.  They didn't create new music magically - they tried a bunch of new stuff, and some of it was really good.

Thing is, most people only remember the stuff that was really good.  Everybody knows Helter Skelter, but not so many people remember Dig a Pony.  You  know Hendrix's Angel, but do you know 1983 ... (A Merman I Shall Turn to Be)?  It's another awesome song, but it sounds a lot more like jazz, so it didn't stick with the general public.  So it seems like these new ideas came out of nowhere, because we(the public at large) aren't aware of all the other steps that came before.

gopherlove wrote:
LSD wasnt around for chuck berry either smile

I remember hearing Carlos Santana say that if Buddy Guy had dropped acid, he would have out-Hendrixed Hendrix.  AND beat him to the punch by a couple years to boot.

Hendrix's distinctive style is largely based on sloppy playing - using your thumb to fret notes on the lower strings.  That's something he picked up from Robert Johnson.  It was considered 'against the rules.'  Johnson did it because, as a black man in the American South in the 1920s and 30s, nobody was going to be giving him lessons but other black bluesmen.  In Johnson's case, it was probably instinctual.  In Hendrix's case, it was not - he learned that.

Or maybe it WAS instinctual.  Maybe he was too messed up on drugs to fret his guitar properly, and the Robert Johnson explanation was just used as an excuse.

But even today, using your thumb is STILL against the rules, unless you're trying to sound like Johnson or Hendrix.

BlueMoonPics wrote:
I don't know but I feel rules are often times created after the fact.
Once somebody does something and, hey, it works, that's when others try to quantify and qualify it.

Rules are almost always created after the fact.  It's not a rule until we know it works smile

And the 'rules of composition' weren't rules either, until people started teaching them.  Before then, it was just stuff that happened to be common in a lot of really good paintings.  But with the explosion of art in the Renaissance, and more importantly the explosion of art schools, suddenly people hard to go around naming all this stuff, so that it could be explained to students.  Before then, most artists learned by apprenticeship, and copying their masters.  Their "rules" were what their master's did, and their master's master's, and so on.

This is why there are relatively few well-known Western artists before the Renaissance, despite the fact that artists had been documented in the West since Grecian times.  They were almost all interchangeable by era, because they all followed strict rules and guidelines.

But outside of Jackson Pollack, I can't think of a single "world-renown" artist offhand that worked purely on instinct.  Even Picasso was heavily influenced by African and Muslim art(Spain, remember), and had a group of other Cubists and proto-Cubists to bounce stuff off of.

Mar 06 14 05:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Trisha May Photography
Posts: 304
Colchester, Connecticut, US


This entire debate reminds me of a scene in the Dead Poets Society when they read from a book that tries to break down a poem into a type of grid...

Toss out the cursed rules and make art! Its beautiful because it comes from within you. The greats are great because they made a photograph that moves people..that makes them feel something, like a poem does.

Perhaps that's just the artist side of photography talking though...
Mar 06 14 05:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
TJ Photo
Posts: 84
Pomona, California, US


Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Trends have changed, the rules for creating great imagery.

Painting / photography / Video

Are all the same. Timeless and universal

I posted a reply earlier questioning the quote in your original post, the OP that started this whole discussion, but you don't seem to be interested in dissenting opinions or challenges to your basic belief system.  As far as I've seen, you still haven't bothered to define what is "great" in an image or a photographer. You've simply offered a few elements of a technical sort that don't by themselves make anything great.  So you're being a kind of reductionist and using circular reasoning within a flawed definition you want to believe is timeless and universal.  Great art is probably timeless and universal, though you're really locked into Western cultural ways of viewing, but your way of describing what great art must have is narrow and superficial.

Your insistence on "rules" is wrong-headed and really of little consequence in a discussion of greatness.  If you mean principles or objective standards, that's another matter.  I would agree that there are some objective standards loosely, and they can be described, but great art is NOT about rules, period.  Maybe it's just your inexact choice of words, but your fixation on rules suggests a limited and technical way of viewing design and illustration, not art.   There are no rules for great art, only intrinsic properties and attributes that together define the work as being "great".  Those properties involve intellectual, emotional and spiritual qualities of its content, not imposed rules.  The rule of thirds, for example, is an imposed way of viewing one aspect of the organizational structure of a work of art, not a vital property of great art. 

As for the other replies mixed in here--those digressing into garbled philosophy and tangents about paradigms, Barthe and whatever--they strike me as abstruse and off the point, not to mention annoying pedantry.  I've read my share of interesting philosophers, and there must be another forum where we could blather about that.  Back to "great photographers," who is being nominated as great and what makes them so?

Mar 06 14 06:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mike Collins
Posts: 1,852
Orlando, Florida, US


Al Lock Photography wrote:

I want to address this because it happens to fall into my other professional area of expertise - training.

Humans learn by 4 methods, observation is one of them. The others are experimentation (doing), cognitive (reasoning) and interaction (discussion). Different humans learn more effectively or less effectively with the methods. Observation is not actually a way of learning that generally rates all that highly or effectively for most humans (experimentation - doing something - generally rates the highest on average).

And human beings certainly have instincts.  Fight or flee, the crying instinct, the diving instinct, and a number of others. Whether some people are born with the instincts/traits that make them leaders vs. followers or whether that those traits are developed because of observation and environment is still argued, but no one seriously claims that the three I've mentioned (or a number of others) aren't human instincts.

