“I went on to Flickr and it was just thousands of pieces of shit, and I just couldn’t believe it. And it’s just all conventional, it’s all cliches, it’s just one visual convention after another.” Stephen Shore
Stephen Shore’s reaction to Flickr is understandable. The most popular groups like Catchy Colors (36,091 members) or Reflections (14,350 members) are brutal. I can’t say I even liked Squared Circle (5,188 members).
My guess is that the best photography on Flickr is hard to find. Good photography is rarely popular. I’m reminded of Bill Jay’s essay (pdf) on photographic fame:
I think we can agree that any definition of fame would include such phrases as “popular acclaim,” “known far and wide,” “public estimation and regard,” “household name,” and similar tributes. Now lay back and concentrate. Name an active living artist-photographer who is famous. . . . . . . (The dots represent time passing. Go ahead, think about it for as long as you like.)
Ready now? Good. Who did you come up with? Joel-Peter Witkin. Robert Mapplethorpe. Annie Leibowitz. Sally Mann. Who? Never mind – we have enough names for our purpose.
The next question is: how many people in the USA have heard of any one of these names? As I cannot hear you I will answer the question myself. Probably one thousand at any one time. More? OK, let us up the figure to five thousand although I think that is stretching it.
Here is the first conclusion: in a nation of 260 million even the higher figure does not represent “public acclaim”; it means that the name is recognized by only five persons in a quarter of a million. Now, compare. When a minor television sit-com actress of dubious talent declared her lesbianism she inundated every major news outlet for weeks, including the cover of Time plus seven inside pages, and her coming-out episode was watched by everyone in the universe except me. That is fame.
So forget about fame and membership stats. Tell me, where are the great pictures on Flickr?
August 8, 2007 at 1:01 am
the great pictures here? (not mine), http://www.flickr.com/photos/fake_a_dream/
August 8, 2007 at 1:15 am
I personally like this person’s pics (again, not mine):
http://flickr.com/photos/alspix/
He does some great work with pinholes, film and obscure cameras. My favourite sets of his are:
http://flickr.com/photos/alspix/sets/72057594105617344/
http://flickr.com/photos/alspix/sets/72057594105620695/
http://flickr.com/photos/alspix/sets/72157594194034275/
I suppose some of the photos could be considered clichéd, however more often than not Alspix is the one coming up with the idea….
For technically very good pics see:
http://flickr.com/photos/ellishall/
There’s a pic of me in his stream somewhere! I especially like his tubagraphs and portraits of a reflected venice.
Also, check out the alt group, although you have to like alternative photography I suppose…
http://flickr.com/groups/alt/
well, that’s my favourites. If you look hard enough and get past the cruft (difficult I know) then there’s some very good stuff on flickr — photoblogs don’t have the monopoly!
August 8, 2007 at 1:18 am
If I find a picture that I like, I follow the trail of the photographer’s favorites.
I think there’s some sort of clumping action going on, so if you follow a flower macro person’s trail you mostly turn up more flower macros.
I’m not very good, so don’t follow mine.
August 8, 2007 at 1:24 am
Flickr is a very hobbiest-oriented site. Thus, I think the greatness is in the designers, tech people, housewifes, househusbands, corporate minions, etc that find something important in photography. Most likely, since they’re moonlighting, there’s no art school involved or community of critique, so they share and network there. It suffices.
Granted, the extent of the critiques tend to be “nice composition” and “great colors” but it at least opens a conversation that wouldn’t otherwise be available.
I’ve met several great people/photographers through the site while at a community college completely lacking in a creative community. For that, it was invaluable. Bosse Blomqvist’s photography, found here:http://www.flickr.com/photos/bosseb/ may do nothing for you, but it’s one example of someone I feel has influenced me just because we’ve bounced work off each other for so long.
With Flickr being what it is, it’s easy to only see it for the overriding nastiness. The popular photographs are like popular songs — easy to digest, “catchy” — but you really have to get involved to get anything out of the site.
August 8, 2007 at 1:50 am
simple: flickr isn’t there for great pictures.
why if you produced a great body of work would you post it on flickr? what would be the point?
who’s eye would you be trying to attract?
Is Martin Parr going to find it and think it is “quirky” and publish a book for you?
flickr is for the masses with cameras. since when has the masses been interested in anything interesting?
if you’re interested in good photography, in good art, then you find it.
if you’re interested in celebrities, other peoples sexual preferences, been told what to think and look at a picture of a sunset rather than take the time to watch a sunset, then there’s flickr.
August 8, 2007 at 1:52 am
Was she the skinny one or the fat one?
August 8, 2007 at 1:54 am
sorry last comment is way too harsh. i take that back.
August 8, 2007 at 2:00 am
As Flickr is for the general public, and as you mention only the names of those famous photographers are recognized by “five persons in a quarter of a million” [is this a contradiction, how can they be famous if only a few know them]. This should tell you something about the probability to find a good photographer on Flickr I would say.
Bottom-line:
For good photos you simply have to look harder.
Here is mine for a starter:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dutchphotography/
Rgds, Martin M
August 8, 2007 at 2:03 am
Alec, thats so funny, your right on point again, (with what my friend Rob and I have been ranting about recently). I see alot of work that for the most part is garbage, but with tons of favorable responses. I don’t get it.
I think NS makes a good point though, one that Rob and I both realized, the analogy of lame pop music, there is definately a market shit quality.
August 8, 2007 at 2:03 am
I like her work: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mika-rin/
August 8, 2007 at 2:11 am
As with most large communities there will be the tyranny of the majority. It reminds me of an old essay by Clement Greenberg, Avant-Garde and Kitsch. People like shit, they are brainwashed to do so. It is no different in painting (http://www.thomaskinkade.com) and music (http://www.billboard.com). If photography fame is insignificant in the US, don’t let me start on the European situation. I don’t think there is one in a million over here that can name a photography superstar!
That being said, great photography is a matter of personal preferences and background. What’s greatness? A photograph that perfectly communicates what the photographer wanted or a photography embraced by art critics and the art community? And as for fame, it is a double edged sword. Most likely fame will come as an overnight sensation only to shine you into obscurity when the new kid on the block arrives.
August 8, 2007 at 2:12 am
I’m totally devastated. the great Stephen Shore has just passed judgment, and found me lacking in talent, ability and creativity. I suppose that I and all of the rest of the millions of Flickr members should put our cameras away in closets and delete all of our photos.
But wait a second! In his remarks he stresses that the average person doesn’t even know the names of the most famous photographers of our time, and therefore its conceivable that more people know the names of some Flickr photographers than have heard of him. He draws a contrast between the lack of fame of renowned photographers and the media attention given celebrities. So he believes that Flickr photographers are celebrities too. OK, I feel so much better now. In the morning I’ll start making some calls and line up some talk show appearances. Maybe if I come out as a lesbian I can get on the cover of TIME magazine as well. “Flickr Starlet Comes Out Of The Closet”.
Please thank Stephen Shore for his inspiring message to all of us Flickrites.
August 8, 2007 at 2:16 am
With all due respect to Mr. Shore, it’s impossible for anyone to make an assessment of all of Flickr, or even most of it. It’s not a single entity, there are all kinds of different communities using it in different ways. There’s no doubt that it’s consumer-oriented/hobbyist in nature, but there’s great stuff to be found if you can ferret it out.
