aduro visum wrote:
It's the people that don't have the normal vision that get labeled the geniuses.  If they were just doing what you expected then there would be nothing special about it, and no reason to discuss. 

Originality usually comes from doing what you aren't supposed to be doing.

I agree up to a point..  If there's some sort of perceptible inner logic to the piece it can be genius.. On the other hand.. Mix and match for its own sake is not.. Otherwise monkeys would write Shakespear..

aduro visum wrote:
Originality usually comes from doing what you aren't supposed to be doing.

You might be right, or it may be that it comes from doing what you love to do and not caring about the consequences of what you aren't supposed to be doing.

WG Rowland wrote:
.. On the other hand.. Mix and match for its own sake is not.. Otherwise monkeys would write Shakespear..

On a long enough timeline ;-)

WG Rowland wrote:
Just wondering on the thinking of photographers who choose to shoot glamour/fashion shots in odd locations.

Now, I know that bikini shots on the beach all start to blend eventually (sorry DigitalCMH, they do.. On the upside you'll never be shorting for shoots like I do..)  And lingerie in budoirs gets, well.. Repetitive..

But I've seen from mediocer to BRILLIANT photographers do whole series of women in odd locales wearing stuff that.. well.. makes no sense in the context of where they are?

I mean, I take this seriously because people who are magnitudes better at this than I am do this..  (Such as Wolf189's recent girls by trains series..)  And they're gorgeous.. But am I the only person who sees images like these and, regardless of how good they might look.. Sits there thinking, WTF?

I honestly think for a lot of people, it's simple fetish. I love trains, I love nekkid babes. Put the two together, woo hoo! Thus we have the various but notable subgenres -- girls with power tools, girls with guns, girls with cars, and so forth.

But -- there is that rare out-of-context combination of girl, location, and clothes that is simply sublime, and more than just the fetishists recognize it. This, I love!


Maybe we need to post some fabulous examples of sublime out-of-context combinations. Who will be first?
Paul

bang bang photo wrote:

I honestly think for a lot of people, it's simple fetish. I love trains, I love nekkid babes. Put the two together, woo hoo! Thus we have the various but notable subgenres -- girls with power tools, girls with guns, girls with cars, and so forth.

But -- there is that rare out-of-context combination of girl, location, and clothes that is simply sublime, and more than just the fetishists recognize it. This, I love!


Maybe we need to post some fabulous examples of sublime out-of-context combinations. Who will be first?
Paul

Well, hoping Wolf189 sees this.. One I'd love his opinion on the subject.. Two, while I still don't GET the series.. As I said, they're pretty and technically brilliant (like all his stuff..)

WG Rowland wrote:
But I've seen from mediocer to BRILLIANT photographers do whole series of women in odd locales wearing stuff that.. well.. makes no sense in the context of where they are?

Don't exclude the thought that the fact that it makes no sense might just be the point.

Brian Diaz wrote:

Don't exclude the thought that the fact that it makes no sense might just be the point.

Interesting point..  I like images that make me think.. On the other hand if the concept is so high, so esoteric, or (the one that bugs me most) so couched in academia that the  common viewer has no chance at "getting it".. I feel like there's something flawed in the concept..

On the other hand, that leads to the whole argument of "Does it have to mean anything?"

And since, at this point.. Little if any of my stuff has any point to it (have to learn the language before you can really say anything..) I'm not one to throw stones..

And like I said, people who DO know the language do stuff like this all the time..  I don't get it.. Therefore, I'm hoping to get clued in to what I'm missing.

WG Rowland wrote:

Interesting point..  I like images that make me think.. On the other hand if the concept is so high, so esoteric, or (the one that bugs me most) so couched in academia that the  common viewer has no chance at "getting it".. I feel like there's something flawed in the concept..

On the other hand, that leads to the whole argument of "Does it have to mean anything?"

And since, at this point.. Little if any of my stuff has any point to it (have to learn the language before you can really say anything..) I'm not one to throw stones..

And like I said, people who DO know the language do stuff like this all the time..  I don't get it.. Therefore, I'm hoping to get clued in to what I'm missing.

Interesting points all around.  I think that it all ultimately depends on the photographer. 

Some of my stuff I shoot within a context and to tell a story and make a point.  There are other times that I want to shoot something that has no point other than to be visually beautiful for whatever reason.  And then of course there's everything in between.  Each piece I believe has it's own feel and interpretation and that is up to the viewer in the end.  Each viewer gets out of a piece whatever they are willing to accept.