Not to get OT but...Those things you mentioned are not instincts.  Fleeing is certainly learned.  If you never learned what harm was, you would stand right there and let whatever harm you.   Crying is a human function.  So is sneezing.  Or coughing.  They are not instincts.  Instincts or those things in animals that they just know when, what and how to do something without "learning"  in.  Take for instance birds flying south.  Or turtles knowing to return to the sea.  Or salmon returning to the same place every year to spawn.  They don't learn these things.  They are, well, instincts. 

We as human throw the term "instinct" around very loosely, as with many other words.  Like genius. 

You can disagree and I respect that.  But I bet just about everything you know how to do  (or anyone for that matter) was learned in some fashion, mainly observation.

Mar 06 14 06:38 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 15,846
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand


L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:

but was it instinct?

No one can really say for sure - are their musical instincts - maybe...

But it certainly wasn't just observation - the Beatles (and Hendrix) clearly incorporated experimentation, reasoning and discussion into how they created music.

Mar 06 14 10:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 15,846
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand


Mike Collins wrote:
Not to get OT but...Those things you mentioned are not instincts.  Fleeing is certainly learned.  If you never learned what harm was, you would stand right there and let whatever harm you.   Crying is a human function.  So is sneezing.  Or coughing.  They are not instincts.  Instincts or those things in animals that they just know when, what and how to do something without "learning"  in.  Take for instance birds flying south.  Or turtles knowing to return to the sea.  Or salmon returning to the same place every year to spawn.  They don't learn these things.  They are, well, instincts. 

We as human throw the term "instinct" around very loosely, as with many other words.  Like genius. 

You can disagree and I respect that.  But I bet just about everything you know how to do  (or anyone for that matter) was learned in some fashion, mainly observation.

Fight or flight is certainly an instinct - speak to any psychologist - it is not learned behavior - it is embedded in the human mind from birth. Crying when needing attention is not just a function, it is, by definition, an instinct. Same for the diving instinct (do you even know what that is?).

In general, humans learn very poorly by observation. As a race, we are not very observant and certainly don't learn well from it. If we did, why is it that MOST humans make the same mistakes as other humans? Over and over?

MOST humans learn PRIMARILY by experimentation and doing - repetition -

Try learning to play golf by observation or to run a business by observation, or even to take photos by observation....

Doesn't work for most people.

If you actually want to pursue understanding how people learn, I recommend you look at the texts published by:

Pfeiffer
ASTD (American Society for Training and Development)
AMA (American Management Association)

and specifically the work of Mel Silberman, PhD.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Al, it can be both - you can learn AND create.  But 'instinct' implies a complete lack of prior knowledge.

I didn't claim that the Beatles or Hendrix did so instinctively (although they may have). Just pointing out that learning is not exclusively by observation (in fact, observation is a very poor learning method for most humans) - and because we can learn things on our own - via experimentation, by cognitive reasoning  - we do create and invent - and instinct may or may not be involved (some musicians have taught themselves to play instruments without instruction and very, very quickly - far more quickly than would be expected - is that a mix of experimentation and cognitive reasoning? Or is it instinct? To date, we don't really know.).

Certainly some people seem to be born with an innate understanding of composition and color, just as some people seem born with an innate understanding of rhythm and melody  - they may need to learn the tools for the rest of us to appreciate that talent - but that doesn't mean they didn't have instincts.

Mar 06 14 10:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Julian W I L D E
Posts: 1,829
Portland, Oregon, US


Post hidden on Mar 09, 2014 05:10 am
Reason: 18+ Images
Mar 06 14 10:26 pm  Link 
Photographer
MDWM
Posts: 638
Los Angeles, California, US


Greatness is subjective....what's great to me may not be great to you.
Mar 06 14 10:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Select Models
Posts: 35,874
Upland, California, US


MDWM wrote:
Greatness is subjective....what's great to me may not be great to you.

True!... to me... photographic greatness is being able to obtain fantastic results in a variety of environments... NOT being just a 'one trick pony'... wink

Mar 07 14 01:04 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Natalia_Taffarel
Posts: 7,665
Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina


TJ Photo wrote:
Maybe it's just your inexact choice of words

Since english is not my native language≥, I went back for the basic definition of "rules" and it seems it has a much more authoritative connotation than "reglas" (same word in spanish) in Latin rēgula is ruler, pattern a lot more similar in meaning to the word "Guideline" in english.

So, thanks.
That was actually very useful.

I also went back for your first post, since I've been quite busy with work and I only had time for really short answers (the ones that sound cocky)

TJ Photo wrote:
The original definition is mostly circular, irrelevant or inadequate.  It says a great photographer is one who "can create a great image", but the statements never define greatness.

That was the point tho... I was being funny.

Greatness:  Better than most, timeless.

We won't know who is great till years have passed and they remain in the collective memory. With few exceptions.


TJ Photo wrote:
Your weak definition then lists some of the technical qualities we might look for in an appealing photograph but by themselves they don't make it "great".

I don't just mention technical qualities.
You don't say what is missing from the definition.

