IMHO it should be taken for what it is - a contest with its specific rules - despite its title. And probably not aimed at people already deeply involved in photography.unfocused 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.
Of course you can't command a masterpiece in a few hours or even minutes. Nor many artists would bend to such rules, not even for 150K euro (which can be a lot for someone, or very little for others). The format unluckily also doesn't allow nor any good description of the image taking process, nor any deep enough critic of the images - even if you may not agree with it - Toscani for example is well known for his provocative stances, and it's no surprise he was selected for the show. But we all know how media regard the general public.
Even so, Sky Art (or whatever is called in your area), is offering something more than what you can find in non-specific media (not this show, but some of the documentary aired), and may introduce some people to different ideas of art than that seen on mainstream media much focused on the "pleasant image - feel good" only.
Don't know, maybe just looking at people still working without a smartphone can light a bulb in someone's mind... probably not the next Gursky, yet it's better than a contest for the best photo of a cat
There is an aesthetic that is surely "easier" to the eye (and the mind). Some others are often a fist in your eye. I like very much Shore's "Uncommon Places", in my deep I'm sometimes a bit more perplexed about "American Surfaces" Day's non-fashion work is also very anti-aesthetic. These image requires a lot more effort by the viewer to be analyzed and understood, and often many just look for something simple and pleasant, and that is what most media deliver, knowing most images will be watched for just a brief time, and then mostly forgot. Probably there are so many images today, each one becomes less important.unfocused said:On a side note, while you are correct that contemporary art photography has moved far beyond the f.64 school, popular photography often seems trapped in the aesthetic of the 1930s in general and more narrowly in the aesthetic of Ansel Adams in particular. Sadly, many people are not even ready for Weston, much less Stephen Shore. And that despite the fact that Shore's own aesthetic reflects an era that is now more than 40 years old.
Luigi Ghirri already noted in the 1990s that in "ancient times" most people saw very few images in their life (probably some church paintings, and little more), while today we are literally bombarded (and the diffusion of the Internet amplified that even more) - and this fact changed how people approach images. Especially when most images are ads, which are designed to capture attention for a brief moment.