I didn’t truly understand your work until I saw this video, I saw it more as a snapshot in time and I didn’t see the underlying perspective. I will re look at your work with a new lens of appreciation.
I love Shore's analogies: his aspiration to the condition of speech versus writing, the comparison with the conscious/unconscious skill of an actor with articulate seeing. I guess this might not be the place for it, (if he's simply been asked about seeing,) but a tip of his hat in the direction of William Eggleston, and a comparison of their intentions would have been interesting? Their points of departure seem so close.
He explains the concept of perception and awareness so well! Is every picture then taken with these elements a good picture ... an interesting picture ?
I would really like to have Mr. Stephen's insight and expertise. I am total rookie when it comes to photography, hence there is a freaking whole lot to learn :)
What’s really interesting with him is the intellectualisation of Symmetry, Geometry, Aesthetics which will universally, viscerally trample all billboards one can muster to prop up what is ultimately MEDIOCRITY.
I'm going to offend people but I don't know how to ask my question without offense. I'm having a difficult time understanding his photos. I like them. My question is, why are these photos in a museum? What makes them great? While I did enjoy them, I didn't find them to be photographs that made me say "WOW!" I've seen stunning photographs all over the internet sites that will never make it into any museum let alone the MOMA. So then, what did I miss?
He was one of the first photographers to contrastingly use art photography techniques (the huge view camera he talks about) to cut out slices of ordinary places and ordinary life (snapshotlike) and present them for contemplation as art. And he did it in color. Eggleston was earlier, but Shore was more studied. Are the stunning pictures all over the internet that you're seeing have something they're particularly saying?
Many of the pictures people like to call "stunning photographs" are in fact stunning subjects and banal photographs, many are even straight repetitions of the same image with different but similar subjects. Stephen Shore makes interesting photographs, not always of stunning subjects. The interest comes through the image itself and how the image is put together, how it looks, which is influenced by the subject but is also more than the subject. Shore's work is more than suppositional, it has a self-awareness of being a photograph and so does things that only photographs can do.
abstractsbybrian - I guess my response would be you REALLY need to be up close and personal and see such photographs hung in a gallery to get that understanding. It’s the only way. I remember going to a superb exhibition at the Barbican, London a few years back and one photographer who was part of the show was Garry Winogrand. Now I love his work but not always understanding some of his shots or realising the qualities of them. Standing 5 feet away from them in the flesh changed all that though, being able to look from different angles and think about the how and why he clicked the shutter release when he did opened up a whole new realisation of his work that I remember clearly to this day whenever I look at his work or take photos myself.
I think it's a totally fair question. I'd put Mr. Shore's work in a museum (or on my wall) because it thoughtfully challenges assumptions. Assumptions about composition, colour, subject, sure, but also about how our brains process visual information. So each series is like a set of perception experiments. If any of them are beautiful (and I think they are) I'd say it's because of the "resonance" of care and intention that he spoke of in the video. Take care.
I didn’t truly understand your work until I saw this video, I saw it more as a snapshot in time and I didn’t see the underlying perspective. I will re look at your work with a new lens of appreciation.
This was great
I love Shore's analogies: his aspiration to the condition of speech versus writing, the comparison with the conscious/unconscious skill of an actor with articulate seeing. I guess this might not be the place for it, (if he's simply been asked about seeing,) but a tip of his hat in the direction of William Eggleston, and a comparison of their intentions would have been interesting? Their points of departure seem so close.
I love it when artist do the talking!
Absolutely! Thank you 🙏🏾
I had the pleasure of seeing this exhibition. Totally amazing
I agree
Thank you for sharing
wow how did i miss this?! what a legend
Really enjoyed this video!! I can hear Stephen Shore talk about his work and thoughts for hours. Very interesting.
I feel related with his ideas/thoughts. Conscious seeing through photography.
loved this!
I absolutely loved the Video. Thx from Switzerland
Roman
love this
Love the images. I see a lot of my thought process and images in his work. Great! Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
All of this mind food was delicious 😋
Thank you Stephen 🙏
very interesting. learned a lot
He explains the concept of perception and awareness so well! Is every picture then taken with these elements a good picture ... an interesting picture ?
ok Stephen i finally get it. thank you
BRAVO 👏👏👏💖
Amazing
very insightful. what a great teacher! thank you, Mr. Stephen Shore
I really love his outfit
he's so cool
2:22 great!
Very... very good.
I would really like to have Mr. Stephen's insight and expertise. I am total rookie when it comes to photography, hence there is a freaking whole lot to learn :)
super art
I was able to see this in person. 🤯
Would like to hear from the curator too, regarding the selections of works, their placement, the design, and how they were written about
Yes fill them with tension!
I wonder if that boy (in his fifties now, if he's alive) ever found out he's in an important Stephen Shore photo.
Interesting
What’s really interesting with him is the intellectualisation of Symmetry, Geometry, Aesthetics which will universally, viscerally trample all billboards one can muster to prop up what is ultimately MEDIOCRITY.
Funny thing, I almost went to Bard College...
👍
I'm going to offend people but I don't know how to ask my question without offense.
I'm having a difficult time understanding his photos.
I like them.
My question is, why are these photos in a museum? What makes them great?
While I did enjoy them, I didn't find them to be photographs that made me say "WOW!"
I've seen stunning photographs all over the internet sites that will never make it into any museum let alone the MOMA.
So then, what did I miss?
He was one of the first photographers to contrastingly use art photography techniques (the huge view camera he talks about) to cut out slices of ordinary places and ordinary life (snapshotlike) and present them for contemplation as art. And he did it in color. Eggleston was earlier, but Shore was more studied.
Are the stunning pictures all over the internet that you're seeing have something they're particularly saying?
Its how you see them please go to the moma and find out the message it was amazing very inspirational
Many of the pictures people like to call "stunning photographs" are in fact stunning subjects and banal photographs, many are even straight repetitions of the same image with different but similar subjects. Stephen Shore makes interesting photographs, not always of stunning subjects. The interest comes through the image itself and how the image is put together, how it looks, which is influenced by the subject but is also more than the subject. Shore's work is more than suppositional, it has a self-awareness of being a photograph and so does things that only photographs can do.
abstractsbybrian - I guess my response would be you REALLY need to be up close and personal and see such photographs hung in a gallery to get that understanding. It’s the only way. I remember going to a superb exhibition at the Barbican, London a few years back and one photographer who was part of the show was Garry Winogrand. Now I love his work but not always understanding some of his shots or realising the qualities of them. Standing 5 feet away from them in the flesh changed all that though, being able to look from different angles and think about the how and why he clicked the shutter release when he did opened up a whole new realisation of his work that I remember clearly to this day whenever I look at his work or take photos myself.
I think it's a totally fair question. I'd put Mr. Shore's work in a museum (or on my wall) because it thoughtfully challenges assumptions. Assumptions about composition, colour, subject, sure, but also about how our brains process visual information. So each series is like a set of perception experiments. If any of them are beautiful (and I think they are) I'd say it's because of the "resonance" of care and intention that he spoke of in the video. Take care.
When I was 17, I met Any Warhol...
this sounds me justifying a snapshot with a sales speech than really working on something outsanding.
A lot of post rationalization, I think.
Montana got cliche for Stephen
A talking photographer is no photographer.
Too intellectualized and analytical as a result, boring work.