TJ Photo wrote:
Then, even more vague, it says the photographer has "something to convey" and does this "intentionally".  Almost everyone taking photos here or in the wide world intends to convey something, and has "something to say", which could be banal or profound.

In my opinion, if what you have to say is banal then you don't really have something to say.
"Having the general culture needed to have something to convey" implies something else, more profound, deeper, more intelligent.

TJ Photo wrote:
Tell us who you think is "great" and specifically why they're great, then the debate might get more exact and meaningful.

Then the debate would shift to personal taste, and fights.

People rarely divide the good from their taste.

I hate Claude Monet, personally.
Claude Monet was a great paintor.

I can objectively say he was great, but personally I find his paintings boring and dull.

Great photographers? Very different from each other in style:

Bresson

Steven Meisel

Helmut Newton


TJ Photo wrote:
If we say that a great photograph expresses the deepest or most profound human emotions and ideas in a unique way that far surpasses any common visual expression on the same theme, that might get close.

If surpasses implies "better in quality" - we agree

TJ Photo wrote:
we could say that a great photograph, like a great work of art, is inexhaustible in the way it expresses more ideas and feelings each time we come back to it, that adds even more to the definition.  But your original definition tells us virtually nothing to explain what constitutes a truly great photograph, much less a great photographer who makes such images.

We can disagree, but you haven't explained why

Or better yet, show me a GREAT photograph that doesn't fit within "the rules" I spoke of

Mar 07 14 02:47 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Natalia_Taffarel
Posts: 7,665
Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina


Al Lock Photography wrote:
Certainly some people seem to be born with an innate understanding of composition and color, just as some people seem born with an innate understanding of rhythm and melody  - they may need to learn the tools for the rest of us to appreciate that talent - but that doesn't mean they didn't have instincts.

Whom? Give me ONE example

Mar 07 14 03:06 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15,425
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom


Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Funny I majored in advertising and everything is based on them smile

Who are the other two Bartle, Bogle.

Never ever heard the word 'great' used in a creative circle be it photographers, college lectures (photo) or art dir conversations, agency use the words 'great photographer' always been ' good photographer '.

Mar 07 14 03:14 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Natalia_Taffarel
Posts: 7,665
Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina


The Something Guy wrote:

Who are the other two Bartle, Bogle.

Never ever heard the word 'great' used in a creative circle be it photographers, college lectures (photo) or art dir conversations, agency use the words 'great photographer' always been ' good photographer '.

And now we would be arguing semantics.

But yes, I have heard it, I use it, people use it. It's a word, get over it smile

Mar 07 14 03:17 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 15,846
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand


Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Whom? Give me ONE example

John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Freddie Mercury, The Artist Formerly Known as Prince, Onofrio Paccione...

Mar 07 14 03:33 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 15,846
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand


Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Funny I majored in advertising and everything is based on them smile

Paul Rand and George Lois changed the rules - so is everything based on the rules from before them? Or after them?

Even the most fundamental rule in advertising - make sure the customer remembers the product - is broken all the time.

Mar 07 14 03:40 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 21,242
New York, New York, US


The Something Guy wrote:
Who are the other two Bartle, Bogle.

Never ever heard the word 'great' used in a creative circle be it photographers, college lectures (photo) or art dir conversations, agency use the words 'great photographer' always been ' good photographer '.

I don't know about that....

I spent my entire life, in one way or another, being educated in or working in, the arts, including as an educator myself.  I have heard great used all the time, be it in relation to musicians, painters, sculptors actors, directors or photographers - and I include in this references made in academic settings.

Regarding the notion of "talent", I think it is unquestionable that it exists, anyone who has educated children in music will see that.  But I will agree that as far as becoming successful goes, it plays a small, if somewhat important, role.

Mar 07 14 04:52 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 2,479
Glens Falls, New York, US


TJ Photo wrote:
Maybe it's just your inexact choice of words

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Since english is not my native language≥, I went back for the basic definition of "rules" and it seems it has a much more authoritative connotation than "reglas" (same word in spanish) in Latin rēgula is ruler, pattern a lot more similar in meaning to the word "Guideline" in english.

So, thanks.
That was actually very useful.

Based on your very fluent English writing, and understanding of terms like, "authoritative connotation," I had assumed we were all on the same page.  But we're clearly not, so let me take a step back for a moment, and take back all the negative things I said in this thread - clearly we just weren't on the same page.  But I reserve the right to say them again wink

English is a stupid language.  I've said it a million times, and I'll take that to my grave.  I was recently helping a Brazilian friend write an artist statement, and there were several times where we had to change the wording to go against the rules of 'proper' English in order to make the sentence say what he really meant.  He had a bit where he wanted to say, "Now the birds sing free."  As in, not caged.  But since 'free' is an adverb, it should have said, "Now the birds sing freely."  Which is dumb, because it means that the birds are still in the cage - they just don't have a singing schedule anymore.

English is stupid.

In English, 'great' doesn't just mean extra-good.  It can also mean powerful or influential.  The example every English teacher uses is that Hitler was one of the greatest men of the 20th century, since everyone knows who he was, and he had an impact on countless lives and economies.

If you're asking what makes a great photographer(extra-good), then what you wrote is correct.  Following all the rules of photography will generally insure that your photos are considered to be very good by the people looking at them at the time they are made.

