What does /p/ think of these kind of instagram photos?
I mean these kind of very formalist pictures that have been really popular lately.
>>2802673
Dumping some of the ones I've found most interesting
>>2802676
But I find their compositions more interesting than most
>>2802676
I mean, landscapes are too trite and boring but to see such playful photos that actually take themselves as visual pieces instead of "stories" is refereshing.
Why would you consider it a stupid fad?
I'm not even sure why this is a thread.
The photos are good, the photographers are good, this isn't necessarily limited to Instagram.
>>2802704
I'm not either anon you were responding to, but these look like shit. Is the whole idea to take one little super crop from a picture and pretend like that is interesting or purposefully done? I don't understand the point, also I've never seen this before but I never use instagram so I would have to agree that this seems like a really stupid fad.
>>2802758
If you don't know what 'formalist' means then this probably isn't the thread for you.
>>2802704
You've made the classic mistake of assuming most of /p/ (or 4chan, for that matter) knows anything about art theory.
Anyway, I think that formalism in photography is fucking hard.
Only in a very technical sense is photography necessarily content-based (in that it captures real-world light which I interpret as content), but I think the key is that there needs to be enough of a conceptual draw in the form to distract from the sort of representation which inevitably arises in the majority of photographs.
I think a good example of this is >>2802680
While it's obvious what is going on after a few seconds of inspection, the visual joke of the shadows is compelling enough (and the actual content disinteresting enough) that the only beauty there is in the form.
>>2802781
I don't think this stuff is necessarily removed from representation, context or narrative. I've always detected a strong through line from New Topographics to this style.
Anyway, post your favorite artists in this style.
Mine is easy: Trevor Hernandez, also known as @gangculture.
>>2802799
and an image, since i was posting from my phone for that last one and it's too hard to steal shit off IG and post it.
>>2802802
@shen_li_
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2043 Image Height 3035 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2013:09:29 12:42:03 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 689 Image Height 1024
>>2802802
@shrittany is actually pretty good too.
There are others like kristie muller, bruno zhu, claytopia675 (the guy from OP and >>2802680)
I think that while it's not possible to remove all represantation from photography (most times) that seem's to be the intention here. What is left of it are faint vestiges.
>>2802781
>pretension, the post
>>2803439
>philistine, the knuckle-dragger
>>2803439
agh, not this buzzword again.
>>2803466
Enlighten us, then. How was the term misused?
(Even though it was only used loosely, obviously)
https://www.instagram.com/chilligansisland/
>>2803565
another guy who does the style well
https://www.instagram.com/thisisnow_here/
I don't know shit about formalism but I am digging this type of photography. It has certainly helped me with developing my 'photographers eye' and always keeping my head up. i'm sure someone will make an argument for "they dont say anything" but they invoke emotions in me, so are accomplishing something.
open to debate
>>2802673
Here's some more examples from people I follow, since you seemed to enjoy the style:
https://www.instagram.com/oliverjtyrrell/
https://www.instagram.com/m1r3t3/
https://www.instagram.com/herrneis/
https://www.instagram.com/jonnyboxall/
https://www.instagram.com/subjectivelyobjective/
https://www.instagram.com/zweigang/
https://www.instagram.com/mikael.blomfelt/
https://www.instagram.com/luke_saxon/
Not all of them employ this "formalism" to the same degree and to be honest I enjoy the ones more that are not as strict. If your abstractions are too strong, reducing everything to geometry still works for your whole portfolio as a gesamtkunstwerk, but the single pictures tend to be uninteresting and predictable. At some point I just tire of only looking at geometric constructions. I believe photographs, if they are to be looked at individually, should transport more to me as a viewer.
That being said, I think the accounts I posted to be quite inspiring for my own work. It's always good to see where one may find interesting compositions, even if I think some of them overdo the abstraction.
>>2803797
>all of those accounts are reuploaded dslr shots
Fuckin dropped.
>>2803951
>caring about the camera when the discussion is about a certain style
You're exactly what this thread doesn't need.