I don’t personally participate in Groups or Pools, but I’ve worked with people via Hey, Hot Shot! who are deep into those communities and get a lot out of it - Ben Roberts, who was a Winter ‘07 Edition Hot Shot comes to mind. (Check out Ben on Flickr too.)
And speaking of Hey, Hot Shot - Naturally I’m biased, but the collection of Hey, Hot Shot! Sets on my stream is chock full of great pictures.
I use Flickr extensively for both the gallery and the competition… in part because it’s easy to integrate into my blogs, but also because I enjoy my own little corner of the Flickr community. Also, there are a lot of people who use my Flickr stream as their main source of gallery news.
August 8, 2007 at 2:18 am
What’s everyone getting so worked up about?
The bulk of photography for about 60 odd years has been snapshots and throwaways, we just didn’t have such wide access to those before.
Flickr just lets folks rummage through other people’s shoeboxes. That’s part of its appeal to me.
Some is more interesting than others, of course, but that’s true of anything
August 8, 2007 at 2:23 am
late night at Al’s place, sure beats a night on the town.
August 8, 2007 at 2:24 am
For my money I’d try http://flickr.com/photos/menlo/ href=”http://flickr.com/photos/menlo/”>this.
August 8, 2007 at 2:25 am
For my money I’d try http://flickr.com/photos/menlo/
August 8, 2007 at 2:28 am
I don’t think my photographs can be defined as shoebox material.
August 8, 2007 at 2:31 am
For me the goal of flickr was to have an alternative way to learn about photography, instead of taking courses. I decided to try to find out what photography meant to me, and explore it more thoroughly..
I was also curious about the possibilities to learn from peers, a model we used to promote when I was a teacher in art school teaching interactive and game design.
Most of the time I have spent there I used to find out what I liked and didn’t like about the photography of others, and I also gathered as much information as possible from other photography websites, set myself a few projects, read a lot of books, visited museums, and took a B&W course and learned to use the darkroom.
I agree on the rubbish and cliches, and I’m aware of the different types of flickr users. For me it was quite useful to find out what I didn’t like and discover the reasons why.
In more than a years time I learned a lot, and I found some groups that are interesting enough for me to hang around, and I started curating some groups, digging up interesting stuff..
One of the most interesting aspects for me is the fact that flickr is a method of sticking to what I have called ‘exploring photography in the spare time between work and family life’.
I have also been looking for other options, where more high quality stuff is available, and I would love to have an online version of the Magnum Workshops, and flickr could be considered an interesting platform..
August 8, 2007 at 2:35 am
where? in my flickr portfolio: http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/sets/72157601136881084/
but you have probaly seen it already…
and HARDCORE STREET PHOTOGRAPHY group is a good place
August 8, 2007 at 2:41 am
It takes time and patience….
but there are good pictures on flicker. sometimes very good ones.
here are some example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63714921@N00/454608176/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andross/292637094/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/anetbat/871889596/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/linascheynius/458946913/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alikaragoz/927802813/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yeah-yeah-yeah/269181028/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/malll/286016211/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/liraz_zur/1032544688/in/set-72157601266201653/
August 8, 2007 at 2:49 am
There are photos on Flickr!?
August 8, 2007 at 2:56 am
I don’t have any images on Flickr but it seems like a good way for people to get stuff online without going through the hassle/expense of sorting out your own web page.
However i’ve heard of a few occasions recently where friends who have images on Flickr have been approached by publishers to use their images, toting the whole “it will be good for your profile” line in lu of payment. I think it’s pretty shoddy for people to use Flickr as a free photo library.
August 8, 2007 at 2:58 am
Flickr is for those 1/4 million people (not for the those 5 you mention). It’s to share what you like. Like anyone who blogs is a journalist or great story writer. Nope. This is for the rest of us, who are not concerned about things and do not make living of it. Anyone who has few hundred bucks to buy a digicam or scan film is qualified and included. Thanks to flickr. For arty great pictures go to expensive galleries, openings or contemporary art museums :)) or subscribe to fancy magazines
August 8, 2007 at 3:03 am
“where are all the great pictures on flickr?”
Flickr is a mass appeal commercial site open to anyone in the world with an internet connection.
Thousands (tens of thousands? I forget, but the figure is staggering) of photos are uploaded every minute of every day, so it’s no surprise that the gems are well hidden and hard to find, especially when the vast majority of members would not claim to be making art or even aspiring to it.
“My guess is that the best photography on Flickr is hard to find.”
You don’t say? What an insightful observation.
August 8, 2007 at 3:04 am
http://www.flickr.com/photos/supercommon/sets/72157601301195759/
Most “pros” think posting on Flickr devalues their work, so they make little flash websites everybody hates. Most of the great photography on Flickr is an accident, and the photographer is often oblivious! What happens when digital cameras are everywhere.
August 8, 2007 at 3:19 am
well…stephen shore’s reaction is a little ass headed in terms of what is expected of flickr.. it is as mass market as it gets… you dont go there looking for high art… (if you look hard enough you will find some real gems though) unless Alec Soth and Stephen SHore start uploading to flickr and contribute to raising that standard!
August 8, 2007 at 3:30 am
Amateur hour:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ericzieg/
August 8, 2007 at 3:31 am
To slightly rehearse some of the arguments already mentioned on here, I’m not sure flickr is intended or suited to the display of ‘great’ photography. The entire format encourages superficial browsing, following link after link. It’s a very different experience to the contemplative atmosphere of a gallery or an artist’s photobook. If you’re able to slow down a little and commit some time to flickr (luckily I have a job that allows this) you can find find some extraodinary work. You might have to spend some time clicking through to a larger size jpeg to get the full measure of the work, and even then you’re a long way off a print . . . I like Stephen Shore but it wouldn’t be so hard to click past this picture http://www.henryart.org/ex/stephenshore.html as a small jpeg on flickr, whereas in the gallery you’re going to think twice.
I think I’ve collected some interesting stuff (my favourites), ‘though please don’t judge me cos of the occasional boob shot. .
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexbynature/favorites/
August 8, 2007 at 3:33 am
I would second what Jen Bekman has said…
One approach is to find someone whose taste you appreciate and look at their favorites.
(not so unlike, say, your favorite photo blog.) These are found on the scroll down tab from the user’s icon at their photo stream.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leastwanted/favorites/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_s/favorites/page2/
The interface isn’t great, the back button is too necessary.
There is an incredible amount of fascinating graphics being scanned as well. If you like that sort of thing, which I assume most photographers do. Searching tabs and sets all yield great stuff - and while I have a lot of photoblogs bookmarked (thanks to Alec’s lead to Google reader) I also look at flickr maybe more as, no offense intended, there’s more variety there. My interest in say, anonymous snapshots, has led to images that just won’t be seen elsewhere.
But,of course, you’ll never find the kind of commentary and intelligent writing or great photography as reliably that you see at the better photo blogs… - but it’s fun, and there is great stuff there. A great photographer once said (long ago) that “one day the camera will be like the pencil.” I think flickr has brought that day that much closer.
August 8, 2007 at 3:37 am
“Nothing to do with price of fish” but I love W Robert Angells pics, as for flicker, or is it flcker,flec, feltcher, fl, fll…………………..
August 8, 2007 at 3:39 am
Some of my favorites:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/shadowtones/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leveckis/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10481997@N08/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/beniliam/
August 8, 2007 at 3:40 am
Good things here:
Maciej Dakowicz
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/sets/1391696/
Mark Alor Powell (Locaburg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/locaburg/sets/1432947/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/locaburg/sets/845861/
August 8, 2007 at 3:43 am
thanks Mark.