But most people reading this will think that 'great' means influential and important.  Most artists that were 'great' in this sense did not follow rules, which is why they stand out and why we remember them.  We know Ansel Adams because he was highly skilled and technical at a time when very few other photographers were.  We know Terry Richardson because he isn't highly skilled and technical, and right now most other photographers are.

When Duchamp created Nude Descending a Staircase and Fountain, people thought he was nuts.  Absolutely no 'extra-good' in that work - at least not to the general public of that time.  Huge controversy, even at the Armory Show, which was supposed to be all about supporting new and interesting work.

But by the second definition - influence - Duchamp was absolutely a great artist.  We can see now how important and influential his works were.

And I think that's part of the confusion.

If it helps any, 'great' usually means 'good' when it is used casually, as in 'Hitler was a great guy.'  It usually means 'influential' when used formally, as in 'Hitler was a great man.'

Mar 07 14 07:50 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54,145
Buena Park, California, US


Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
[img]https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/l/t1/1601000_10152116959181107_1287915071_n.jpg[img]

What's a Great Photographer for you?

I know them when I see their work.  Can't explain otherwise. big_smile

I know, cop out. tongue

Mar 07 14 08:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
L A U B E N H E I M E R
Posts: 8,639
Seattle, Washington, US


Al Lock Photography wrote:

No one can really say for sure - are their musical instincts - maybe...

But it certainly wasn't just observation - the Beatles (and Hendrix) clearly incorporated experimentation, reasoning and discussion into how they created music.

perhaps they observed others and also observed themselves....

Mar 07 14 08:29 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
gopherlove
Posts: 79
Chicago, Illinois, US


as has been stated before maybe 10 x's , the word "great" should be defined ...
Does great mean one who makes a lot of money with photography ?
or uses the rules of composition well?
or shoots celebrities?
or makes kick butt images?
or knows how to shoot film and digital?
the list goes on for a while....  lets beat a dead horse smile
Mar 07 14 09:02 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 21,242
New York, New York, US


Zack Zoll wrote:
Based on your very fluent English writing, and understanding of terms like, "authoritative connotation," I had assumed we were all on the same page.  But we're clearly not, so let me take a step back for a moment, and take back all the negative things I said in this thread - clearly we just weren't on the same page.  But I reserve the right to say them again wink

English is a stupid language.  I've said it a million times, and I'll take that to my grave.  I was recently helping a Brazilian friend write an artist statement, and there were several times where we had to change the wording to go against the rules of 'proper' English in order to make the sentence say what he really meant.  He had a bit where he wanted to say, "Now the birds sing free."  As in, not caged.  But since 'free' is an adverb, it should have said, "Now the birds sing freely."  Which is dumb, because it means that the birds are still in the cage - they just don't have a singing schedule anymore.

English is stupid.

In English, 'great' doesn't just mean extra-good.  It can also mean powerful or influential.  The example every English teacher uses is that Hitler was one of the greatest men of the 20th century, since everyone knows who he was, and he had an impact on countless lives and economies.

If you're asking what makes a great photographer(extra-good), then what you wrote is correct.  Following all the rules of photography will generally insure that your photos are considered to be very good by the people looking at them at the time they are made.

But most people reading this will think that 'great' means influential and important.  Most artists that were 'great' in this sense did not follow rules, which is why they stand out and why we remember them.  We know Ansel Adams because he was highly skilled and technical at a time when very few other photographers were.  We know Terry Richardson because he isn't highly skilled and technical, and right now most other photographers are.

When Duchamp created Nude Descending a Staircase and Fountain, people thought he was nuts.  Absolutely no 'extra-good' in that work - at least not to the general public of that time.  Huge controversy, even at the Armory Show, which was supposed to be all about supporting new and interesting work.

But by the second definition - influence - Duchamp was absolutely a great artist.  We can see now how important and influential his works were.

And I think that's part of the confusion.

I'm glad you posted this.  It's what I alluded to, in part at least, when I said we first need to define great. 

I think it's also a difficult conversation to have because unless you're familiar with the canon, what are you going to refer to?  By this I don't mean "great = extra good" but great as in, your great grandchildren will be seeing his worked exhibited at MoMA.

And of course even there, educated observers can have wildly differing opinions.  For example, Bob Randall and I have divergent views when it comes to Gregory Crewdson.  There is no question that he is "great=extra good".  His work is exquisitely produced, both the large scale work that he uses huge teams to produce, as well as his more intimate work.  But is he Great?  I think he is; Bob thinks he sucks.  Only time will tell, but if I were a betting man, and I am, I'd put a few scheckles on Great.  wink

But if the majority of responders don't know who even the more famous producers of the canon are, how do you have that conversation?  And then, you have divergent backgrounds based on interest.  The academic will have a very different view than, say, a fashion photo editor.  I saw a list of the "100 Most Influential Photographers of All Time" compiled by a magazine editor.  It was largely quite good, but as he was predominately interested in fashion photography, people like Steichen and Stieglitz were not mentioned, which is simply inconceivable when discussing the transformation of photography from a method of mechanically reproducing an image into an actual art form. 

