« Olivier Morin Bottles Lightning | Main | Whatever Happened to the Coolpix A? »

Monday, 12 August 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

How about - Family Photographs: Photographers Photograph Their Families.

It's a neat book from a different time, one of my favorites. It's interesting to read the comments at Amazon regarding the nudity. Some readers are shocked.

[Well, just think of how rare nude pictures are on the Internet. You hardly ever see one anywhere! --Mike, irony mode on]

Family photographs: photographers' photographers photograph their families' family photographer's photographs...

Errrm, "families'" should read "family's". :-O

Why don't Photographers' Families Photograph Photographers for a change?

OK, I don't know why I had to do that.....

Ugh. I bought it, too. And I agree with your comment. Why nobody stopped the madness and retitled it "Family Photographs" or "Photographers' Families" before it went to print is a mystery...

John Cleese: A palindrome?
Michael Palin: Yeah. Yeah.
John Cleese: It's not a palindrome.
A palindrome of Bolton would be Notlob.


And on the other side of the lens... Photographs: Family photographer's family photograph family photographer; family photographed family photographer familiarly, photographing familial photographer with familiarity.

Family photographers' photographing photographer's families? Or families photographing family photographers?

Sorry. I'll go away now.


The bigger issue here is not whether photographers photograph their families, but why is it, in our sub-30 year old naval staring, social media influenced reality, the focus of so many alleged 'art' photographers?

I can't tell you how many of my compatriots have stopped going to web sites like LensScratch because every third 'art' photographer on it is concentrating on pictures of their family. Somebody in the market is buying pictures of someone else's family as 'art'? Maybe not I think.

If digital photography has turned every mouth-breather into a photographer, then photographing your extended family to the exclusion of everything else is the new 'art photography subject' because the new generation can't be bothered actually researching a different subject, or doesn't like to get into those sticky social situations where they might have to introduce themselves to someone new, face-to-face, and make a connection!

Every time you go to an 'art' photography site and look at work, count how many of those people are solely shooting pictures of their families. You'll be surprised!

If weird pictures of your family are the new art photography subject, I'm set for life!

[Hi Crabby,
Nothing new about it. Sally Mann became famous taking pictures of her children. Harry Callahan's wife Eleanor, Emmet Gowin's wife Edith, and Alfred Stieglitz's wife Georgia O'Keefe were among their most famous subjects. At the very dawn of photography, Julia Margaret Cameron's subjects were her family and friends. I'm sure I'll be thinking of more (and maybe better) examples all day long today.

Nothing wrong with it, either. You photograph what you love, what you know, and what is available to you. Are you saying it's necessary to take pictures of used cigarette butts (Penn), water towers and other industrial structures (the Bechers) or homoerotic porn (Mapplethorpe) in order to be a legitimate artist in your opinion? I know "Crabby" is right there in your handle, but sometimes your fondness for crabby rants leads you astray, IMHO. --Mike]

I really have no idea what you guys are talking about. I must assume this book has something to do with families, photographers, and nudity, although I cannot tell who is naked.

While I agree with you to some extent Mike, It's amazing how many modern 'art' photographers there are whose family pictures comprise ALL of their portfolios, for most of your mentioned photographers (not even Sally Mann), that was no where near true!

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007