Alright, /p/. Let's see if we can go three-for-three. The last two Fridays here, we've actually had a pretty decent discussions about ::gasp:: photography. We looked at a modern portrait of Queen Elizabeth by Annie Leibovitz. And we looked at a 1970's suburban landscape by Stephen Shore. In both threads, we've had really great discussions about the photos themselves, about the photographers, and about comparable, complimentary, and contrasting works.
This week, let's take a look at a one of shots from Thomas Struth's "Pergamon Museum" series. A couple of weeks back, we used one of his photos as a comparison to the very different Leibovitz shot. So, this week, let's dig in to one of his photos.
What do you think of it? Do you love it? Do you hate it?
Most importantly, why do you love it? Why do you hate it? What technical elements do you enjoy? What technical elements do you hate? What are your thoughts on the content? What about the composition? What do you think of the lighting? What about the development/printing?
Now, maybe you hate Thomas Struth. Maybe you love him. That's not what this thread is about. If you want to discuss this photo compared to other work of his, that's certainly acceptable, but this is not a thread for generalized love/bashing. Let's actually discuss, you know, the photograph.
And, as always, ignore the trolls, and don't fall in to personality wars. Y'all did great the first week. Last week, there was a little bit of the /p/ bickering seeping into the thread, but by and large y'all were awesome. Let's keep it up.
And, as an aside: You may be wondering why I've picked any of these particular photos so far. Well, the criteria certainly isn't scientific or objective. My goal is to pick a photographer who is known on /p/, but who is not discussed ad nauseam. My goal is also to pick a photo and photographer who probably has both fans and critics here. Finally, my goal is to pick something that we probably haven't all analyzed to death. I don't want to pick something that everybody will automatically love or everybody will automatically hate. But, on the flip side, I don't want it to be something that is so obscure or difficult that it won't actually garner discussion. Like I said, it's not a science.
>>2869523
I don't like how he cut off the top of that structure in the middle. Same for the guy's foot in the foreground. It just makes it look sloppy. Otherwise has nice balance though.
I feel like the composition of the people gives it balance. They form a nice grid which plays off of the columns and the angles of the room. Your eye is led around the room nicely.
I agree with >>2869589 that I with the top of the columns in the center wasn't cut off. Same for the guy's shoe. I also don't like the security guard so close to the left side of the frame.
The light is nice, but that's more a product of the building than anything the photographer did.
I'm sure he had some deep, artsy message about taking a shot of people looking at history things in a museum, but it's not super obvious to me.
>>2869523
I don't like how he framed the picture, he could've taken a step or two back and not cut of the middle structure and the guy on the right's foot, and that ultimately would've made the picture look less crammed too.
composition-wise, personally I like how the taller columns break out of the rule of thirds without being awkward and still looks pleasing to the eyes. there are a lot of vertical lines and people are looking in many different directions too.
other than that I don't think it's a special shot or anything, looks kinda like a tourist photo to be honest.
>>2869740
>he could've taken a step or two back
maybe, maybe not. I'd guess he was in a doorway up a small flight of steps similar to the one directly opposite him.
As for the picture, I see outdoor architecture indoors, snapped off from it's original context. Arches and columns that no-one can walk around or through. I also see people, living things, that appear almost as lifeless and static as the stone pillars.
What does it mean? Fucked if I know, the photo itself doesn't interest me enough to want to pursue it any further. Other peoples mileage may vary.
today op was not a fag. The top column being cut off doesn't bother me at all. The foot cut off on the bottom is the foundation of the photo, like the purpose of the arches before becoming relics. The people are staged except for a few? Definitely contrast between the dead and living.
>>2869750
Whoa, wait a minute. That may be the most insightful thing I've read on /p/. Serious, I looked at it like a different photo after reading your comment.
I'll give this thread a single mercy bump. The last two weeks garnered decent discussion. Maybe it was a down week. Maybe the selection of photo just sucked.
>>2869750
Despite your ultimate conclusion that the photo itself doesn't interest you enough to pursue it any further, I actually really enjoyed your insight. When I first picked this photo, I was firmly in the "I wish he didn't cut off the columns/feet" camp, but your observation about the architecture being snapped off from its original context makes a lot of sense, especially next to all the static humans. I had assumed that the composition was a little sloppy, but the work by the Dusseldorf photographers is always so meticulous that perhaps I didn't give his decisions enough credit.
---
If this thread dies, we'll try again next week. I'm pouring through photographers and photographs to try to find something very different from the first three weeks. Maybe some Richard Avedon or some Gordon Parks.
>>2871320
>I'm pouring through photographers and photographs to try to find something very different from the first three weeks. Maybe some Richard Avedon or some Gordon Parks.
maybe some asians?
Here's a version without the cut off column
1
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 550 Image Height 451 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2869523
Although this picture doesn't really have a wow factor to me, I do like that it seems to be trying to say something. To me, especially after reading the other analyses the picture seems to be trying to depict this room as sort of outside of space and time in that we have these ancient, out-of-context structures and with all these people seemingly curious and milling about the whole thing to me illustrates a Purgatory-esque feel.
The fact that these are staged I find deeply impressive just from a logistics perspective. Taken in isolation you could miss the consistency of arrangement and mood but once I started looking at them as a series I found them very impressive as studies of some kind of spatial matrix.
2
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1100 Image Height 391 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2871353
>The fact that these are staged
How do we know they're staged? Not saying they're not, I'm just curious where you read that.
>>2871353
actually, they are not staged exactly. He just shot (much) more than one sheet of film from the exact same position. If you can't actually find him saying it in an interview or something (I was at a lecture he gave), you can see it in his books.
>>2871471
>G. Crewdson
I knew that his stuff was obviously highly staged and meticulously well lit, but holy fuck, bro. I'd never looked up anything about his process.
