This version may be more streamlined and compact, but it's still boring, including visually. Here's a dynamic horizontal fragment: View crop The rhythm of the stairs in the reflection is also good, if you don't crop it.
It's interesting to look at, yes. But there's just too much of it, too much of it is of equal importance, and the main thing is missing. It's scattered, scattered, and won't come together, while there are plenty of interesting individual pieces.
Marina Glebova, By definition, there's no dominant element here. It's not architecture, not a concept, not a genre. I defined it in "City Life." It's a train station, with its Brownian movement of people, moving in different directions. But there's a curious visual space here, like a large, assembled set. Inside the set, people are moving, not actors...)) Does it all come together to form a coherent picture, with internal connections? It's possible to find them.)) I wasn't concerned with that. I remembered how, in school, my literature teacher would demand that I find and define the main point in a Tolstoy novel or a Turgenev story...)
Marina Glebova, By definition, there is no dominant here. This is not architecture, not a concert, not a genre. I defined this in "City Life." It's a train station, with its Brownian movement of people, in different directions. But there is a curious visual space here, like a large assembled set. Inside the set, people are moving, not actors...)) Does this come together to form a coherent picture, with internal connections? It can be found.)) I wasn't concerned with this. I remembered how at school, a literature teacher demanded that we find and define the main thing in Tolstoy's novel or even Turgenev's story...)
Yakov Trembovolsky, nevertheless, photography, regardless of genre, however, like any other work of art, implies some kind of skeleton, a spine, something of the sort. This is exactly what I wrote about, that there is no main thing, everything is too equivalent and falls apart visually, but there are very interesting places and moments here.
Ignat Safronov, this conversation reminds me of the story with the street kid at the market during the Civil War: "Lady! Give me a ten-kopeck coin, or I'll spit in your face, and I have a contagious disease!") There's nothing. And there's no "boy" either.
This is not a work for one eye (for the overall impression, visuality, composition), but "to be examined". Like a multi-episode series, with a through theme - a train station, and individual episodes unfolding inside. Ideally, I would like a lot of things (both the overall integrity of the whole frame, and greater interconnection between the plots). But it is interesting to look at. I exhibited a similar station work here, with the general theme of waiting for information on the board about the train's arrival (after 3 minutes the hall became practically empty), but I didn't go =)
Yes, of course. This is a multi-faceted photograph. There's an element of luck involved: it all depends.
Usually, if you see an interesting space (setting) with people moving around it unpredictably, you start shooting, hoping that in the allotted time, a picture might emerge: both visually and meaningfully. You capture scenes in bursts. Then you just have to examine and frame them. Almost all the shots are deleted.
One or two might be successful in their own way.
I looked at your work at the train station. The idea is sound. The angle and light are important here. Such things from above are good.
Back in the 1970s and 1980s, I deeply and systematically studied, and then directly participated ("second echelon") in, semiotic studies. Essentially, semiotics grew out of the linguistic works of Saussure and Trubetskoy and their ideas about signs and binary opposites (Peirce was mastered later). The second law of thermodynamics also came into play (the entropy and non-entropy of texts). The formalist school of the 1920s in the USSR was the basis for the emergence of the Tartu and Moscow schools of semiotics in our country. Literary texts, primarily poetry (poetry as a more formalized structure), became the subject of my study. It's no wonder Gavrilenko constantly refers to poetry as texts formally similar to photography. When I read Eikhenbaum's "How 'The Overcoat' Is Made" in my youth, and then the brilliant works on structural poetics by Tynyanov and Jakobson, I systematically redirected my academic interests. The famous "Scientific Notes of Tartu State University" and the materials from their summer school were my reference books. I had to actively communicate on these topics. And write. In the early 1970s, Lotman published a book on the language of film and photography as semiotic systems. It contained many witty and relevant ideas. He had some brilliant, radical young colleagues in their own right: Vyacheslav Ivanov, Vladimir Toporov, Pyatigorsky, Gasparov, Zholkovsky, and many others.