August 8, 2007 at 3:47 am
There are some good things here.
Maciej Dakowicz
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/sets/1391696/
Mark Alor Powell (Locaburg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/locaburg/sets/1432947/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/locaburg/sets/845861/
(Sorry if this is posted several times - I keep getting a message telling me this is spam.)
August 8, 2007 at 3:53 am
@Lisanne Anderson: Your photos are indeed shoebox material. Just look at the amount of photos you publish, too much. There is no selection. And a picture of a random car on a random street? How very boring.
August 8, 2007 at 3:53 am
The thing about flickr is this:-
you actually have to participate to find the good stuff, otherwise its just pictures of flowers and puppies…….
‘last 7 days interesting’ is a joke……..
If you wanna see some truely great flickr photographers,heres a few links to get you started:-
(N.B. none of these are my pictures)
Clarice
Velco
Motionid
Jim O’Connell
John Gladdy
Junku-newcleus
Localman
Zebrio
August 8, 2007 at 3:55 am
okay, so i have to admit i also have a flickr-account…even a pro-one…but as i don´t want to upload all of my pictures on my website but to show some anyway i use this method. furthermore it allows me to copy and paste the html-code for embedding photos in other sites…it´s also quite practical if you have an idea and want to show it to your friends. sometimes it also helps me editing. and as i also don´t see flickr as a professional platform i don´t have to worry. it´s a place for sketches as well as for photos i like and want to show.
and i also enjoy discovering photography by other people because there is good photography, too…i don´t mind if i just like 1 or 2 photos of a person and not his whole “body of work” cause sometimes it´s inspiring somehow or you can learn something of it…
also for me it´s important to find out what pictures i like and why i like them…that all helps me to develop my own work…
it´s like a 08/15 playground where you can be frustrated because you think it´s all such an obviously silly waste of time or where you can try to find the plaything that you like or find out how to use the playground creatively to make it your own exciting playground and adventure of which you can get some experience…
the use of it matters. it´s you who can decide. so why be desperate?
flickr was never meant to be a platform for professionals i think…it´s somehow “democratic” at least.
August 8, 2007 at 3:56 am
The thing about flickr is this:-
you actually have to participate to find the good stuff, otherwise its just pictures of flowers and puppies…….
‘last 7 days interesting’ is a joke……..
If you wanna see some truely great flickr photographers,heres a few links to get you started:-
(N.B. none of these are my pictures)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clarice_e_simon/‘
http://www.flickr.com/photos/velco/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/motionid/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimoconnell/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_adam-aka47/sets/72157594216142241/detail/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/junku-newcleus/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/localman/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zebrio/
August 8, 2007 at 4:00 am
I don’t really have any witty comment to preface this, and I am also drunk.
I’m sorry.
http://flickr.com/photos/rickschneider
August 8, 2007 at 4:17 am
http://www.flickr.com/photos/frederico_mendes/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yuridojc/
great photographers, great pictures on flickr
August 8, 2007 at 4:22 am
I would agree that most of what is up there is not v good and that it isn’t easy finding the good ones. Sort of like finding a needle in a haystack. One method I use to find them is to search for cameras or lenses likely to be used by more serious photographers.
And keep in mind that for more than a few, Flickr is a play area and the heavily edited, excellent, sets are on their personal web sites. Like Tiny Eyes below, Flickr seems to be the sole outlet for some, but even though he’s playing, he knows what he’s doing.
Here are some of my favourites:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eamon/ - Eamon
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leveckis/ - Ed
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eshepard/ - Eliot
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mhartel/ - Markus
http://www.flickr.com/photos/urbanphotos/ - Matt
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nilsjorgensen/ - Nils
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tinyeyes/ - Tiny Eyes
August 8, 2007 at 4:27 am
I would agree that most of what is up there is not v good and that it isn’t easy finding the good ones. Sort of like finding a needle in a haystack. One method I use to find them is to search for cameras or lenses likely to be used by more serious photographers.
And keep in mind that for more than a few, Flickr is a play area and the heavily edited, excellent, sets are on their personal web sites. Like Tiny Eyes below, Flickr seems to be the sole outlet for some, but even though he’s playing, he knows what he’s doing.
Here are some of my favourites:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eamon/ - Eamon
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mhartel/ - Markus
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tinyeyes/ - Tiny Eyes
Tried pointing out seven but WordPress flagged my post as spam. So I’ll try with three.
August 8, 2007 at 4:29 am
I would agree that most of what is up there is not v good and that it isn’t easy finding the good ones. Sort of like finding a needle in a haystack. One method I use to find them is to search for cameras or lenses likely to be used by more serious photographers.
And keep in mind that for more than a few, Flickr is a play area and the heavily edited, excellent, sets are on their personal web sites. Like Tiny Eyes below, Flickr seems to be the sole outlet for some, but even though he’s playing, he knows what he’s doing.
Here are some of my favourites:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mhartel/ - Markus
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tinyeyes/ - Tiny Eyes
Tried pointing out seven but WordPress flagged my post as spam. So I’ll try with two.
August 8, 2007 at 5:10 am
Yup! it is hard to find… well harder than looking at the most popular groups or ones that flickr recommends!!
Squared Circle!!! The clue be in the name with that one
You just have to search for groups that you want, filter out the generic stuff (tulips, sunsets and HDR photography etc…)
But even then, when you find what I’d call “good groups” in the flickr world:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/bringit/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/
They just come across as a random collection of single images with little or no connection between the one sitting at either side of them in the pool. And this pretty much sums up the whole of the flickr experience!
It really is all about the one off images, and if it wasn’t they’d have made it easier for people to share their projects/sets/collections.
August 8, 2007 at 5:14 am
flickr, with all of its tags, sets, groups, favourites and all the rest of its many sorting mechanisms allows for a kind of sprawling, day-to-day photography that would be otherwise impenetrable. the idea is that works are followed over time, integrate with the works of others, or are found via search.
while this might not align with the careful spoon-feeding of the gallery going experience, it should not be discounted. the problem with this post is that it assumes that the point of photography is “great photos”, when in flickr many times greatness is found in the aggregation of many photos, not necessarily great ‘individually’ but part of a larger, valuable whole. for example, the point of ’squared circle’ isn’t the individual photo, it is the collected collective work.
flickr is about conversation. while conversations are incredibly valuable things, they tend to not make for “great” works of literature. think of flickr as a photographic conversation, rather than a series of profound statements, and it’ll make a lot more sense.
August 8, 2007 at 5:23 am
This is a great question. But I guessing this is more a rhetorical question. I’m thinking that you probably can’t be pointed to the great ones on flickr - you have to discover them for yourself. Perhaps it will turn out to be the “popular” ones -but likely it is not - because it’s up to you to decide. You have to put some effort into it to get anything out of it.
I am most drawn into the flow of Flickr … you just can’t step into the same stream twice (even feels that way in my own flickr stream). It has a certain unconsciousness about it which is quite nice - and mostly undigested even if it is tagged. It fits the amateur’s environment in that one probably chooses to participate out of love for the exchange - but not for money - fame or fortune. Why does anyone strike up a conversation with a stranger after all ? Or put a message in a bottle?
