Comments on: Stephen Shore on Certainty and Sh*t http://2point8.whileseated.org/2006/12/12/stephen-shore-on-certainty-and-shit/ A wide-open view of the practice of street photography by Michael David Murphy, While Seated. Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:43:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: emonome | I Apologize… http://2point8.whileseated.org/2006/12/12/stephen-shore-on-certainty-and-shit/#comment-36103 emonome | I Apologize… Tue, 25 Sep 2007 04:50:36 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=104#comment-36103 [...] too? I would’ve found out why he said what he’d said (original audio interview here) [via 2point8] I would’ve also found out his response to the debate that had sparked from the comment bit. [...] […] too? I would’ve found out why he said what he’d said (original audio interview here) [via 2point8] I would’ve also found out his response to the debate that had sparked from the comment bit. […]

]]> By: bob http://2point8.whileseated.org/2006/12/12/stephen-shore-on-certainty-and-shit/#comment-4332 bob Tue, 02 Jan 2007 05:49:12 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=104#comment-4332 Stephen's been shooting with small digicams for awhile now. I'm certain he has a secret Flickr account -- just to prove to himself he can compete with the rest of us hacks... I'm not sure what to make of the digital versus film banter. I've shot both - and each has its uses. I much prefer film, but I've also seen images from nice dslr's that are indistinguishable from film images. Whether it costs me 15 dollars or 15 cents to make an image, the process is pretty similar. I don't like to waste my time just firing off shots without giving some thought to the final product in mind... Good stuff to think about though... Stephen’s been shooting with small digicams for awhile now. I’m certain he has a secret Flickr account — just to prove to himself he can compete with the rest of us hacks…

I’m not sure what to make of the digital versus film banter. I’ve shot both - and each has its uses. I much prefer film, but I’ve also seen images from nice dslr’s that are indistinguishable from film images. Whether it costs me 15 dollars or 15 cents to make an image, the process is pretty similar. I don’t like to waste my time just firing off shots without giving some thought to the final product in mind…

Good stuff to think about though…

]]> By: Ron Diorio http://2point8.whileseated.org/2006/12/12/stephen-shore-on-certainty-and-shit/#comment-4293 Ron Diorio Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:31:31 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=104#comment-4293 For Shore to be critical of Flickr in general is ironic In my own ignorance I came to see Shore's work for the first time in a book at Rizzoli's in Manhattan only after I became a user of Flickr and Fotolog and thought his work fit into its general and snapshot aesthetic. For Shore to be critical of Flickr in general is ironic In my own ignorance I came to see Shore’s work for the first time in a book at Rizzoli’s in Manhattan only after I became a user of Flickr and Fotolog and thought his work fit into its general and snapshot aesthetic.

]]> By: Gabe http://2point8.whileseated.org/2006/12/12/stephen-shore-on-certainty-and-shit/#comment-4078 Gabe Tue, 26 Dec 2006 05:44:50 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=104#comment-4078 I find the dissing of flickr odd. Would you dis people's photo albums. Flickr is not meant to be a place to display finished portfolios, it is a place for snapshots. And most people take it as such. I am interested in my friends snapshots, not because they make great art, but because they are my friends and I care about their lives. Technically and artistically 90% of the snapshots are nothing special, but that's not the point. I know I'm publishing something, but I don't expect anyone except my friends and family to care. I imagine some photographers don't want their snapshots to be seen and will only publish finished work. I've notice Brian Ulrich recently started posting to flickr. From his stream it doesn't look like he is going to be posting personal shots...... Other photographers seem to have looser boundaries. Mark Powell for example will sometimes post pictures of his family. I love those pictures, they might not work in the same way as his "fine art" stuff, but they humanize the photographer. Some people will say they don't want humanization, finished work only... the solution is simple, only look at photography in books and shows... then you won't have to sift through less polished work. Digital vs. analog is a conversation that will soon be irrelevant. I'll bet that within our lifetime analog processes will be as archaic as say making daguerreotypes or platinum prints. Some people will still take pictures with film of course, but digital will be so good and so cheap that it will be ubiquitous. I find the dissing of flickr odd. Would you dis people’s photo albums. Flickr is not meant to be a place to display finished portfolios, it is a place for snapshots. And most people take it as such. I am interested in my friends snapshots, not because they make great art, but because they are my friends and I care about their lives. Technically and artistically 90% of the snapshots are nothing special, but that’s not the point. I know I’m publishing something, but I don’t expect anyone except my friends and family to care. I imagine some photographers don’t want their snapshots to be seen and will only publish finished work. I’ve notice Brian Ulrich recently started posting to flickr. From his stream it doesn’t look like he is going to be posting personal shots…… Other photographers seem to have looser boundaries. Mark Powell for example will sometimes post pictures of his family. I love those pictures, they might not work in the same way as his “fine art” stuff, but they humanize the photographer. Some people will say they don’t want humanization, finished work only… the solution is simple, only look at photography in books and shows… then you won’t have to sift through less polished work.