And then you have those who dismiss any form of valuation.  The "we're all special snowflakes crowd".  Most of the time, they suck - and yes, that's my opinion, but it's a relatively educated one.  The fact is that if we're talking about Great, then there are tastemakers involved, there are conventions involved, there is a history to be considered.  If we're just talking about great=really good.  Then it becomes far more subjective, I suppose.

And lastly, that works as a nice transition to "Rules" or, as evidenced by many here "OMG RULZZZZ!!@`1 I HAZ NONE!!!"...

I don't think Natalia is so wrong; rather, I think those who continually think that the "rules" are emphasized as something that must always be adhered to (a common thought among those who never went through an arts education).

Rules are how we learn.  Limiting someone so that they can master a particular skill is not only common, it is a preferred form of pedagogy.  That doesn't mean you never grow past that...  It's just a tool.  Invariably whenever I see some special snowflake rally against traditional methods of learning an art form (and this applies to most any, really) I go and look at their work and eight out of ten times it sucks.  The other two times I laugh because, whether they know it or not, they have applied them.  It is simply a learning tool, like practicing scales or arpeggios on an instrument.

Mar 07 14 09:22 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6,368
Los Angeles, California, US


Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I find, as I get older, that even when the "rules" are broken, it is only on the most fundamental levels, and usually they are simply applying a more sophisticated vocabulary and grammar

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Pretty much smile

I could not disagree more.

Apart from the fact that that sentence has very little logic and even less meaning.

First of all if something is broken and the most fundamental level it is pretty much thrown out.
So the rule is simply broken. That can be done to produce crap and to produce something the opposite of crap.

As far as using a more sophisticated vocabulary and grammar... that is just playing with words.
While there is the expression that a Photograph is worth a thousand words and photograph is not made up of words or grammar. It needs neither.

Riles are for those that are ruled, rules either by choice or oblivious to the fact that they are simply submitting to rules.

I have always taught that the "rule of thirds" is not a rule, but an easy way to obtain a "comfortable composition". I actually asked my students to not even refer to it as a rule, but simply a quick and easy technique.

Rather than teaching or enforcing rules I thought my students to use their head, instinct and above all their eyes..... the most important camera of them all. I taught them to absorb fine work they liked form their predecessors rather than to dissect them into assumed rules.

Mar 07 14 09:53 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 21,242
New York, New York, US


I tried to find the list I referenced in the post above, but was unable to do so.

I did, however, find this list of "The 100 Most Influential Photographers of all Time" and it's a pretty good balance of styles (and think we can get by without quibbling over individual rankings):

http://www.professionalphotographer.co. … f-all-time

I would not so humbly suggest that anyone reading it, who is unfamiliar with most of the names and their work, would greatly benefit from spending a bit of time each day researching them and their work.

Here's the list:

1. Richard Avedon American 1923-2004
Avedon was the epitome of the modern photographer – a charming, sophisticated man-about-town and a photographer who was able to cross photographic genres. It did not matter where he was, which format he chose to work with or who his subject was, the image would be an Avedon image. It would have that unmistakeable elegance and confidence that marked him out, not just as a great photographer but as a highly successful commercial photographer, who was able to create instantly iconic and memorable images. So what’s his influence? His large-format portrait style with the stark white background, his use of two images to tell one portrait story, his use of strobe lights in fashion, the book In The American West? Of course it’s all this and more.Avedon is a photographer whom every photographer should get to know via his books. They cover his whole career and not only chart his own photographic and personal development but also, that of commercial photography over the last half of the twentieth century. Quite simply he is our No.1. www.richardavedon.com

2. W. Eugene Smith American 1918-1978
Intense and at times obsessed with his work. He helped establish the photo story and the power of black & white printing. www.smithfund.org

3. Helmut Newton German 1920-2004
Newton created erotically charged and powerful images of women, and developed the use of ring flash in fashion images. www.helmutnewton.com

4. Irving Penn American 1917- 2009
Every portrait shot in the corner of a room or simple symbolic still life owes something to Penn. He is the established genius of American Vogue magazine. www.irvingpenn.com

5. Guy Bourdin French 1928-1991
No one has been more imitated over the last few years in fashion and art photography than Bourdin. Erotic, surreal and controversial. www.guybourdin.org

6. Henri Cartier-Bresson French 1908-2004
The creator of ‘The decisive moment’. He never cropped his images and only shot in black & white. A Leica-wielding legend.

7. Diane Arbus American 1923-1971
Freaks, loners and people on the edges of society’s norms were Arbus‘s subjects. Her direct and simple portrait style and subject matter have inspired ever since. www.diane-arbus-photography.com

8.Elliott Erwitt French 1928-
Magnum member and humorous observer of everyday life. His juxtapositions of form and images of dogs show art is where you find it. www.elliotterwitt.com

9. Walker Evans American 1903-1975
The chronicler of American life who brought a detached observer’s eye to all of his images. He created order and beauty through composition where there was none.

10. Martin Parr British 1952-
Parr’s use of intense colour and his ability to raise the snapshot to the level of art has led to him being recognised as the master chronicler of the every day. www.martinparr.com

11. Juergen TellerGerman 1964-
The master of ‘non-photography’, Teller’s images are anti-technique and blow apart the establishment’s view of photography.

12. Nick Knight British 1958-
The most influential fashion photographer in the world and one of the most sought-after. Knight’s openness to new forms, techniques and processes keeps on the cutting edge.

