No. I mean this.LDS said:
What's funny, is that even the judges are probably not in on "it" either. The producers know exactly what they are doing and what is going on, but I don't think the judges are on that level. They probably think they were picked because of they excellence in photography (they actually suck really bad, IMO. Checked their work out.) Someone who knows what they are doing does not give vague and cryptic feedback, they give useful feedback. People who think they know what they are doing, but really don't, will often poop all over something and give little or lame reasoning to their stance.Valvebounce said:Hi Folks.
We need to bear in mind that all tv is about viewer numbers, as already stated by PhotographyFirst watching photographers at work is fairly boring, (even when you have an interest in the subject). Competition and the tension and conflict it creates sells programming to the masses, after all very few of us can help being fascinated by a wreck unfolding in front of us!
Sometimes these shows will even engineer a situation to elicit an outburst! Especially if the participants haven't managed an outburst for some minutes! ;D
Is it any wonder that quality viewing is getting more scarce.
Just watch 'War Photographer' a documentary that follows photographer James Nachtwey across the globe on several assignments. He even has a camera on his camera (years ago) and the viewpoint is riveting to anybody with half a brain or an ounce of empathy.PhotographyFirst said:Man, I just barfed a little in my mouth watching the trailer video for that show. I already get a sense that the judges are much like the douchey judges you see on some cooking shows, like Chopped. Incredibly inflated sense of self worth and importance. Like, yeah, your fancy piece of cooked meat with a fruit doily on top is nice, but not quite the pinnacle of human endeavor.
For the general public, watching someone's butt crack while they bend over to taken photos for a day, isn't very good TV. Watching people take photos is pretty boring in itself. They have to insert some sort of drama by casting contestants and judges who think their S___ is gold and everyone else stinks. They always create the best TV, even at the expense of letting the world believe that this is how real photographers act. Hell's Kitchen is one of the best examples of the TV producers casting self-absorbed idiots instead of talented chefs.
Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaBZVYM_4P8Nitroman said:I watched the first episode, but switched over to youtube and found this much more interesting
I didn't remember thatunfocused said:
Yes. My reference though was merely meant to illustrate the irony of thinking that you can reduce the concept of a "master of photography" to pop culture tastes on a reality show. I was imagining the absurdity of someone on such a show telling a true master of photography to go churn out a masterpiece on command each week.LDS said:I didn't remember thatunfocused said:
Anyway, the aesthetic - not only about toilette - changed a lot in the years... if you look at Stephen Shore's "American Surfaces" he doesn't try at all to turn them into something "pleasant to see" (i.e. see http://blakeandrews.blogspot.it/2012/10/shores-filthy-photographs.html). Nor did Corinne Day (i..e http://www.gimpelfils.com/pages/exhibitions/exhibition.php?exhid=6&subsec=2).
These photos would have been utterly unacceptable in Weston's time. Yet they became the work of renowned photographers in the more recent years. Like it or not, contemporary art photography is different than that of f/64.