Iona Lynn wrote:
When I shot a nude gor with a train it was due to a request by her.

her boyfriend loved trains and he loved to look at her nude so we put them together.

Right now I'm shooting pink saphire and diamond rigns on a creme ribbon with black background why???

I have to shoot and design a flyer with pink jewelry and I have oodles of creme ribbon lying about from my wedding gifts.

it is what I had lying bout and I was inspired by what I like.

Not knocking anyone (I think).. And if I had clients, I promise I'd be doing whatever the hell it was the clients wanted..

I frequently (hell, almost exclusively) take shots when I see elements in my environment that catch my eye..

But unless you live in the woods..  Lingerie in the forest.. Or naked in the snow.. These are somewhat high concept..  Someone had to want to do it.. To put it together.. 

I'd just like to hear the thinking that goes into it..  What they want out of it.. And so on..

bang bang photo wrote:

I honestly think for a lot of people, it's simple fetish. I love trains, I love nekkid babes. Put the two together, woo hoo! Thus we have the various but notable subgenres -- girls with power tools, girls with guns, girls with cars, and so forth.

But -- there is that rare out-of-context combination of girl, location, and clothes that is simply sublime, and more than just the fetishists recognize it. This, I love!


Maybe we need to post some fabulous examples of sublime out-of-context combinations. Who will be first?
Paul

Well, just browse through my port and you will find several such out of context combinations.  Note my avitar.  I recently did an entire shoot with model Cosette Poe wearing negligees in a rugged outdoor location.  Whether they are fabulous or sublime, I will leave to the decisions of others.

Colford Studios wrote:
WG, I think it's sometimes all about the juxtaposition of unrelated elements.  The nude in the snow obviously doesn't go so then the photographer is hoping to give the shot that much more impact because of that fact.  Sometimes it's to wake the viewer up, shock people out of their complacency(sp?) and sometimes it can also be a useful tool for thinking outside the box and kick starting the creative process.

If that's the case who is it they're speaking to?  Who is the intended audience.  I can see how it might speak to others in the industry, to critics, to those who have seen (or done) the standard fashion-in-fashion-context or glamour-in-glamour-context.. But what's it supposed to say to the average viewer.. Who sees high fashion (replete with odd hair and deer in headlights stare) in the middle of the woods, or glamour (with knickers, and hand-bras, and inviting stares) inviting the viewer to join her in....an abandoned warehouse?

Are we spending too much time playing to each other?  Does the audience really matter?

Once again, I don't know the answers to this.. But people said I was stupid yesterday, so today I'm all thinky-like.. 

Jim Ball wrote:

Well, just browse through my port and you will find several such out of context combinations.  Note my avitar.  I recently did an entire shoot with model Cosette Poe wearing negligees in a rugged outdoor location.  Whether they are fabulous or sublime, I will leave to the decisions of others.

Yes, but please.. MORE..

The point here isn't to criticise the work.. I want to know what it was that made you want to take Cosette-in-lingerie and put her in the middle of a rugged forest..?

WG Rowland wrote:
Yes, but please.. MORE..

The point here isn't to criticise the work.. I want to know what it was that made you want to take Cosette-in-lingerie and put her in the middle of a rugged forest..?

Because lingerie in the bedroom has been done over and over and over and......

Because I wanted to shine a different light on the subject.

Because Cosette is not your typical Maxim glamour girl model and I wanted to present her beauty in a different style.

Because her audience is usually the alternative/goth crowd, and I wanted to show her in a glamourous style, but with a twist that might appeal to her usual audience.

addenum:
I had originally planned the shoot to include props of satin pillows, sheets, personal articles etc. to suggest that the rock amphitheater we shot in was her bedroom.  I wasn't able to gather the props in time though.

Manny Desalamanca wrote:
I Tried It and It Works.........


Manny D.

A logic that can not be denied..

WG Rowland wrote:

A logic that can not be denied..

I meant I really, Just Shot my First Fashion Shoot In a Aztec Ruins Location, And It Really Worked !!!!!!


Manny D.

Manny Desalamanca wrote:

I meant I really, Just Shot my First Fashion Shoot In a Aztec Ruins Location, And It Really Worked !!!!!!


Manny D.

