Contemptuous about contemporary photography? Asleep looking at art photography? Bemused by the accompanying pretentious prose? How bad can it get? See below.
There are a lot of photographers that don’t care whether what they take is good or not - they photograph for fun.
But there are a lot of acclaimed photographers who take their photos very seriously, despite some of their photos being seriously awful.
These may be technically perfect but the content - washed out photos of waves; staged shots of somnolent streets; posed pix of facially paralysed people; red and green and nothing else or just grey - means these shots should have been deleted, not distributed.
You look at this photography and you think - that’s paltry photography.
And the dictatorship of themes. 'The development of the Civil War in the Congo' - yes. But 'the role of the paperclip as a metaphor for relationships - no.
Just what section is it in the 'Law of Photography' that bans selections of just good, although unrelated, images or even a single excellent shot for display in venues that take photography 'seriously'?
I post photos here that have been exhibited or published as well as some of the text that was distributed with the shots.
Unless otherwise indicated, these images and quoted text are sourced from the relevant gallery publicity and photography-now.com
See introduction for more about this site.
* poor
** useless
*** pitiful
**** ludicrous
***** abominable
Images and text reproduced on this site are for the purposes of review or criticism only, as permitted under the (UK) Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. Copyright remains with the copyright holder. All rights are reserved to the copyright holder.