13. David Bailey British 1938-
For the portraits, the fashion, the wives, the wise cracks, the Olympus ads in the eighties, Blow-up, there is only one Bailey. www.david-bailey.co.uk

14. Cindy Sherman American 1954-
The ultimate self-portraitist, Sherman’s use of herself as the model was at the forefront of photography being recognised as art.

15. Andreas Gursky German 1955-
The concept of documentary/landscape photography being accepted as contemporary art stems from Gursky’s images. www.artnet.com

16. Edward Weston American 1886-1958
Weston’s experiments with shape, form and light, the female nude and natural forms influenced a whole century of photographers who followed him. www.edward-weston.com

17. Garry Winogrand American 1928-1984
A pioneer of street photography, Winogrand’s approach of not looking through the viewfinder became his trademark which led to his fluid and innovative compositions.

18. Bruce Weber American 1946-
Weber is so influential in the worlds of fashion and portraiture that company brands are based on the world which he creates with his images: The All-American Ideal. www.bruceweber.com

19. Man Ray American 1890-1976
Surrealist and painter. Lee Miller was his muse but it was with his darkroom experimentation that his influence was strongest, creating his ‘rayograms’ and solarized images.

20. Paolo Roversi Italian 1947-
The Italian master of the 10x8in Polaroid fashion image. His use of low light and soft focus combined with muted intense colour is often imitated but never bettered. www.paoloroversi.com

21. Herb Ritts American 1952-2002
The prince of eighties Californian glamour and celebrity. His work inspired Madonna in her videos and filled magazines for over a decade.

22. Annie Leibovitz American 1949-
She started out as the staff photographer at Rolling Stone and is now at Vanity Fair. She’s shot everyone and her portraits define our times.

23. Ansel Adams American 1902-1984
The king of wilderness landscape photography and the deviser of the ‘zone system’ for metering and exposure. www.anseladams.com

24. David LaChapelle American 1963-
LaChapelle uses post-production techniques combined with an ability to create fantastical ‘pop photography’ images. www.lachapellestudio.com

25. William Klein American 1928-
The anarchic rebel of fashion, reportage and film making. His wide-angle ‘in your face approach’ lives on, as does his attitude.

26. Bill Brandt German 1904-1983
The master of the distorted female nude and surrealist portrait. Brandt’s world was a dark one filled with menace. www.billbrandt.com

27. Ralph Gibson American 1939-
Gibson was a hero to photography students in the seventies and his nudes and graphic images were much imitated. www.ralphgibson.com

28. Stephen Shore American 1947-
Shore’s work is a visual record of a never-ending American road trip. His images seem deceptively easy to replicate, which has led to many photographers trying. www.billcharles.com

29. Robert FrankSwiss 1924-
One of the true innovators in the cross over between stills and film. Frank would be included in this list just for his book The Americans. www.npr.org

30. Andre Kertesz Hungarian 1894-1985
Kertesz brought a reflective eye to street photography and showed how portraiture can be an extension of reportage.

31. Chuck Close American 1940-
Close is all about detail and the greater whole. His oversize images have influenced many to exhibit big. www.chuckclose.coe.uh.edu

32. Robert Mapplethorpe American 1946-1989
His erotic images of male nudes caused controversy but it was his portrait and still-life work that made the most impact. www.mapplethorpe.org

33. Steven Meisel American 1954-
The darling of the fashion world and the great American stylist. His images reference the history of photography and style. www.artandcommerce.com

34. Peter Lindbergh German 1944-
Lindbergh has helped create the concept of the supermodel with his fashion images for Harper’s Bazaar and Italian Vogue. www.peterlindbergh.com

35. August Sander German 1876-1964
Sander’s ambition to use photography to document not only created an incredible archive of portraiture, it also brought a scientific approach to the art of photography.

36. Nan Goldin American 1953-
The queen of grunge, Goldin turned her lens on her drug-using and transvestite friends to create shocking images that saw personal reportage re-born. www.artnet.com

37. Weegee Austrian 1899-1968
He had a police radio in his car and got to crime scenes before they did, creating the archetypal image of a news photographer.

38. Don McCullin British 1935-
McCullin’s images of war and suffering not only took a heavy toll on him, they also helped influence political decisions. www.markgeorge.com

39. Slim Aarons American 1916-2006
Aarons’ social reportage of the glamorous, rich and famous of the fifties and sixties have become historical documents and stylistic touch points. www.staleywise.com

40. William Eggleston American 1939-
Eggleston’s use of intense colour, uneasy composition and disconcerting subject matter bought him to prominence and gained acceptance for colour photography as art.

41. Joel-Peter WitkinAmerican 1939-
The master of the macabre, Witkin’s still life tableaux are some of the most shocking photographic images ever created. www.edelmangallery.com

42. Anton Corbijn Dutch 1955-
Corbijn’s images of Joy Division and U2 have influenced the approach of rock photographers for over 20 years with his cross-process colours and atmospheric black & whites.

43. Brassai French 1899-1984
Brassai’s images of Paris at night and his experimental use of location lighting defined the art of night photography.