My opinion is that you have to look - you have to seek out the things that interest you visually - these things are not served up like in traditional models (I’m thinking traditional here in the sense of being presented in a gallery / museum / institutional - “sanctioned greatness” sort of way).
The only filter is you and whether you might dwell a little longer and pursue the ones that you like and choose to ignore the ones that don’t hold your interest.
August 8, 2007 at 5:26 am
and also, don’t forget about the porn.
August 8, 2007 at 5:37 am
Alex, flickr reached critical mass some time ago, when I signed up late 2004, the gems were not buried so deeply, and compared to some other sites the interface was elegant and quick to learn, over time, I became more and more enamoured by the ‘community’ and these days my flickr experience has changed emphasis to something more social in an online gaming kind of way. Using other’s contacts was one way of finding the gems a tasks that required a fair level of time and effort on my own part. Given that flickr has reached critical mass a task made all the more difficult, here’s some of my favourites who I think are worthy of *some* time.
http://flickr.com/photos/ann3n3/sets/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/akiruna/sets/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luisa/sets/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/baywhale/sets/
August 8, 2007 at 5:50 am
There are quite a few street portraitists, street photographers, some people attempting documentary and others succeeding at it. It’s a huge melting pot. I wouldn’t have never started medium format if I hadn’t seen all the groups that are dedicated to it and show that anybody can do it. In a way is like when I needed to hear Nirvana to understand that I could also play guitar.
Of course flickr it’s full of people shooting flowers and bugs, and uploading family snapshots… they are allowed to do it and use it as a gallery to refer to their friends. Others try to get involved into something more artistic and gradually might do something interested. As said before, just check Hardcore Street Photography for seeing a lively and reasonably well curated group. It is hard to find those people that shoot more seriously, mostly because they are few and edit more before uploading. You just can’t find them by chance. And for coherent groups of work instead of single (’stunning’) images it’s even harder (Maciej’s St Mary Street shots, Bedlam’s panoramic street images, Hin Chua’s corporate insider photography…).
August 8, 2007 at 6:11 am
Maciej Dakowicz’s Cardiff nightlife photos
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/sets/1391696/
August 8, 2007 at 6:15 am
http://www.flickr.com/photos/macebio
good stuff
August 8, 2007 at 6:41 am
Alec created a quick set for you
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbandalee/sets/72157601304400053/
And check out my favourites
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbandalee/favorites/
Feargal Sharkey sang “a good heart these days is hard to find” and I agree with him but saying that I’m really happy with my wife if you get my drift.
August 8, 2007 at 6:45 am
Alec created this set for you
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbandalee/sets/72157601304400053/
Feargal Sharkey sang a good heart these days is hard to find - this is true but I’m really happy with my wife so what the hell.
amour
dan
August 8, 2007 at 6:53 am
I have to recommend Todd Fisher’s pictures:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/46498700@N00/
Of course there’s a lot of crap and pretense on flickr, but it’s like picking through a pile of other people’s pictures in the trash. Fascinating.
August 8, 2007 at 7:11 am
After a visit in Pisa in 2004, it made me realize how important it is for a tourist to make a picture of the tower, even if thousands of other tourists was becoming more important than the tower itself.
I then did some researches ont Google Image and then Flickr on these “tourist symbols”.
I have to admit that I was like hypnotized.
Just check by typing “eiffel”!
I agree in a way with Striatic that this is more about conversation. But conversation more than communication (communication would be very optimistic).
However, and with regards to this flow of pictures on Flickr, I would like to point out a sentence of Regis Durand in his book “Disparités”:
“The image is not the reflection of a reality, it is it on the contrary which imposes a manner to us of reading the world, and thus, in a sense, which realises it”
(”L’image n’est pas le reflet d’une réalité, c’est elle au contraire qui nous impose une manière de lire le monde, et donc, en un sens, qui le fait exister.”)
(I apologize if translation is not 100% correct…)
Hereunder my essay on these picts:
http://www.no-artist.com/corinnevionnet/my_album/photo_opportunities/index.htm
and some explanations here :
http://www.no-artist.com/corinnevionnet/my_album/myalbum_txt.htm
August 8, 2007 at 7:11 am
it helps me edit.
i really like my favorites, ive found plenty of good photographers there, most of them use it to edit too:
http://flickr.com/photos/einarsodinecs/favorites/
August 8, 2007 at 7:13 am
look no further, as the gates open, the lights of heaven rain down, the chorus sing ahhhhhh in a high pitch with harmonies:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/shveckle
Just writting it gives me goose bumps.
August 8, 2007 at 7:18 am
HERE! http://flickr.com/photos/quaketronics-tom/sets/72057594114240438/
and don’t worry, it’s not just a link to some of mine
August 8, 2007 at 7:21 am
it helps me edit, a nice place to throw stuff up and think about it for a while. i keep trying to edit my stream down to see where im going. i have also found a lot of good photographers (and lots of cute girls taking self portraits), as is evident in my favorites:
http://flickr.com/photos/einarsodinecs/favorites/
August 8, 2007 at 7:21 am
flickr needs a good edit
August 8, 2007 at 7:33 am
i think lots of people use flickr to edit. i like it because i can throw things on there and think about them for a little. i always try to edit down my stream to see where im going.
i have found plenty of good photographers (and cute girls taking self portraits), which you can see in my favorites (http://flickr.com/photos/einarsodinecs/favorites/).
like others have mentioned, you find a photographer you like and then look at their favorites and you tend to find more you like…
(i tried to post before but got tagged as spam, so i actually registered with the site…)
August 8, 2007 at 7:36 am
I came across this article today about using images on Flickr to fix your “bad” images, where is photography going if we can take a shot and then think it will be made good later???
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6936444.stm
August 8, 2007 at 7:45 am
[...] Sometime after midnight Minnesota time, Alec asked the question, “Where is the good stuff on flickr?” It is now 8:45am, and he has received 38 answers to his query, 39 if you count this one right here. Flickr is full of great stuff, it’s just a matter of finding it. As a veteran Flickr user, I’ve found that the contacts and favorites of somebody decent are usually good places to start. It’s true that you need to have at least one as a jumping off point, but if you’ve gotten yourself this far, well then you’re pretty close. [...]
August 8, 2007 at 7:51 am
Chris: that must be great when combined with portraiture.
August 8, 2007 at 8:05 am
I think people on this blog are giving Shore a pass. His opening sentence “I went on to Flickr and it was just thousands of pieces of shit, and I just couldn’t believe it. And it’s just all conventional, it’s all cliches, it’s just one visual convention after another.” Shephen Shore”
it just plain mean. It’s rich coming from a photographer whose OWN work was thought of in the same way when it premiered in the late 60s and 70s.
Not that I’m a huge fan of Flickr and would never be so crass as to flog my Flickr page, http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmgiordano, on this blog but to pick on the majority of the site is like walking into a suburban home and complianing about the Pink Lady and Blue Boy paintings on the wall. Steven please, DO not throw stones. And besides, like your work Mr. Shore, if the art community dubs it “great! genius!” than it must be. Surely you weren’t talking, in your statement, about the numerous pictures of half eaten breakfast foods or motel TV sets?