Bart was considered a fiction writer in that academic paradigm. His scholarly views were poorly formalized. Arnheim's book was read at the same time (decades ago): it merely wittily deepened fundamental semiotic approaches.
But already in the 1980s, the rigid paradigm of the semiotic approach was significantly expanded by works on pragmatics, where the subject, the individual, introduced a greater degree of subjectivity and uncertainty into a formalized system. And this "trend" in the humanities persists. Pure semiotic works have disappeared. They belong to scholarly history and archives.
Why am I writing so much here?))) There's nothing new in the approaches to photography as a sign system that you espouse and that are constantly voiced by Gavrilenko, Vershovsky (to a certain extent, Lapin), and others: it's the same very narrow and doctrinaire position on the analysis of visual text: form (composition) is everything, and content is essentially a product of form. These are the watered-down ideas of the formalists of the 1920s. And I understand why the circle of "street photographers" and their ideologists needs this. Hordes of amateurs leave nothing living with their mass invasion of photography. If you don't put up a fence, don't define the rules, schizophrenia sets in—there are no value guidelines, no self-determination. It happened in poetry in the last century, and it's standard in art and art criticism. But knowing all this, I personally want to be somewhere outside this resonant circle. And I've long since transcended the narrowly formalistic understanding of the value of text. It's a long conversation. And most importantly: I simply enjoy the process of capturing and depicting life, in all its diversity, through a lens (and I've been doing this for decades), in all sorts of ways, right and wrong, and with equal pleasure I look at powerful photographs by masters and amateurs. This is the space of my diverse interests...)). And I'm genuinely interested in looking at your work. I'm not interested in your theoretical approaches.
still, photography, regardless of genre, like any other work of art, implies some kind of backbone, a spine, something of that sort. Marina Glebova,
Marina, well, that's important for the "vertebrate" species. But there are other forms of organization too... ))
Yakov Trembovolsky, yes, yes, organization ))). I was talking about the organization of this shot; it would have been possible to highlight something dominant through either processing or cropping.
There are at least three dominant elements here: the rhythms of the stairs, the rhythms of the reflection, the groups of people. And the eye darts around the photo randomly; sometimes in such cases, lines leading across the frame or tonal spots help, but here there's none of that, so I repeat—there's too much of everything and it's too much of the same.
I'm judging purely visually, without any theories, since I haven't read any classics or theoreticians of photography yet. But the frame still remains interesting for me - for its moments, for the information and for “thinking about it.”
View crop nmv, it's visually easier this way. The author's version is for longer viewing. "Like a multi-episode series, with the overarching theme of a train station, and individual episodes unfolding within it" - a very accurate description!
Back in the 1970s and 1980s, I deeply and systematically studied, and then directly participated ("second echelon") in, semiotic studies. Essentially, semiotics grew out of the linguistic works of Saussure and Trubetskoy and their ideas about signs and binary opposites (Peirce was mastered later). The second law of thermodynamics also came into play (the entropy/non-entropy of texts). The formalist school of the 1920s in the USSR was the basis for the emergence of the Tartu and Moscow schools of semiotics in our country. The subject of study became literary texts, primarily poetry (poetry as a more formalized structure. It's not for nothing that Gavrilenko constantly refers to poetry as texts similar to photography in their formal properties). When I read Eikhenbaum's "How 'The Overcoat' Is Made" in my youth, and then the brilliant works on the structural poetics of Tynyanov and Jakobson, I systematically redirected my academic interests. The famous "Scientific Notes of Tartu State University" and the materials of their summer school were my reference books. I had to actively communicate on these topics. And write. In the early 1970s, Lotman published a book on the language of film and photography as semiotic systems. It contained many witty and relevant ideas. He had young colleagues who were brilliant in their own way, radicals: Vyacheslav Vs. Ivanov, Vladimir N. Toporov, Pyatigorsky, Gasparov, Zholkovsky, and many others. Bart, in that academic paradigm, was considered a writer. His academic views were poorly formalized. Arnheim's book was read at the same time (decades ago): it merely wittily deepened fundamental semiotic approaches.
