Great Photographers on the Internet - A Humorous Take

[Paul Winstone]

Although I have already emailed this, I thought it was the sort of thing that would make a good thread for the new forum for, so that visitors can see what we are like and everyone can participate in the discussion (without overfilling everyone’s email inbox). I hope you enjoy the humour (see attached article at the base of this page).

I have also summarised some of the email responses so far, so that, from now on, the discussion can continue here…..

**************************************************
Paul wrote:

During our off season I thought some might appreciate a little holiday humour. I saw this a couple of years ago on a Blog and managed to find it again.

It gives an idea how some the ‘Greats of Photography’ might fare if they had dared put their work up for general critique online (or indeed in front of a judge at a local club competition). I hope even the judges amongst our number may smile.

Cheers,

Paul

**************************************************
John wrote:

Just brilliant. I love the fact that one of them has listed all his kit.

There's another point here, though. The images shown are by the acknowledged 'greats'. Does that mean they're all great photographs or, more to the point, that the greats always took great photographs? I struggle with the Webb picture, for example. Is the Irving Penn really a great picture, given the resources the great man had?
Perhaps people would like to put these pics in order of preference, or at least the ones they'd like on their wall. My list would be:

Brandt, Carter, Steichen, Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand, Eggleston, maybe Abell.

And add someone who isn't shown but should be:

Fay Godwin, Don McCullin, Nick Danziger...?

J

**************************************************
Paul replied to John:

Yep, there is food for thought there as you say - are the images really all great...and, on the other hand, it makes the point that the usual rules are there to be broken.

My order amongst the images shown would be:

Brandt...by some distance here
Abell
Steichen
Carter
Winogrand
Penn
Cartier-Bresson
Eggleston
Gibson
And then Webb a firm last - a you say I don't get this one at all

Cheers,

Paul

**************************************************
Gordon* wrote:

Paul, Classic!!

I enjoyed the laugh. Judges do indeed say such daft things - I suppose one could say they cant see the iris for the lens?


**************************************************
David M* wrote:

Paul,

Yes, I laughed - but all his comments had some underlying validity. Does anyone think that the photograph of the tricycle is great art?

David

**************************************************
Paul replied to David M:

I think that is exactly why the humour works – because half of you is laughing at the gauche critiquing of an iconic image from a ‘great photographer’, while the other half is thinking - he’s got a point.





* Footnote to non-members: Asterisk after name denotes SPS judge!

[Matt ::]

David:
One of the puporses of photographis art is to make us examine things in a new light, to make us observe more keenly things that we might otherwise ignore. 'Nouvelle regard' is how I think the Frnech put it.

I photograph of a bicycle or, day I say it, a car park, is more interesting than yet another picture of a flower stamen no matter how expertley it may be photograph.