August 8, 2007 at 8:12 am
>
The fact that there are very few household-name photographers shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. For the most part, photography is used as a highly effective medium for selling products and ideas rather than an end in itself. Most people experience photography through the print media, as advertising or editorial images, not as art on gallery walls. Thinking back to Semiotics 101, I am reminded that when images communicate effectively, the medium itself is transparent to the reader. I think that when people look through Annie Liebowitz’s spread of Tom Cruise and Family in Chatelaine, they are consuming primarily the symbollic power of those images, which emphasize things like celebrity, family, wealth, beauty etc. The photography may be interesting in its own right, but it isn’t the primary focus for the average reader and probably many people don’t pay much attention to who the photographer is.
August 8, 2007 at 8:12 am
I too have a flkr page http://www.flickr.com/photos/8117812@N07/ I mainly put up stuff there that I want to use as stock and some things I’m just messing around with. It’s nice to have a place to just throw up a bunch of stuff and see what sticks. Flickr is mostly crap but with a little work there is some good stuff there strobist has a nice page, I also like alot of this guys stuff http://www.flickr.com/photos/walford/sets/72157600648444342/ he’s an art hitory prof. I think most folks there don’t care about art or commercial photography at all they just want a free place to put up pictures and learn a little about photography, if anything maybe they’ll come to respect good photography more when they find out it’s harder than they think it is. Lots of people getting together to talk about photography is a good thing even if they talk about crap. So far in just a couple months on flickr I’ve licensed a few photo’s, for about the same as I would get from a stock agency so it’s been good to me.
August 8, 2007 at 8:32 am
You have to see Flickr for what it is. I think Stephen did himself and the art photo community a gigantic disservice with his comment. It’s quite unbelievable.
Of course, if you go to Flickr you can’t expect to find art-gallery quality photos all over the place (But then I do remember going to art galleries in Chelsea and thinking “Why are they showing this???”). That’s really not what Flickr is for. But even if you were to assume that each and every photographer on Flickr wants to be an accomplished art photographer (obviously not the case), Stephen’s comment is still quite bad.
In my day job, I sometimes work with students, and the number one thing to realize is that students don’t know what someone who has worked in the field for a decade knows. If you don’t realize this you’re in the territory Stephen decided to pitch his tent in. It’s the territory of professors beating down on their students for making simple mistakes (obviously forgetting that they themselves at some stage started out as a newbie).
I often get emails from people pointing me to their Flickr sites. And sure, often the photography is not that great. But why discourage people and tell them their work is just “pieces of shit”? For crying out loud, what’s the point of that??? People feel the need to share their photos for a reason, for example to learn and to get feedback, and “pieces of shit” is not very useful feedback.
I remember when I started out photography, not that long ago, I took photos that now make me cringe when I look at them (even though I still like them for the thrill they gave me - exactly the thrill that kept me going). Who knows what I would have done if someone held told me they’re all “pieces of shit” - given my personality I probably would have given up (and then started a blog dissing instead of promoting arrogant art professors).
What’s the point of going around and dissing Flickr like that? I really don’t get it! Here we have a huge community of people interested in photography, and for the first time modern technology allows people to share their work and enthusiasm - across borders! Regardless of whether 90% of the photography there isn’t what we like to see we should be glad that it exists and take it for what it is.
PS: Just to add that - lest people think I am now a huge Flickr fan - the complete opposite opinion, the hyping of Flickr that we’ve seen so much, is equally useless.
August 8, 2007 at 8:34 am
“I went to Manhattan and it was just thousands of idiots, I couldn’t believe it. And it was just one intellectually challenged convention after another. I didn’t meet one genius, just one moron and then another and then another.” - Don Simon
August 8, 2007 at 8:34 am
I also found this posted on lightstalkers, pretty amazing
http://flickr.com/photos/70355737@N00/
at the end of the day, flickr is a giant conglomeration of lots of personal photo albums. Most people use photography in quite a different way to photographers - most people use writing in a quite a different way to writers - their photos are a mental note, a reminder. The photos are about the subject, not about how the subject is photographed. Most of the subjects are uninteresting except to the photographer and most of the emotional content or ideas are basic and repeated infinitely and that’s ok, because if most people were taking interesting pictures there would be no value in the work of professional photographers.
With time they will seem a little more interesting. As a piece of social history they are incredibly valuable, even Pet Parade.
August 8, 2007 at 8:36 am
Dude they are right here:
http://flickr.com/photos/akwells
August 8, 2007 at 8:51 am
This blog called Squint has a feature called Flickr Find and has some interesting stuff:
http://www.jonahsamson.com/
August 8, 2007 at 8:53 am
[...] However, the unabashed shaming of sites like istockphoto.com and flickr.com in the name of the cheapening of photography is a defensive reaction of those photographic elite who feel the market slipping away beneath them. [...]
August 8, 2007 at 9:10 am
I heartily agree with JM Colberg. The way I see it Flickr is kind of like going in to your local Barnes and Noble or mall bookstore. Most of the books on the shelves that get looked at or purchased are “how to” books or giant coffee table travel photo books. Those are the types of photo books ordinary people buy, and believe me I have received many of these books as gifts from well meaning relatives during the holidays. But occasionally these stores will have a book by Sally Mann or Cartier-Bresson or even Stephen Shore. You just have to look through all of the rubble to find a gem, and that’s what makes Flickr interesting as far as I’m concerned. Stephen Shore’s comment is extremely disappointing and makes him sound like an elitist jackass.
August 8, 2007 at 9:48 am
Just one anecdote: there was a contest about street photography back in July 2007, sponsored by HP, whose 30 winners were chosen by no other than Stuart Franklin and exhibited in Arles. Out of these 30, at least 6 come from Flickr (I haven’t checked them all, just people I know, but I’d bet there’s more). You can check the discussion here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/discuss/72157600410778146/
So unless you discard the president of Magnum’s judgement, there ARE good pictures on Flickr ! You just have to find them (and previous posters offered good advice on how to do that).
This being said, Flickr-bashing seems to be a popular sport in some “circles”…
August 8, 2007 at 9:48 am
This post is interesting. Even though I love Eggleston, Shore, and many others in the same vein, when people start talking about “art quality” photos, I cringe. It seems to me that such talk is wrapped up in egos and maintaining an elitist community as much as anything else. Why do established “art” photographers feel the need to point out when someone else is an amateur? I’m in an odd position, because I really love many of the photos posted on this blog and other “art photography” blogs that I check out (Conscientious, Christian Patterson), but reading the comments often makes me feel sick.
I’m not sure how one becomes part of the inner circle of photographers that seems to develop around these questions, but it seems like many of the comments/discussions come around to deleniating who does/doesn’t deserve to be taking photos. I realize Shore, Eggleston, others of their ilk were commenting on the history/conventions of photography when they did their “banal” work, but I also see an odd irony in them–like the Pop Artists–questioning the division between high/low art and then being so caught up in whether or not their work is sophisticated “art” rather pre-packaged consumer garbage. And at least Shore and Eggleston were doing something interesting, relatively new in the history of “art” photography. The path they helped to open is pretty well worn down by now, and many of today’s photographers who are doing the similar things–even if those things engage in theory/tradition–are doing work that is just as “cliched” as a tourist taking a shot of the leaning tower of Pisa. Jus as it could be said–if you’re a fan of Baudrillard and all the talk of simulacra–that the tourist isn’t taking a photo of the tower itself, but a photo of a photo (the same shot found in other tourists shots/postcards), so many photographers aren’t necessarily taking a shot of a banal red door or a cheap hot-dog lunch from a high-school fund-raiser, but an imitation Eggleston or Shore or whatever.