Digital vs. analog is a conversation that will soon be irrelevant. I’ll bet that within our lifetime analog processes will be as archaic as say making daguerreotypes or platinum prints. Some people will still take pictures with film of course, but digital will be so good and so cheap that it will be ubiquitous.

]]> By: Peter Feldhaus http://2point8.whileseated.org/2006/12/12/stephen-shore-on-certainty-and-shit/#comment-4041 Peter Feldhaus Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:22:04 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=104#comment-4041 Thank you for the links and the quotes from Stephen Shore. Last week I bought his 'Uncommon Places' and I like it a lot. I agree with his opinion about flickr and similar stuff. I guess the problem is that most of the people forget that they are really 'publishing' something. In result they produce a noise even worse than commercial breaks on TV or Spam in mailboxes. This discussion about digital/analog equipment is somehow useless. Surely its more difficult to work disciplined with digital gear, but e. g. Alex Majoli produces good stuff even with bridge cameras. So it seems to be more and more a personal decision with pros and cons on both sides. Actually most of the photographers I admire work with analog stuff, but this could change in future. Thank you for the links and the quotes from Stephen Shore. Last week I bought his ‘Uncommon Places’ and I like it a lot.
I agree with his opinion about flickr and similar stuff. I guess the problem is that most of the people forget that they are really ‘publishing’ something. In result they produce a noise even worse than commercial breaks on TV or Spam in mailboxes.
This discussion about digital/analog equipment is somehow useless. Surely its more difficult to work disciplined with digital gear, but e. g. Alex Majoli produces good stuff even with bridge cameras.
So it seems to be more and more a personal decision with pros and cons on both sides. Actually most of the photographers I admire work with analog stuff, but this could change in future.

]]> By: Bryan F http://2point8.whileseated.org/2006/12/12/stephen-shore-on-certainty-and-shit/#comment-3784 Bryan F Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:25:43 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=104#comment-3784 Chuck said - "Lots of times I really want a picture to be good but when I finally examine it a few weeks later that hunger has diminished enough that I can — sometimes — admit it doesn’t work." This is very true for me. I started photography shooting digital, but ended up switching to film. The change in my work flow was unmeasurable. I became so much more patient with film because I knew I wouldn't be able to see the images for a few weeks, and when I did see them there would be enough detachment to look at them more critically. For me, critically examining your images will help you develop more than producing a high volume of images. Maybe that doesn't make sense, but I think if you care about your own work and want to improve, you need to be mercilessly critical of your own work. I know it's hard for me, but I'm convinced it'll make me a better photographer. peace. bryan Chuck said - “Lots of times I really want a picture to be good but when I finally examine it a few weeks later that hunger has diminished enough that I can — sometimes — admit it doesn’t work.”

This is very true for me. I started photography shooting digital, but ended up switching to film. The change in my work flow was unmeasurable. I became so much more patient with film because I knew I wouldn’t be able to see the images for a few weeks, and when I did see them there would be enough detachment to look at them more critically.

For me, critically examining your images will help you develop more than producing a high volume of images. Maybe that doesn’t make sense, but I think if you care about your own work and want to improve, you need to be mercilessly critical of your own work. I know it’s hard for me, but I’m convinced it’ll make me a better photographer.

peace. bryan

]]> By: chuck http://2point8.whileseated.org/2006/12/12/stephen-shore-on-certainty-and-shit/#comment-3751 chuck Fri, 15 Dec 2006 03:36:19 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=104#comment-3751 "Images seen on a screen do seem to have less weight than prints. They seem consumable and disposable in a way prints (or even a printed book) are not." Well, for starters, the images on a screen have a lot less resolution than a print. It does make a difference. And yes, Flickr is a place where people come to show they're good, because in practice, Flickr is horrible place to show a process. It should be good -- the whole photostream concept lends itself to the display of a developing eye. But what actually happens is that your stream is mingled with everyone else's (don't worry, I won't go any farther with that metaphor) and whips by as a disparate set of thumbnails. Almost no one notices an image unless it has a huge hook. The temptation is only to put stuff up that works well immediately as a thumbnail so that people will bother to check you out. We all pretty much look at only the most recent stuff and rarely dip into any of the sets where, in theory, you could explore a theme with a bit of modulation in the flow of images. But the set structure isn't very good for displaying that. Maybe if the slide shows allowed you to use larger images... I don't yet shoot digital because I'm a cheapskate and I just haven't found a digital camera that I like as well as my ancient Leica, but I have a hunch that the rumination thing is important. Lots of times I really want a picture to be good but when I finally examine it a few weeks later that hunger has diminished enough that I can -- sometimes -- admit it doesn't work. But who's to say that ability to blast away and edit more-or-less instantly won't result in a different and interesting aesthetic that maybe we can't recognize yet? “Images seen on a screen do seem to have less weight than prints. They seem consumable and disposable in a way prints (or even a printed book) are not.”

Well, for starters, the images on a screen have a lot less resolution than a print. It does make a difference.

