6 Comments

  1. LOL ok, sounds like an interesting series. Could open up to quite a range of topic areas such as the environment, littering, political etc., it has the potential to get quite ‘dark’ psychologically. Just made me think; you’d be aware of the the exhibition in the mid ’70s title New Topographics which was a critique on the contaminating effect of man made structures and development on what was once a pristine landscape.

  2. This image is more interesting to ‘read’ than a beautiful sunset or something quintessentially worthy of being photographed. It throws up questions rather than answers and so begins a thought process in the viewer.

    My first response was to the effect that I had produced images such as this when I accidentally pressed the shutter button while the camera was still turned on between shoots. This image is very ‘photographic’ in that it appears to have been taken impulsively or accidentally and without much thought, simply because it can.

    In one way it doesn’t meet the criteria of ‘acceptable subject matter’ or what makes a good photograph, but, hey we’ve moved on from modernism to something culturally amorphous called post-modernism (in fact we seem to have almost dispensed with that). The spirit of post-modernism was alive and kicking well before modernism was done. This was manifest in Duchamp’s readymades, the accidentalisms of the surrealists, Pollock’s large scale ‘drip paintings’ using industrial paints administered by pouring straight from the tin or with large syringes etc., and of course many others who were working in opposition to the formalist values of the modernist aesthetic (acceptable subject matter, oil paint, water colour etc., applied using the correct brushes/spatula on rectangular stretched canvas with an appropriate frame, the composition contained within the frame, etc etc).

    When I look at this image I start imagining where the birds were sitting/roosting. Were they pigeons, were they sitting on an overhanging traffic sign? It’s as much about what’s outside the framed image as the patterns and evidence found in the composition, in fact it could be a metaphor for a shadow, and shadows are ‘acceptable’ photographic subjects.

      1. I’m not sure I follow Carl, sorry if I offended you. Was I being too verbose? I thought I was supporting it as a worthy image, particularly for discussion, that challenged notions of what made something worth photographing.

        1. No honestly I was thinking about the series I was doing on Los Angeles…about shitting where you live. This picture is part of that series about locale, demographics and american culture. I was not offended at all. I appreciate your thoughts.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.