One of the things I get frustrated about in reading these posts, I guess, is the high-mindedness and the idea that anyone who isn’t in some inner photography circle can’t understand what makes a “good” photo or makes one “work” or some other vague criteria.
In any case, I apologize for the rant. I enjoy the blog, love many of your photos (and the photos you post), and the comments at least make me think. I suppose if I don’t like the comments, I could stop reading them–just as those who don’t like flickr or the thousands of subpar blogs could stop viewing them.
August 8, 2007 at 9:49 am
I realize i misspelled dilineated.
August 8, 2007 at 9:50 am
I’ve often debated in my head and with others about posting work on Flickr. Does Flickr cheapen the value of one’s work? Does its context change the works intent? I’ve stopped asking those questions, because I’ve found Flickr to be a good tool to get others to see your work, maybe fine art galley’s aren’t perusing Flickr for their newest exhibitionist, but a whole different crowd is. I think its best to display work cross platform. It seems that those with good taste or appreciation will find good work and those without will keep looking at a level of work they can appreciate.
August 8, 2007 at 9:53 am
damn…i still misspelled it…delineated…there!
August 8, 2007 at 9:55 am
alec,
do you ASK these old guys to comment about things like Photoshop and Flickr?
It’s likeprodding your elderly grandfather to say something un-PC!
August 8, 2007 at 9:56 am
It’s funny I found Shore’s comment a bit on the elitist side. Here he is snubbing a whole lot of people who are just trying to express themselves thru photography. Instead of deriding these people who have picked up cameras and started photographing the world around them, maybe you should be praising them for at least trying to flex their creative muscles. Maybe they don’t have the outlet to get their own fancy flash photography website(I personally hate those flash sites) or they don’t have the outlet/opportunity/time/contacts to persue getting their work into musuems/galleries. So flickr is the easiest choice to get their photos out their for people to see.
Yes I will be the first to admit that there are lots of bad photos on flickr. I personally hate all the pictures of cats, sunsets and people’s photos of their 3rd cousin’s birthday parties. I can also say that I’ve been to lots of galleries and often left scratching my head wondering why the stuff was being shown. Just because it’s in a gallery/museum doesn’t mean that it’s any good and does the fact that it’s in a gallery/museum automatically make it art. Duchamp dealt with these questions long ago.
Too make a long comment short, if you searched long enough on flickr I personally believe that you will find some pretty amazing photos and dare I say museum/gallery quality photos.
In full disclosure, I’m a flickr member and do have photos on flickr. I don’t post every single photo I take on flickr I do try to edit down to the best or at least what I think the best are.
August 8, 2007 at 9:57 am
cool, my comment is gone…that makes blogs like this seem even more elitist.
August 8, 2007 at 9:58 am
I wonder how Stephen Shore feels about photographers who hang their work in their local coffee shop?
August 8, 2007 at 10:00 am
I learned about Alec Soth on flickr via through another flickerite/aspiring art photographer. I still have a flickr account but it’s more of a sketchbook for me..a place to throw things on the wall and see what sticks so to speak. But I feel I’ve outgrown it a bit. I’m now looking to start up my own website and produce a book at some point. So flickr was valuable for me, introducing me to many of the fine art shooters who participate in this blog (Shane Lavalette for example…Richard Renaldi is on flickr now also).
August 8, 2007 at 10:03 am
it’s back…a glitch on my computer. i apologize.
August 8, 2007 at 10:03 am
Shore is scared of Flickr because Mundane Suburban Neighborhood Shots with Partially Cropped Cars is a threat.
August 8, 2007 at 10:03 am
This discussion reminds me the old debate “journalism vs. blog”. There’s an infinite number of blogs online and only few are worth reading but that doesn’t mean that blogs sucks altogether. But really, i think we shouldn’t take mr Shore too seriously, he have probably just spent 5 minutes on flickr browsing through random pictures and then he came out with that.
August 8, 2007 at 10:22 am
I like Paul Herbst: http://www.flickr.com/photos/paul_herbst/
Check out his site also: http://my-dream-is-the-awakening.net
August 8, 2007 at 10:23 am
Joe Reifer hits the nail on the head.
As a photographer pick any style, any subject, any idea and search around on Flickr and someone is doing it or has done it. It can be quite dis-heartening when you’re just starting out.
The reason “art” photogs don’t put their stuff up on flickr is cos it will just get lost in amongst all the others.
One has to maintain an elitist attitude to be one of the elite. No?
August 8, 2007 at 10:28 am
Carey has a blog that is full of interesting flickr pictures:
http://bluebirdphotography.blogspot.com/
I think she spends hours digging around for them.
August 8, 2007 at 10:42 am
there may be a few not yet mentioned. (though it is funny how even the hidden gems are more well known than you expect)
http://flickr.com/photos/francoiscoquerel/
http://flickr.com/photos/hinius/
finding the right groups, bouncing of other (respected) people’s favorites and contacts. i usually find a few new great photos everyday. sometimes from new photographers sometimes new posts from people i’ve already marked.
August 8, 2007 at 10:43 am
Street photography: http://flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/
http://flickr.com/photos/shestrikesback/
http://flickr.com/photos/raoul/
http://flickr.com/photos/hinius/
Alec: you might recognize James Wendall….he works at magnum.
http://flickr.com/photos/79119242@N00/
August 8, 2007 at 10:45 am
The whole debate about flickr seems rather silly. If artists post art on flickr, there will be art (some do post there, your buddies Zoe Strauss and Brian Ulrich for example). But as most people are not artists most of the images on flickr are snapshots and art is rarely created by accident. (It is also not created by the vast majority of people who try to create it.)
Just because someone creates a group for photos of turtles or circles in squares doesn’t mean that those people are claiming their photos are art… they’re just having fun. Playing games. Folk culture. Not much different than the types of games/clubs/groups people join in the real world except for the scope and scale and ability to become micro-focused.
The only issue I believe is if you happen to be an artist who wants to display serious work as well posting snapshots for friends/family/etc. The art world hates to think that their artists ever make anything that is not art. The overriding belief is that somehow if you post snapshots it devalues your serious work. But perhaps these crusty old ideas are finally being shattered (by people like yourself, an esteemed artist, who posts to something as base as a blog (Horrors!).
The solution is simple. Create one login for serious work and post portfolios in a contextually organized way and create another one fpr snapshots perhaps under a pseudonym. This way the high and mighty art community won’t get confused.
As for photography I follow on flickr: I’m a huge Mark Powell fan. He never fails to delight:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/locaburg/sets/
Eliot Shepard also always has something interesting going on:
http://flickr.com/photos/eshepard/sets/
and the previously mentioned AKWells has a super portfolio almost raw in it’s intimacy:
http://flickr.com/photos/akwells
There are plenty of others but I won’t bore you because taste is always subjective (I hate most of the other links posted so far)… As people have mentioned the best way to find interesting photos on flickr is to find one or two people who’s images you like and look at their favorites and then let that lead you to other favorites and so on eventually you find yourself beyond the dross with a list of contacts whose photos you look forward to seeing. I check into flickr once or twice a week and have to say I love what it gives me back- a chance to look at work in progress, a peek into the lives of people more fabulous or strange or boring than myself, and, more often than I ever would have thought, a picture that just blows me away.