But already in the 1980s, the rigid paradigm of the semiotic approach was significantly expanded by works on pragmatics, where the subject, the human being, introduced a greater degree of subjectivity and uncertainty into a formalized system. And this "trend" in the humanities persists. Semiotic works in their pure form have disappeared. They are scientific history and archives.
Why am I writing so much here?))) There is nothing new in the approaches to photography as a sign system that you profess and that are constantly voiced by Gavrilenko, Vershovsky (to a certain extent, Lapin), and others: it is the same very narrow and doctrinaire position on the analysis of visual text: form (composition) is everything; content is essentially a product of form. These are the watered-down ideas of the formalists of the 1920s. And I understand why the "street photographer" circle and its ideologists need this. Hordes of amateurs are leaving nothing living with their massive invasion of photography. If you don't put up a fence, don't define the rules, schizophrenia sets in—there are no value guidelines, no self-determination. It happened in poetry last century, and it's standard in art and art criticism. But knowing all this, I personally want to be somewhere outside this resonant circle. And I long ago transcended the narrow formalist understanding of the value of text. This is a long conversation. And most importantly: I simply enjoy the process of capturing and depicting life, in all its diversity, through a lens (and I've been doing this for decades), in any way, right or wrong, and with the same pleasure I examine powerful photographs by masters and amateurs. This is the space of my diverse interests...)). And I'm genuinely interested in seeing your work. And I'm not interested in your theoretical approaches.
Yakov Trembovolsky,
I saw the denial. I also understood that you deny the priority of form. I didn't see what you propose instead, what approach. If "let all flowers bloom," then that doesn't suit me.
I think there's more to it than just denial. )) I read an analysis of the visual structures of Bresson's UG works. That's all for neophytes.
Yakov Trembovolsky, Yeah. I still haven't seen an answer to my question. Maybe you don't have one at all? I have a suspicion. While you were working on the semioteca, I was forging the weapons of my homeland (I'm a bit older than you) and I wasn't in the mood. So I wouldn't want to reduce the conversation to who did and read what and when. I noticed that as many as eight people have commented on your multi-letter opus, which is practically a record. And why? Because you pour healing balm on the souls of hacks and incompetents. Well, of course – there's no need to learn anything, no need to analyze, structure and connections are complete garbage, composition is a no-no... It turns out Trembovolsky preaches that you should "simply enjoy the process of capturing and depicting life, in all its diversity, through the lens (and I've been doing this for decades), in any way, right or wrong." That's the truth! Hurray! So we've always done everything right... Yakov, you're undoubtedly a saboteur and an enemy of the people. You preach empty-handedness, you cripple the fragile souls of amateur photographers, and I think you do it deliberately. And finally, I want to note that I'm not actually a street photographer. If you're so keen to slap a label on me, then you could say I'm a follower of the CCC.
You are undoubtedly a saboteur and an enemy of the people. You preach empty talk, you cripple the fragile souls of amateur photographers, and I think you do it deliberately.
Ignat Safronov,
Wow, that's familiar language... In the 1930s, you would have known what to do.
I've disliked preachers since my youth. I never joined a party, I never marched in formation, and I don't buy into that.
If there's a party of "those who like to break eggs from the sharp end" and a party of "those who like to break eggs from the blunt end," I'm among those who will, on principle, break eggs from both ends and only make sure they're not rotten.
I wrote exclusively about my position and my views (I've always valued formality, by the way. It's obvious). I didn't force my views here. I wrote the longest text on the site in many years for you.
I respect CCC as a Master (this is evident from my only blog post), but I have the same respect and interest for other great photographers, who are in no way aligned with CCC. I also understand aspiring amateurs. It's very simple. Communication is not a war of extermination where "no prisoners are taken."
You are undoubtedly a saboteur and an enemy of the people. You preach empty talk, you cripple the fragile souls of amateur photographers, and I think you do it deliberately. Ignat Safronov,
Wow, that's familiar language... In the 1930s, you would have known what to do.
I've disliked preachers since my youth. I never joined a party, I never marched in formation, and I don't buy into that.