44. Erwin Blumenfeld German 1897-1969
Blumenfeld’s work in fashion and beauty focused on techniques such as solarization, wet silk, and elaborately contrived shadows and angles. He was way ahead of his time.

45.Duane Michals American 1932-
Michals use of text and collage in his images brought an intellectual dimension to his work. A photographer and communicator.

46. Mario Testino Peruvian 1954-
Mario Testino’s images are the epitome of glamour and high fashion. He lives the life and photographs it. Every fashion photographer’s dream.

47. Mary Ellen Mark American 1940-
Mary Ellen Mark started photographing the streets she lived in and developed into one of the world’s leading reportage photographers.

48. Larry Clark American 1943-
Following a similar road to Nan Goldin, Larry Clark took his experiences in Tulsa to creating startling images that influenced the grunge generation. www.larryclarkofficialwebsite.com

49. Mert & Marcus Turkish and British 1971-
Based in London this photographic partnership fully embraced the digital photographic relationship with post production and took the fashion world by storm. www.mertandmarcus.com

50. Corinne Day British 1965-
Influenced by Goldin and Clark and a close friend of Kate Moss, Corinne Day’s fashion images and personal reportage create controversy and commercial praise. www.corinneday.co.uk

51. Cecil BeatonBritish 1904-1980
The ultimate social photographer, diarist and friend to the social, fashion and rock ‘n’ roll aristocracy. He brought elegance to all. www.staleywise.com

52. Eric Boman American 1938-
Boman shot the first two Roxy Music covers and encapsulates his glamorous lifestyle in all he shoots for Vogue. http://images.google.com

53. Patrick Demarchelier French 1943-
Where Testino brings glamour to fashion, Demarchelier brings sophistication and understated glamour to all of his images.

54. Bert Hardy British 1913-1995
In post-war Britain, Hardy documented the country at work and at play with a reporter’s eye. www.photographersgallery.com

55. Tim Walker British 1970-
Over the last few years Walker has achieved incredible success with his highly innovative, stylised and propped images for both editorial and commercial clients. www.timwalkerphotography.com

56. Terry Richardson American 1965-
Richardson’s fashion and portrait images push sexual boundaries and challenge conservative taste with an American trash aesthetic. www.terryrichardson.com

57. Norman Parkinson British 1913-1990
The gentleman of British photography who brought a debonair, slightly caddish, flair to all that he photographed. www.normanparkinson.com

58. Snowdon British 1930-
Snowdon’s portraits and reportage for The Sunday Times Magazine broke boundaries and asked questions of society. www.npg.org.uk

59. Horst P. Horst German 1906-1999
Horst’s classical approach to nudes, portraits and fashion is less influential now than it once was but his work still offers much in formal lighting and composition. www.horstphorst.com

60. Philip Jones Griffiths British 1936-2008
Jones Griffiths horrifying and compelling images from Vietnam inspired countless war photographers and showed them how it should be done. www.magnumphotos.com

61. Jeanloup SieffFrench 1933- 2000
The French David Bailey, Sieff modelled for Avedon, shared a studio with Horvat and perfected his photographic approach with one light, a Nikon camera and a grey backdrop.

62. Bob Carlos Clarke British 1950-2006
Carlos Clarke took Helmut Newton’s super powerful dominatrix woman and added a graphic, erotic approach creating iconic images in black and white latex. www.bobcarlosclarke.com

63. Mick Rock British 1949-
The rock photographer’s rock photographer, Mick Rock hung out in the seventies with Bowie, Lou Reed and Iggy Pop and created seminal images that summed up the era. www.mickrock.com

64. Sebastião Salgado Brazilian 1944-
Salgado’s black and white social reportage photography brings to light social injustice and ecological disasters. www.magnumphotos.com

65. David Loftus British 1963-
Loftus’s natural approach to shooting food has led a revolution in food photography with the new emphasis being on honesty and ingredients over perfection and unreality. www.davidloftus.com

66. Brian Duffy British 1933-
One of the ‘Cockney Three’ along with Bailey and Terry Donovan. Duffy gave up photography to restore furniture but his legacy is powerful.

67. Simon Norfolk British 1963-
A self-described landscape photographer, Norfolk’s use of the large format camera in war-ravaged areas has seen a resurgence of large format. www.simonnorfolk.com

68. Araki Japanese 1940-
Araki’s controversial images of bound women, flowers and food have created a worldwide following for this driven photographer.

69. Ellen Von Unwerth German 1954-
Model turned photographer, Von Unwerth’s work brought a new approach to shooting women’s fashion, with a female sexuality brought to the fore. www.artandcommerce.com

70. Leni Riefenstahl German 1902-2003
The controversial photographer and film maker whose images from the 1936 Nazi Berlin Olympics have inspired photographers every where

71. Edward Steichen Luxembourger 1879-1973
A pioneer of photography and sensitive photographer. He helped create commercial photography in the twentieth century

72. Alfred Stieglitz American 1864-1946
Another photographic pioneer, but Stieglitz was also a craftsman who used natural elements to inform his platinum prints. www.masters-of-photography.com

73. Roger Fenton British 1819-1869
Fenton’s images created during the Crimean War mark him out as one of the first true great war photographers. http://www.geh.org

74. George Hoyningen-Huene Russian 1900-1968
From an aristocratic Russian background, Huene became a seminal fashion and portrait photographer for Vogue and Harper’s Bazaar in America. www.staleywise.com

75. Sarah Moon British 1940-
Moon’s fashion and personal images have influenced every photographer who’s seen her work and marvelled at her use of colour.