August 8, 2007 at 10:47 am
The whole debate about flickr seems rather silly. If artists post art on flickr, there will be art (some do post there, your buddies Zoe Strauss and Brian Ulrich for example). But as most people are not artists most of the images on flickr are snapshots and art is rarely created by accident. (It is also not created by the vast majority of people who try to create it.)
Just because someone creates a group for photos of turtles or circles in squares doesn’t mean that those people are claiming their photos are art… they’re just having fun. Playing games. Folk culture. Not much different than the types of games/clubs/groups people join in the real world except for the scope and scale and ability to become micro-focused.
The only issue I believe is if you happen to be an artist who wants to display serious work as well posting snapshots for friends/family/etc. The art world hates to think that their artists ever make anything that is not art. The overriding belief is that somehow if you post snapshots it devalues your serious work. But perhaps these crusty old ideas are finally being shattered (by people like yourself, an esteemed artist, who posts to something as base as a blog (Horrors!).
The solution is simple. Create one login for serious work and post portfolios in a contextually organized way and create another one for snapshots perhaps under a pseudonym. This way the high and mighty art community won’t get confused.
As for photography I follow on flickr: I’m a huge Mark Powell fan. He never fails to delight:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/locaburg/sets/
Eliot Shepard also always has something interesting going on:
http://flickr.com/photos/eshepard/sets/
and the previously mentioned AKWells has a super portfolio almost raw in it’s intimacy:
http://flickr.com/photos/akwells
There are plenty of others but I won’t bore you because taste is always subjective (I hate most of the other links posted so far)… As people have mentioned the best way to find interesting photos on flickr is to find one or two people who’s images you like and look at their favorites and then let that lead you to other favorites and so on eventually you find yourself beyond the dross with a list of contacts whose photos you look forward to seeing. I check into flickr once or twice a week and have to say I love what it gives me back- a chance to look at work in progress, a peek into the lives of people more fabulous or strange or boring than myself, and, more often than I ever would have thought, a picture that just blows me away.
August 8, 2007 at 10:58 am
I have a problem with Alex’s statement about good photography not being popular. All of us with eyes and brains can point our fingers and say “look at that.” The kind of visceral communication a really good photograph serves up in all its complexity and revelations has something for almost everyone willing to look. Most folks haven’t been lucky enough to sit in a History of Photography class and actually see for the first time amazing Timothy O’Sullivan wet plates or Robert Frank’s trip accross America. Many students become immediate fans with educated palates. It’s sort of like running. Almost anyone can do it…..even without the good form and expensive sneakers.
Flicker, on the other hand, is a mess generated by the facility and democracy of the internet. Hardly anyone serious about their work has the time or interest in adding to that cyclone. Hopefully they’re too busy photographing.
August 8, 2007 at 11:07 am
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danagentile/sets/72157594453113215/
August 8, 2007 at 11:10 am
I admit that my first reaction to Flickr one year ago was the same as Stephen Shore’s. If you take all of the photographs of Flickr, and rank them from 1 to 10, the average score is probably close to 2 or 3.
That was mistake. The thing with Flickr is that there are so many photographs out there, you really need to figure out how to find the jewels. I learned to do it through identifying specific photographers (”Contacts”, in Flickr-speak), and then looking through the Contacts list of those photographers. Eventually, you learn to build up a list of high-quality photographers in your Contacts list.
Or, if you’re impatient, just look at the photographs that users have ranked as most interesting (http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/). It’s time to admit that the contents of Flickr’s interestingness page is probably better than many of the photographs in the expensive coffee table books that line the Photography shelf of most local libraries.
Andy Frazer
August 8, 2007 at 11:11 am
I disagree. The amount of amazing photographers on Flickr is the reason I’m on Flickr. Just look at a few of my favourites.
People find what they’re looking for.
-g
August 8, 2007 at 11:28 am
Flickr is so massive right now that judging pictures on flickr is like judging pictures on the internet. There’s no way to get a sense of it in one visit. That said, I wouldn’t send anyone looking for the good stuff to the interestingness pages. There are gems among them but so much of what makes explore (and I say this as someone with his share of pix in explore) is overprocessed and cliched.
August 8, 2007 at 11:35 am
as for Shore’s quote, my friend said it best,
“Why are all these people ripping me off?”
( Im thinking more along the american surfaces book)
August 8, 2007 at 11:35 am
First of all, Flickr is world wide, which means if my sister lives in South Africa, and I live in Seattle, WA, we can share photos, and I suspect a lot of people use Flickr for sharing photos with their families and friends who live far away.
Second, what are you searching for? If you search “Sunsets”, you’ll get sunsets, all 2,027,238 photos of them. Kitten photos? There’s 339,744 kitten photos as of 9:26 a.m. August 8, PST.
Look up Urban Exploration and you get 54,297 pictures of abandoned houses, offices, amusement parks, schools….etc.
It just depends on what you’re looking for.
Here’s some of my contacts, who I consider excellent photographers.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bamawester/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cindy47452/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cybergibbons/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/upyerbum/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leonarloforbes/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/epiphany_5riots/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heather_shade/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimtown/
It all depends on what you are looking for, and for whom it’s meant.
August 8, 2007 at 11:41 am
“Hardly anyone serious about their work has the time or interest in adding to that cyclone. Hopefully they’re too busy photographing.”
so naive. having a flickr account is like opening up your studio to the world. people can watch your work progress and evolve. that’s the fun part. watching people improve while they share and make friends.
last weekend in my living room in West Hollywood was a photographer from France, one from Brazil and guy from Arizona who works in Seoul. We all met on Flickr and are all insanely passionate about our work.
That’s what it’s about….
August 8, 2007 at 11:45 am
>
If we’re talking about the mass market appeal of photography… It would be hard for photographs and photography to be popular in and of themselves because a mass audience cannot look at a photograph as anything but the referent of the object depicted in it, right? And Bill Jay wants to compare photographers to celebrities…but celebrities themselves are famous because of their images…images created by photographers and their bosses in order to sell celebrity like a product through the means of photographic reproduction…
Given that, the negative tone of all of this discourse confuses me. Why sound angry that a mass audience is more eager to be titillated by Ellen Degeneres’ queerness/otherness than they are eager to seek out and view Witkin’s photos of corpses??? Of course they are. Similarly, why hate on Flickr because you expect it to be a democratic bastion of high art?
Personally, I think Bill Jay’s rant is a little weird and also kinda homophobic (having read the rest of the PDF). I’ll leave the pursuit of “beauty, goodness, and truth” to him since I’m not so sure they’re real.
August 8, 2007 at 11:48 am
The challenge of photography is that anyone can take a great photograph at some point, However, the real challenge is producing a lot of photos, having something to say, communicating a vision of the world and editing a coherent body of work made up of excellent photographs. Most can’t do this and that is why we continually look at the work of the greats. it is possible that anyone of us could have taken one of R. Frank’s photos from THE AMERICANS, but none of us could have taken them all and put them together like Frank.
Taking a great picture is easy - whether through luck, skill or happenstance - but making meaningful and powerful work is very, very hard - which is why there are so few amazing photographers.
August 8, 2007 at 11:49 am
Here’s a Flickr group for those websites.
http://flickr.com/groups/steven_shores_vault/
August 8, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Right on bryanF. I think you are right. The people you meet. That is the best reason to be on flickr.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bform/1039641947/
August 8, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I use two tools to find better photography on flickr:
1. Specialty groups - these are mainly equipment/film groups. The large format photography group http://flickr.com/groups/largeformat/ and the Portra group http://flickr.com/groups/portra/ are my 2 main go-tos. I figure it like this: people who care enough to shoot large format, or know what make of film they’re shooting, are usually interested enough in photography for their work to be above average.