If there's a party of "those who like to break eggs from the sharp end" and a party of "those who like to break eggs from the blunt end," I'm among those who will, on principle, break eggs from both ends and only make sure they're not rotten.
I wrote exclusively about my position and my views. And I didn't impose them here. I wrote the longest text on the site in many years for you. ))
I respect CCC as a Master (this is evident from my only blog post), but I have the same respect and interest for other great photographers, who are in no way aligned with CCC. And I also understand beginners. It's very simple. Communication is not a war of extermination where "no prisoners are taken." ))
Yakov Trembovolsky, Yes, you wrote about your denial. So what? This is very similar to the "Pussy Wright" position. I would like to hear your positive position from you. What do you offer in exchange for what was rejected? If nothing, then this is just empty chatter, which, incidentally, the site's users will really like.
Ignat Safronov, there are many emotions, but they're pointless. Yakov never preached anything. Today, any information about his vision has been a revelation to many. And I think he made it clear to you that he likes your work and understands it, that you're a good photographer, but not a theoretician. Moreover, you're categorical. You easily throw out labels left and right, casually, without thinking.
Ignat Safronov, Ignat Safronov, there are a lot of emotions, but they're pointless. Yakov never preached anything. Today, any information about his vision has been a revelation to many. And I think he made it clear to you that he likes your work and understands it, that you're a good photographer, but not a theoretician. Moreover, you're categorical. You easily throw out labels left and right, casually, without thinking.
ash, now you're the one doing the labeling
Oh, sad, the conversation has gone off track... isn't it easier to answer specific questions than to try to discredit someone else?
Ignat Safronov, there are many emotions, but they're pointless. Yakov never preached anything. Today, any information about his vision was a revelation to many. And I think he made it clear to you that he likes your work and understands it, that you're a good photographer, but not a theoretician. Moreover, you're categorical. You easily throw out labels left and right, casually, without thinking.
ash, Reread his recent posts again, then again, and again. Perhaps then you'll see what he's talking about. Your interpretation of his words smacks of improvisation. Maybe it would be easier to express your opinion?
Ignat Safronov, I completely agree with the "but no theoretician" part here and admit I'm wrong.
ash, Oh well, let's move on. ;) I just don't accept denial for the sake of denial. If you deny it, that's your right, but then offer your perspective on the problem. If you don't offer one? Then you're a windbag. So I'm waiting for Yakov to answer my question.
To a certain extent, the views of both sides have been clarified (for me, this is completely over the top). The exchange of opinions with Ignat has entered a non-constructive phase.
If he even mentioned the group "Pussy Riot" (!), then, as Professor Preobrazhensky said, "...the house is lost." Waste of time. Let's go in circles.
If you don't pick out individual quotes from my posts and really read them carefully, you'll see that Bolshevism, even in aesthetics, is a thing, albeit crude, but effective.
And therefore dangerous. I believe my tolerance for differing opinions is also evident, even if mine is misinterpreted. (I don't know what a negation of a negation is. It's beyond logic. I know the philosophical category of "negation of a negation." It's a very powerful thing.)
I'm looking forward to seeing good photos of Ignat Safronov, Ash, and Marina Glebova. As well as other colleagues. I'll always speak up if I'm interested.
To a certain extent, the views of both sides have been clarified (for me, this is completely over the top). The exchange of opinions with Ignat has entered a non-constructive phase.
If he even mentioned the group "Pussy Riot" (!), then, as Professor Preobrazhensky said, "...the house is lost." Waste of time. Let's go in circles.
If you don't pick out individual quotes from my posts and really read them carefully, you'll see that Bolshevism, even in aesthetics, is a thing, albeit crude, but effective.
And therefore dangerous. I believe my tolerance for differing opinions is also evident, even if mine is misinterpreted. (I don't know what a negation of a negation is. It's beyond logic. I know the philosophical category "negation of a negation." It's a very powerful thing.)
I'm looking forward to seeing good photos of Ignat Safronov, Ash, and Marina Glebova. As are other colleagues. I'll always speak up if I'm interested.