>>2804109
nigger, using a smartphone is a VERY distinct part of that "certain style".
>>2804111
How is using a smartphone an integral part in valuing geometry and aesthetics, or rather composition, above all else? It takes like five minutes to look up what formalism is. It would really help if you could do that.
>>2804118
I never said that these photos constitute formalism. That's a pigeonhole that OP is imposing, not me.
>>2804143
See above. I don't think these are part of formalism.
To answer a specific part of your question, however, it's the digital zoom. Blowing the pixels up helps lend a sense of abstraction and places it squarely in the 2010's.
>>2804184
I'm slightly confused now. Half of the profiles OP posted only use this technique sparingly.
So now I get where you're coming from, but I'm unsure if the OP means the same thing. Maybe I just misinterpreted his intentions.
You are right tho, that certain style has nothing to do with formalism.
>>2804224
>I'm slightly confused now. Half of the profiles OP posted only use this technique sparingly.
Because OP has no clue what they were talking about.
>>2804255
I don't think OP meant that. I think OP doesn't even know what OP means and can't clearly communicate it.
>>2804257
I'm OP.
I'm just mostly talking about the instagram users that are taking this sort of photos that show a very formalist conception of photography. It happens I'm more interested in those taken with cellphones but that's not exclusive in any way. I posted shen li who even does some digital collages on his photos but to me it feels as if he's coming from the same place.
And I do know what formalism is for fucks sake, it's not rocket science nor the most complex movements to have existed.
.
I hate this 4chan posture of "you can't talk about X because you don't have a phd in X". That's simply not true. In this case, the similarities in its conception of photography are apparent to anyone, regardless of education. That logic is just tossed around just as much as the pretentious buzzword all the time by guys who are too insecure to have a discussion of anything if they haven't studied the subject for years. Which they never do on any subject so they end up talking about nothing of importance.
If somebody is more knowledgable on the subject then he/she's welcome to ammend any mistakes I or others have made.
But just going "kek OP doesn't know what he's talking about, r-right guys? Downvoted XD" won't help this place in any way.
I'm also an art school dropout so I kind of know where I'm coming from.
>>2804728
>But just going "kek OP doesn't know what he's talking about, r-right guys? Downvoted XD" won't help this place in any way.
Why would someone bother helping someone who can't be bothered to do basic research? This is part of why you're not getting much discussion here. You're insisting on using terminology that doesn't mean what you think it means so it's confusing the fuck out of everyone involved on what you're even talking about. Jargon is usually a good thing, but sometimes it is better to just use normal language.
>I'm also an art school dropout so I kind of know where I'm coming from.
It shows.
But I'll be nice and correct you though. Formalism isn't an artistic movement, it's an artistic criticism movement. It's a technique for analyzing works. Artistic works that attempt to distance themselves from the overt meaning of symbols could be something like postmodernist works, but well, frankly, a pretty decently large number of movements that like dicking around with symbolism.
The pictures that you seem to be pointing to are mostly just minimalist images, but
tl;dr formalism is analysis, not creation
>>2804740
haha wow, you just looked it up on wikipedia and that's it?
It's not just the artistic criticism school. Rodchenko was accused of being a formalist in soviet Russia, for another example of the use of the term in art history.
There also were some people who made photography and who were labelled as formalists in the US around 1970 or so I think. I don't remember them as their photos I didn't like much but you do your research on them if you are interested.
You can criticize art through art itself too, by the way. So you can argue this photos to be formalist in both ways if so you please.
tl;dr you are just desperate to disrupt a thread because you don't like the photos being posted and that's because you are insecure and want your little sikret club to deviate as little as possible from the hivemind.
>>2804740
You also can't separate your alleged "creation" from criticism like you do if you know a thing or two about art.
There is always a constant dialogue between the critic and the art world.
>>2804740
So you are saying that calling these works postmodernist would be more descriptive?
hahaha.
As if dettachment from representation wasn't more typical of modernism in the first place.