2. When I find a photographer who’s work I like, I go through their favorites to find other photographers… and the favorites of those photographers and so on. A lot of great, low view/favorite stuff can be found this way. It’s using people as an aggregator.
Personally, I find interestingness to be horrible. Ugly, garish, HDRed images. Sharp pictures of fuzzy concepts abound.
Oh yeah, plug for my stuff: http://flickr.com/jedrek/
August 8, 2007 at 12:28 pm
It may be difficult to find “great” fine art photos on Flickr, but it’s not hard to find examples of very talented amateurs who photograph what’s around them (family, friends, etc.) with great passion and skill.
Like anything, it takes some time, and luck, to find the best of something. Two photographers who take beautiful, warm, unpretentious pictures are;
Bud Green http://www.flickr.com/people/bud_green
Salty Grease http://www.flickr.com/6761959@N00
Perhaps you’ll never find their images on a gallery wall, but I doubt you’ll find more wonderful photos anywhere else. Treasures they are.
Eric Godfrey
August 8, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Personally….i love this guy’s work: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrhide/
August 8, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Whoa, what an odd generalization… As Jen Bekman points out, Flickr is a lot of different things for a lot of different people. You’ll find everything from professional photographers to perverts to peripatetic personal… um, ok you know what I mean!
But back to the “great photograph”, one of those still-scary truths about photography is that someone - anyone - could even accidentally make a great photo (as Sontag pointed out ages ago.) At this point Flickr is close to a microcosm of Photography in General. It’s almost the same as asking to look at every photograph printed on October 8, 1986 (or whatever) and wondering where the great ones are… “Art” photography, of course, is included - though it shouldn’t hold a monopoly on Greatness - but is a very small percentage of the work done that day, I’m sure. You will be exhausted, but if you looked at every picture, you’d find greatness somewhere.
But that’s not the point. I, for one, have used it to post purely “hobbyist” pictures in total contrast to my own studio work, and it’s actually opened up the ways I see with a camera, un-sticking me from the limits of my artistic practice. Flickr (and it’s predecessor, for me, fotolog) has been more than anything about community, friendly support, and a deep appreciation for Photography in its largest sense. I post pictures of my cats, my friends, and things that interest me as I walk around town. I now have friends from all over the world, quite a few of whom I’ve now met, and a greater sense of the joy of Simply Taking Pictures . It’s certainly better than when I took myself way too seriously, shooting only with 8×10 and ending up with no pictures of my own birthdays…
August 8, 2007 at 12:51 pm
i don’t personally know stephen shore, but i have been influenced by his work. i am wondering why he even cares what’s on flickr why he would expect it to be anything more than it is. it is not my opinion, but some would say that ALL photography today is cliche and unoriginal. what makes a photograph of a parking lot circa 1970-something more interesting than some of the photographs found on flickr. my experience is that i have seen photographs at galleries that i think are crap, and then some that i think are brilliant - the same for flickr. you just have to find them.
has he looked at his fan groups? i’m sure he hurt their feelings:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/32124325@N00/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/stephen_shore/
August 8, 2007 at 12:52 pm
My Favorite:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heyoka/303614703/
I found this guy on Flickr, then he deleted most of his stuff. His new website is eye-popping
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeremycowart/
August 8, 2007 at 12:57 pm
my bookmarks
August 8, 2007 at 12:58 pm
the notion that there are no good pictures on flickr is ridiculous.
additionally, people (like me) learn things about photography on flickr. Not only are there a gajillion amazing shots on flickr, it’s a serious tool for improving peoples’ skills.
August 8, 2007 at 1:11 pm
“I went on to Flickr and it was just thousands of pieces of shit, and I just couldn’t believe it.”
What an amazing talent. Stephen Shore was able to look at every last photo on Flickr and pass holy judgment. Since we all suck, we should just quit so as not to offend Professor Shore’s sensitive eyes?
“My guess is that the best photography on Flickr is hard to find.”
Uh, yeah. That’s why it’s so easy to dismiss Professor Shore’s remark for the effete, academic grandstanding that it is.
A couple of these have already been cited. And while my photography may be the shit on Stephen Shore’s well-worn brogues, I do have my advocates, so I’ve tacked my Flickr pool on the end.
http://flickr.com/photos/locaburg/
http://flickr.com/photos/nilsjorgensen/
http://flickr.com/photos/ottok/
http://flickr.com/photos/skorj/
http://flickr.com/photos/badaud/
Of course there are vast seas of photography on Flickr that are far from Bard- or Magnum-worthy. But there is also a significant collection of snaps that are far more interesting than that same photograph Annie Leibowitz has been shooting for years.
August 8, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Oh yeah, and what Jen Bekman said.
August 8, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Flickr proves what many of us have suspected: A million people banging away on a million cameras will produce a few images that everyone agrees (including probably Mr. Shore if shown the images) are great and many that are of interest to a very small group of people (your mom).
August 8, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Hey what’s wrong with that, Rob? Shore gets his “greatness”, and my Mom is happy too…!
August 8, 2007 at 1:29 pm
For those used to exploring smaller collections of printed photographs, carefully selected by artists/dealers and magazine and book editors, flickr is going to be a shock. It’s a vast collection of photos that random users edit themselves that you yourself have to sift through, using a web social network interface inside a computer operating interface. It probably seems like a savage experience. And it certainly takes a lot more energy and time.
August 8, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Is this what it’s like to be the curator at a gallery that just asked for submissions?
August 8, 2007 at 1:42 pm
120!
120!
120!
Am I commenter number 120?
August 8, 2007 at 1:49 pm
i think this thread proves that there are interesting people on flickr making interesting photographs.
i’d much rather spend my time on Flickr than the Magnum site because there’s a constant influx of NEW content on Flickr, which is also interactive. The Magnum site is rather static other than the blog and in-motion stuff…
August 8, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Hey, also the pick of the litter, some of my favorite photos and street photogs all assembled here in one place:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/455346@N23/pool/
It has just started, but keep checking back its genius will only grow:
August 8, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Snore: More Flickr Photos for Shore to Ignore
http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=240
(Thanks for the link in there, Alec)
August 8, 2007 at 2:10 pm
There are certainly plenty of great images on Flickr - and what about the Tate Britain’s recent collaboration with the Flickr community?
“For the first time, Tate Britain invited members of the public to contribute to the content of an exhibition. How We Are: Photographing Britain takes a unique look at the journey of British photography, from the pioneers of the early medium to today’s photographers who use new technology to make and display their imagery. Members of the public were encouraged to submit a photograph to the exhibition via the How We Are Now Flickr group to illustrate one of the four themes of the exhibition: portrait, landscape, still life or documentary.
40 photographs from those submitted – 10 from each of the four themes – have been chosen to form the final display in the gallery from 6 August – 2 September 2007.”
http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/howweare/slideshow.shtm
August 8, 2007 at 2:21 pm
This seems to be an interesting line of conversation, Funny how these patterns of thought seem to emerge at the same time. There is a similar thread running on Pelicula 64. Flickr vs old guard using Crewdson not Shore as it source.
http://pelicula64.blogspot.com/2007/08/visionary.html
August 8, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Alec, what is the source of the Stephen Shore quote? Just curious about the context.