Yakov Trembovolsky, Listen, let's step away from the interpersonal and eternal website squabbles. I heard you deny and don't acknowledge. I ask you to express your position in simple Russian. Not denial, but constructive.
It's a great place—a true photographic paradise. We were there and spent half a day there... but you can't take pictures at our train stations now—they can easily arrest you. And it wasn't particularly welcome back then either. The observation deck at Kyoto Station is also nice.
This version may be more streamlined and compact, but it's still boring, including visually. Here's a dynamic horizontal fragment: View crop
The rhythm of the stairs in the reflection is also good, if you don't crop it.
B
Closer to Ronin's version, perhaps, like this: View crop
Yes, of course. This is a multi-faceted photograph. There's an element of luck involved: it all depends.
Usually, if you see an interesting space (setting) with people moving around it unpredictably, you start shooting, hoping that in the allotted time,
a picture might emerge: both visually and meaningfully. You capture scenes in bursts. Then you just have to examine and frame them. Almost all the shots are deleted.
One or two might be successful in their own way.
I looked at your work at the train station. The idea is sound. The angle and light are important here. Such things from above are good.
Thanks. I don't cut it. But it's interesting to discuss the options.
I watched it. And...?
Ignat, I'll write a little more than I'd like.
Back in the 1970s and 1980s, I deeply and systematically studied, and then directly participated ("second echelon") in, semiotic studies. Essentially, semiotics grew out of the linguistic works of Saussure and Trubetskoy and their ideas about signs and binary opposites (Peirce was mastered later).
The second law of thermodynamics also came into play (the entropy and non-entropy of texts). The formalist school of the 1920s in the USSR was the basis for the emergence of the Tartu and Moscow schools of semiotics in our country.
Literary texts, primarily poetry (poetry as a more formalized structure), became the subject of my study. It's no wonder Gavrilenko constantly refers to poetry as texts formally similar to photography. When I read Eikhenbaum's "How 'The Overcoat' Is Made" in my youth, and then the brilliant works on structural poetics by Tynyanov and Jakobson, I systematically redirected my academic interests.
The famous "Scientific Notes of Tartu State University" and the materials from their summer school were my reference books. I had to actively communicate on these topics. And write.
In the early 1970s, Lotman published a book on the language of film and photography as semiotic systems. It contained many witty and relevant ideas. He had some brilliant, radical young colleagues in their own right: Vyacheslav Ivanov, Vladimir Toporov, Pyatigorsky, Gasparov, Zholkovsky, and many others.
Bart was considered a fiction writer in that academic paradigm. His scholarly views were poorly formalized. Arnheim's book was read at the same time (decades ago): it merely wittily deepened fundamental semiotic approaches.
But already in the 1980s, the rigid paradigm of the semiotic approach was significantly expanded by works on pragmatics, where the subject, the individual, introduced a greater degree of subjectivity and uncertainty into a formalized system. And this "trend" in the humanities persists. Pure semiotic works have disappeared. They belong to scholarly history and archives.
Why am I writing so much here?))) There's nothing new in the approaches to photography as a sign system that you espouse and that are constantly voiced by Gavrilenko, Vershovsky (to a certain extent, Lapin), and others: it's the same very narrow and doctrinaire position on the analysis of visual text: form (composition) is everything, and content is essentially a product of form. These are the watered-down ideas of the formalists of the 1920s. And I understand why the circle of "street photographers" and their ideologists needs this. Hordes of amateurs leave nothing living with their mass invasion of photography. If you don't put up a fence, don't define the rules, schizophrenia sets in—there are no value guidelines, no self-determination.
It happened in poetry in the last century, and it's standard in art and art criticism. But knowing all this, I personally want to be somewhere outside this resonant circle. And I've long since transcended the narrowly formalistic understanding of the value of text. It's a long conversation.
And most importantly: I simply enjoy the process of capturing and depicting life, in all its diversity, through a lens (and I've been doing this for decades), in all sorts of ways, right and wrong, and with equal pleasure I look at powerful photographs by masters and amateurs. This is the space of my diverse interests...)).
And I'm genuinely interested in looking at your work. I'm not interested in your theoretical approaches.