76. Frank HorvatItalian 1928-
Horvat shared a studio with William Klein in New York and went on to create some of the most iconic fashion images of the fifties and sixties. www.horvatland.com

77. Alexander Rodchenko Russian 1891-1956
Rodchenko was one of the founders of constructivism and brought the arts of photo montage, analytical documentary and innovative angles to his work. www.masters-of-photography.com

78. Julia Margaret Cameron British 1815-1879
One of the few female photographic pioneers, Cameron photographed her family with very little technical expertise and created soulful sepia portraits that still inspire today.

79. Angus McBean British 1904-1990
The surrealist who made the photographing of actors his personal domain. McBean’s photographic wit and personal charm is in every image. www.npg.org.uk

80. Deborah Turbeville American 1938-
Turbeville bought a magical quality to her fashion and interiors work and popularised the use of grain to create atmosphere. www.deborahturbeville.com

81. Tim Page British 1944-
His work and images forged in the Vietnam war reportedly inspired Dennis Hopper’s character in Apocalypse Now. www.timpageimage.com.au

82. Harri Peccinotti British 1938-
The legendary art director of Nova magazine turned fashion photographer who used graphic forms to define photography. http://images.google.com

83. Eve Arnold American 1912-
As a member of Magnum, Arnold used her gentle manner to create iconic images of the greatest movies of the last century. www.magnumphotos.com

84. Jane Bown British 1925-
The quiet newspaper photographer for The Observer who only uses one camera and takes exposure readings off the back of her hand. An inspiration and still shooting today.

85. Michael Thompson American
Thompson is the archetypal New York fashion and beauty photographer. His clean lines and attention to detail make him the commercial photographer to watch. www.jedroot.com

86. Oliviero ToscaniItalian 1942-
Toscani created the Benetton brand image and has worked to include a political message in commercial images ever since.

87. Pierre et Gilles French 1950- & 1953
This French duo’s work, before the advent of Photoshop, took photomontage and retouching to new levels of camp perfection.

88. Robert Doisneau French 1912-1994
Doisneau went walking and took pictures every day of the everyday in his beloved Paris, France. The ultimate street photographer.

89. Joel Sternfeld American 1944-
Sternfeld’s use of a large format camera to create documentary images of seemingly ordinary landscapes is one of the most imitated fields of photography today. www.joelsternfeld.com

90. Richard Billingham British 1970-
Billingham burst onto the contemporary art photography scene with his college project of family images titled Ray’s a Laugh. His following success inspires all students today. www.tate.org.uk

91. Paul Strand American 1890-1976
Not only was Strand a photographic pioneer he also saw the connection between the still and moving image over his long career. www.metmuseum.org

92. Chris Killip British 1946-
Killip works photographing rural communities, the working class and the North East of England. He was one of the main figures in revitalising British reportage in the eighties. www.chriskillip.com

93. Tony Ray-Jones British 1941-1972
Ray Jones is another photographer’s photographer, despite his short life and minimal output he is regularly noted as an influence by photographers in all genres.

94. Helen Levitt American 1913-2009
Levitt only worked as a photographer for a short time over two specifically intense periods. The images she created then of children playing and the street life of New York are timeless. www.npr.org

95. Robert Capa Hungarian 1913-1954
Hard drinking and living, Capa not only helped found the Magnum agency, he also captured the most moving images of World War II.

96. George Hurrell American 1904-1992
Hurrell was the undoubted master of the Hollywood star portrait. Lighting, composition and printing all were perfect in his world. www.hurrellphotography.com

97. Jacques Henri Lartigue French 1894-1986
An amateur photographer who started as a young boy, Lartigue’s images of everyday aristocratic French life makes him the ultimate social photographer. www.lartigue.org

98. Bert Stern American 1929-
Stern is a great commercial photographer but it is for his contact images of Marilyn Monroe with ruffled hair, silk scarf and wild abandon that he makes the list. www.bertstern.com

99. Peter Beard American 1938-
With his love of Africa, lions, beautiful women and collage, Beard has created a unique body of work which inspires through its energy and passion. www.peterbeard.com

100. Rankin British 1966-
Controversial he may be, but with his media persona to the fore, his influence on young photographers, and public recognition, definitely earn him the final place in our 100. www.rankin.co.uk
Mar 07 14 09:54 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15,425
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom


Art dir can come up with a brilliant yet simple idea award winning and any number of photographers could answer the brief is this still a great photographer.
Mar 07 14 10:03 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 21,242
New York, New York, US


The Something Guy wrote:
Art dir can come up with a brilliant yet simple idea award winning and any number of photographers could answer the brief is this still a great photographer.

Personally?  I wouldn't really think of any commercial photography as "GREAT WORKS".  Perhaps some editorial work if it was the photographers vision.

So, a beauty shot by Avedon, no matter how well crafted, would not make the cut (for me).  However, the work he did on "The American West", would.

Now, as far as great meaning really good goes, sure...

Mar 07 14 10:08 am  Link  Quote 
first1234567last   Search   Reply