Not arguing.. Wondering what the circumstances that led up to fashion shoots and aztec ruins.. Sounds like a cool story.

WG Rowland wrote:
Thank you Jean-Phillipe for the well thought out and detailed answer. (I'd thank you more, but you left one of the 'W's out of my name..)

I appreciate where you're coming from and my post wasn't about demanding that all photographers make a definable and obvious statement with every picture.  I'm learning.   I like to think about where people were coming from when they make pictures.. I especially like knowing what went into the pictures that make me scratch my head.

Sorry for mispelling your name Rowwland (I got to give you the extra w I forgot hehehe! )
I'd suggest that if you find a picture that makes you wonder, you actually ask the photographer directly when possible. I'd bet that 1/2 of the time you'd get an answer and that'd help you understand their work.
Remember that some will be keeping their recipe secret ;-)

Jean-Philippe Martin wrote:
Fashion photography is about showing a beauty/clothing/accessory product in a picture.

this is a hugely simplistic and older-than-oldschool definition. the idea of showing fashion as product is and will remain relegated to catalog, has gone forever from the editorial, and is rare in advertising... if only because photography is a visual medium and fashion is multi-sensory. rather fashion photography plays with association and implication, revels in sexuality, fetishism, cache, and the taboo.

now to the original question... context... without it we have no means of properly understanding. suggesting that swimwear alongside an igloo is out of context just because one would not ordinarily wear a swimsuit in such a locale/temperature eliminates from 'context' associative meanings, etc. etc. does this mean anything works? nope... it has to make a connection that is palpable and predictable.

WG Rowland wrote:
Just wondering on the thinking of photographers who choose to shoot glamour/fashion shots in odd locations.

Now, I know that bikini shots on the beach all start to blend eventually (sorry DigitalCMH, they do.. On the upside you'll never be shorting for shoots like I do..)  And lingerie in budoirs gets, well.. Repetitive..

But I've seen from mediocer to BRILLIANT photographers do whole series of women in odd locales wearing stuff that.. well.. makes no sense in the context of where they are?

I mean, I take this seriously because people who are magnitudes better at this than I am do this..  (Such as Wolf189's recent girls by trains series..)  And they're gorgeous.. But am I the only person who sees images like these and, regardless of how good they might look.. Sits there thinking, WTF?

I understand what you are saying and yes it really doesn't make alot of sense.  However, Before I sold my Studios in Las Vegas, I was asked all the time to do just what you are talking about.  If you look at my Portfolio you will see a nude with a 15' white cloth blowing in the wind behind her.  You will also see a bride standing in the rocks by a cliff.  I do like the contrast of images that may seem to not make sense.  Here is another example.  So when you are asked to do a family portrait and the family gets all dressed up then they come into the studio and you photograph them in front of a painted background.  What part of the portrait personality does the background add to the family?  Nothing.  Ok, maybe a bad example.  Each month I would take one day out of the studio just to play and stay creative.  Clients/models would ask me to photograph them in all types of clothes in places that don't seem to fit.  I feel that that contrast is what draws the viewer to the image.  And remember, beauty is in the eyes of the BUYER
Good topic

David

Jean-Philippe Martin wrote:
Fashion photography is about showing a beauty/clothing/accessory product in a picture.

oldguysrule wrote:
this is a hugely simplistic and older-than-oldschool definition. the idea of showing fashion as product is and will remain relegated to catalog, has gone forever from the editorial, and is rare in advertising... if only because photography is a visual medium and fashion is multi-sensory. rather fashion photography plays with association and implication, revels in sexuality, fetishism, cache, and the taboo.

Fashion photography was an example.... Your argument is pretty weak... if you remove all fashion products from a fashion photograph... where is the fashion photography?

Maybe you are talking about brand management? which envolves not showing the product. That's a different story.

I might remind you that fashion is still a business... a business which foundation is fantasy, dream and illusion. Fashion photographers are serving the fashion industry. They don't create fashion, they show it. They show what is the contemporary way of dressing, eating, driving and living. Fashion is for the fortunate ones and the hard-workers that can afford being fashionable.

I bet that you'll see a CHANEL product in CHANEL ads or I bet that you'll see a reference to a designer's cloth/shoe/accessory/... in fashion editorial spreads.

My 2cents.

Chip Morton wrote:
Well W.G., not sure if this helps or applies but when I went to school for graphic design, one instructor phrased that sort of juxtapositon as "the familiar with the unfamiliar" .

