Nan Goldin

[Marko]

Another photographer whose work I like is Nan Goldin. She is well known for her New York photography and her work is very provocative.

For those interested, here's 2 links, the first to an interview done a few years ago along with some photos. The second is just photos.

http://fototapeta.art.pl/2003/ngie.php

http://www.artnet.com/Artists/Artist...works_for_sale

What do people think of this type of work?

[AcadieLibre]

Her images comes across as raw and stark, really like her work and very interesting read. Thanks.

[kiley9806]

this is some pretty heavy stuff. i appreciate the honesty of the photography, even though lots is pretty hard to look at. i enjoyed her comments that went something like 'if i want to take a picture, i take a picture'. i agree!
i do have to say though, if i had taken one of these shots myself, and posted it up here, it would more than likely get really bad reviews - blurry, dark, bad composition,etc.
so my question would be, what makes one persons fuzzy photograph famous, and anothers just a waste of film?

[AcadieLibre]

Thats a hard one to answer, it has all to do with content, composure, setting, artistic intent, final outcome, lighting, and oh so many other reasons. She probably is going for that look and effect on purpose and that outcome and style. Most people do it by accident with no intention with that being the final outcome and it usually looks like a mistake opposed to the reasons I stated. And in the end it is what other people will consider artistic intent, do they think what your trying to accomplish is actually art. I can call anything art but if no one else does it is probably not art. I am sure I will reread this and think I should have worded it differently lol, but the best I can do for now. And art has as many visions as their are people on the planet, it is all in the eye of the beholder. No one firm set of guidelines as to what art is. And once again it has to do with what your artistic intent was, not what your doing because you can't do better and are still learning. Hope this diatribe explains a minor bit to you. Those photos look like the outcome that the artist envisioned and are very dramatic and the you are drawn to the main subject of the photo and they are not blurry and underexposed. I am sure others will have other ideas and ways to explain it, just my thoughts on it.

[kiley9806]

thats a pretty good way of explaining it.
its just a topic of discussion, i really just asked for conversation... wasnt really looking for the 'right' answer. some photographers work is more easily understandable than others i think. this kind of work is much more real, and like you said before, raw, than other stuff i've seen posted.

[AcadieLibre]

Wasn't going for the right answer lol, not like I would be able to do that anyway . Like you, I also think it is a good discussion and always curious what others also think.

[Marko]

I also liked your explanation Acadielibre. Intent is very important.

I'm also a firm believer in knowing the rules before you break them.