Marina, well, that's important for the "vertebrate" species. But there are other forms of organization too... ))
There are at least three dominant elements here: the rhythms of the stairs, the rhythms of the reflection, the groups of people. And the eye darts around the photo randomly; sometimes in such cases, lines leading across the frame or tonal spots help, but here there's none of that, so I repeat—there's too much of everything and it's too much of the same.
I'm judging purely visually, without any theories, since I haven't read any classics or theoreticians of photography yet. But the frame still remains interesting for me - for its moments, for the information and for “thinking about it.”
The author's version is for longer viewing.
"Like a multi-episode series, with the overarching theme of a train station, and individual episodes unfolding within it" - a very accurate description!
And that's normal.
It can't be cut off.
I saw the denial. I also understood that you deny the priority of form. I didn't see what you propose instead, what approach. If "let all flowers bloom," then that doesn't suit me.
I think there's more to it than just denial. ))
I read an analysis of the visual structures of Bresson's works by UG.
That's all for beginners.
I noticed that as many as eight people have commented on your multi-letter opus, which is practically a record. And why? Because you pour healing balm on the souls of hacks and incompetents. Well, of course – there's no need to learn anything, no need to analyze, structure and connections are complete garbage, composition is a no-no... It turns out Trembovolsky preaches that you should "simply enjoy the process of capturing and depicting life, in all its diversity, through the lens (and I've been doing this for decades), in any way, right or wrong." That's the truth! Hurray! So we've always done everything right...
Yakov, you're undoubtedly a saboteur and an enemy of the people. You preach empty-handedness, you cripple the fragile souls of amateur photographers, and I think you do it deliberately.
And finally, I want to note that I'm not actually a street photographer. If you're so keen to slap a label on me, then you could say I'm a follower of the CCC.
Wow, that's familiar language... In the 1930s, you would have known what to do.
I've disliked preachers since my youth. I never joined a party, I never marched in formation, and I don't buy into that.
If there's a party of "those who like to break eggs from the sharp end" and a party of "those who like to break eggs from the blunt end," I'm among those who will, on principle, break
eggs from both ends and only make sure they're not rotten.
I wrote exclusively about my position and my views (I've always valued formality, by the way. It's obvious). I didn't force my views here. I wrote the longest text on the site in many years for you.
I respect CCC as a Master (this is evident from my only blog post), but I have the same respect and interest for other great photographers, who are in no way aligned with CCC. I also understand aspiring amateurs. It's very simple. Communication is not a war of extermination where "no prisoners are taken."
Yakov never preached anything. Today, any information about his vision has been a revelation to many.
And I think he made it clear to you that he likes your work and understands it, that you're a good photographer, but not a theoretician.
Moreover, you're categorical. You easily throw out labels left and right, casually, without thinking.
Oh, sad, the conversation has gone off track... isn't it easier to answer specific questions than to try to discredit someone else?
I just don't accept denial for the sake of denial. If you deny it, that's your right, but then offer your perspective on the problem. If you don't offer one? Then you're a windbag. So I'm waiting for Yakov to answer my question.
To a certain extent, the views of both sides have been clarified (for me, this is completely over the top).
The exchange of opinions with Ignat has entered a non-constructive phase.
If he even mentioned the group "Pussy Riot" (!), then, as Professor Preobrazhensky said, "...the house is lost." Waste of time. Let's go in circles.
If you don't pick out individual quotes from my posts and really read them carefully, you'll see that Bolshevism, even in aesthetics, is a thing, albeit crude, but effective.
And therefore dangerous.
I believe my tolerance for differing opinions is also evident, even if mine is misinterpreted. (I don't know what a negation of a negation is. It's beyond logic. I know the philosophical category of "negation of a negation." It's a very powerful thing.)
I'm looking forward to seeing good photos of Ignat Safronov, Ash, and Marina Glebova. As well as other colleagues. I'll always speak up if I'm interested.
It's endless. You asked Yegor the same question. You formulate your views through a system of links.
I've said enough. If we stay on the site longer, something will be added through various comments.