And yes, Flickr is a place where people come to show they’re good, because in practice, Flickr is horrible place to show a process. It should be good — the whole photostream concept lends itself to the display of a developing eye. But what actually happens is that your stream is mingled with everyone else’s (don’t worry, I won’t go any farther with that metaphor) and whips by as a disparate set of thumbnails. Almost no one notices an image unless it has a huge hook. The temptation is only to put stuff up that works well immediately as a thumbnail so that people will bother to check you out. We all pretty much look at only the most recent stuff and rarely dip into any of the sets where, in theory, you could explore a theme with a bit of modulation in the flow of images. But the set structure isn’t very good for displaying that. Maybe if the slide shows allowed you to use larger images…

I don’t yet shoot digital because I’m a cheapskate and I just haven’t found a digital camera that I like as well as my ancient Leica, but I have a hunch that the rumination thing is important. Lots of times I really want a picture to be good but when I finally examine it a few weeks later that hunger has diminished enough that I can — sometimes — admit it doesn’t work. But who’s to say that ability to blast away and edit more-or-less instantly won’t result in a different and interesting aesthetic that maybe we can’t recognize yet?

]]> By: jkm http://2point8.whileseated.org/2006/12/12/stephen-shore-on-certainty-and-shit/#comment-3738 jkm Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:37:56 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=104#comment-3738 Shore\'s comments are the same type of comments that have been spoken throughout the ages by established artists threatened by new mediums/techniques. The impressionists were mocked by the academy one of the major criticisms, \"it\'s so easy, a painting can be done in a day.\" Painters who used photography like Manet were mocked for succumbing to the \"easy pleasures\" such a vulgar medium and not using their eyes. Photography was not considered art at all. Black and white photographers had distain for the ones who used color. Large format guys said the same things about 35mm that Shore is saying about digital. And on and on. There is something to be said about weight though... Images seen on a screed do seem to have less weight than prints. They seem consumable and disposable in a way prints (or even a printed book) are not. I look at many fine photographs online but rarely go back to them whereas if they are in a book or on a wall I will look at them over and over again. My girlfriend bought a digital pictureframe recently. It holds something like 300 pictures. She loves it, but the images in there don\'t have the quality of memory of paper pictures sitting next to them. Perhaps it is that I know we can change the images on a whim... I don\'t know. Maybe these digital images will be all our grandchildren ever know. I love Stephen Shore btw. Like many artists, his ego can be occasionally full of hot air. I ignore it and just enjoy the work. Shore\’s comments are the same type of comments that have been spoken throughout the ages by established artists threatened by new mediums/techniques.

The impressionists were mocked by the academy one of the major criticisms, \”it\’s so easy, a painting can be done in a day.\”

Painters who used photography like Manet were mocked for succumbing to the \”easy pleasures\” such a vulgar medium and not using their eyes.

Photography was not considered art at all.

Black and white photographers had distain for the ones who used color.

Large format guys said the same things about 35mm that Shore is saying about digital.

And on and on.

There is something to be said about weight though… Images seen on a screed do seem to have less weight than prints. They seem consumable and disposable in a way prints (or even a printed book) are not. I look at many fine photographs online but rarely go back to them whereas if they are in a book or on a wall I will look at them over and over again. My girlfriend bought a digital pictureframe recently. It holds something like 300 pictures. She loves it, but the images in there don\’t have the quality of memory of paper pictures sitting next to them. Perhaps it is that I know we can change the images on a whim… I don\’t know. Maybe these digital images will be all our grandchildren ever know.

I love Stephen Shore btw. Like many artists, his ego can be occasionally full of hot air. I ignore it and just enjoy the work.

]]> By: Hank Pharttee http://2point8.whileseated.org/2006/12/12/stephen-shore-on-certainty-and-shit/#comment-3727 Hank Pharttee Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:38:47 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=104#comment-3727 Clay comes out to meet Liston, and Liston starts to retreat If Liston goes back any further he'll end up in a ringside seat. Clay swings with a left, Clay swings with a right. Look at young Cassius carry the fight. Clay comes out to meet Liston, and Liston starts to retreat
If Liston goes back any further he’ll end up in a ringside seat.
Clay swings with a left, Clay swings with a right.
Look at young Cassius carry the fight.

]]> By: jon http://2point8.whileseated.org/2006/12/12/stephen-shore-on-certainty-and-shit/#comment-3697 jon Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:32:00 +0000 http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=104#comment-3697 I wonder what SS was expecting to see on flickr. perhaps i need to listen to the audio, maybe i'm missing some context. I think your point is well made, "is the soul of photography so easily threatened"? Thanks for the heads up. myself and the kiddos will be checking this exhibit out, hopefully this weekend. I wonder what SS was expecting to see on flickr. perhaps i need to listen to the audio, maybe i’m missing some context. I think your point is well made, “is the soul of photography so easily threatened”?

Thanks for the heads up. myself and the kiddos will be checking this exhibit out, hopefully this weekend.

]]>