She encouraged us to use it as a tool or device in order to provoke viewer interest. It often seems to work at the very least as a starting point.

It's sorta like if you go to SavOn and buy a giant tube of KY by itself for an art project . . . no big deal.

But then if you plunk down a few 12 packs of Bud next to it because you want some coldies while you work . . . ah, well, you just ain't gonna get the same reaction from the other people in line. Know what I mean?

I want to work with you someday.

WG Rowland wrote:
Just wondering on the thinking of photographers who choose to shoot glamour/fashion shots in odd locations.

Now, I know that bikini shots on the beach all start to blend eventually (sorry DigitalCMH, they do.. On the upside you'll never be shorting for shoots like I do..)  And lingerie in budoirs gets, well.. Repetitive..

But I've seen from mediocer to BRILLIANT photographers do whole series of women in odd locales wearing stuff that.. well.. makes no sense in the context of where they are?

I mean, I take this seriously because people who are magnitudes better at this than I am do this..  (Such as Wolf189's recent girls by trains series..)  And they're gorgeous.. But am I the only person who sees images like these and, regardless of how good they might look.. Sits there thinking, WTF?

Dear WG

It feels like that I am a bit late to the party. I am sorry.

The question is a rather vast philosophical one, or at least it could be.

Translating/explaining an image could be in a bad taste really...can we ask similar questions about Picasso and Dali's works?!
Not that I compare myself to any artist or photographer of caliber but the essence of subject is the same here. No matter how brilliant is the artist  (or how mediocre) the similar questions end up being "what is art?! and why is that?! and why such a technique/aesthetic?! etc."

The questions could be never ending....there could be logical answers to some of them which easily could be over turn by another person's logic or taste in art and life.

Our personal experiences, cultures, influences and many many other personal elements cause our reactions not only towards different mediums and works of art but also life and meaning of it in general.

Some artists try to target a wider audience, some try to be very specific and some try to surprise themselves even. An intelligent art is not always a cause of an intelligent planning and reasoning during its creation process while this could happen as well.

Let me get closer to the point by making it a bit personal.

I am an Engineer (design of solids) and a Mathematician plus I enjoy beauty...the parallel lines of rail roads, machineries and beautiful natural curves of ladies could create a desirable combination for my taste...imagine how many different ways I can create interesting contrasts...soft curvy body lines and geometrical harsh lines...soft skins/fabrics against different intense textures...colorful outfits against dull damp pallets...and this can go on and on. This could be an essay without ending just based on aesthetics...I think I have hard time to end it instead of finding new angles actually. The possibilities of story telling is endless too. The possibilities of visual poetry is even more...and each viewer can interpret each image based on his/her own creativity and imaginations...or dismiss it as easily.

So it seems that I have many personal reasons to do that project, right?

But that is only a scratch on the surface. I do have other secret personal agenda for my aesthetics, compositions and themes...I do challenge myself every single time, just like it's my last time in the field...and I set new goals to make sure that I'll fail or barely pass...and again that's just another excuse for the essay...

The real reason could be the journey itself because every single shot of every session of every photo essay could be a personal victory for me...and if not, trying and aspiring to achieve it bring me an unlimited pleasure.

One of the final excuses to photograph sexy ladies in lingerie, nude or formal outfits in unusual places could be "Mcauffin".
If you ask what is a "Mcauffin" I would tell you that it's a tool to kill wild lions in Scotland and if you say there are no lions in Scotland, I'll tell you so there is no "Mcauffin".*

This is the post fast food /MTV/internet era. Many of the audience have lost their interest in subtle creativity...shock values and vulgar meaningless over saturations rule majority of the aesthetic of today's art.  But how many ways can we enjoy viewing a red rose? multiply it by a million and that's how many more ways are there to create new ways to do that....to enjoy a simple red rose, to see it and express it visually, through words or other senses.

Sometimes it's better to enjoy simple beauty for its own sake and no other ulterior motive.

I hope this helps.

Cheers

Wolf


* Borrowed from a similar story that Hitchcock told to Françoise Truffaut in his interview. I'm not sure of the spelling of Mcauffin since I read the interviews more than 15 years ago in another language. It should be a word sounding like that without any real meaning.

Chip Morton wrote:
Thanks, Wolf!!

(And O.G.R. also!)

My pleasure!