31–40 of 66 posts
Having grown up in a country where nationalism kind of harks back to nazism, it's always weird for me to see all the flags everywhere. It's just not something I can get used to, even after all these years of seeing US flags everywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, the poor quality and bad HDR really detracted from the images for me, they were painful to look at.
Love it that people downvote you for expressing your opinion. I agree that the choice for lighting and retouching absolutely detract from these images. If anything, they perfectly illustrate a serious problem happening in American discourse: taking the raw document that is small town America and then filtering it to fit whatever viewpoint you want to project. Dems used to project the veneer of unions, Reps promise jo…
I'd love to know where in this you find projection of a false reality. While I think you're not wrong in general, with regard to the use of non-urban America by both US political parties as a blank slate suitable for filling up with whatever claims they care to make on the basis of whatever largely confabulated situation they care to claim exists, I really don't see anything to suggest this photographer set out to make any kind of US partisan political point whatsoever; he seems [1] to be an Englishman who just really likes to take pictures at night, and who came to the US to do so in part because he has a hard time finding nights dark enough for his taste at home. While it'd be hardly without precedent for an Englishman to come to the United States in order to comment on our culture political and otherwise, I see nothing to suggest this particular Englishman has done so, and I would be interested to see any evidence to the contrary that I might perhaps have missed.
That point aside, let's talk a little more about the way our political parties use the vast majority of the United States that isn't heavily urbanized. What makes it possible for such misuse to occur without meaningful challenge? Does it seem plausible that, were those to whom these parties market such claims better informed about the true way of things in places like where I grew up, it would be difficult, indeed perhaps impossible, for such claims to be effectively sold?
To be abundantly clear, I don't suggest that Mr. Freeman has done such work in his 'USA at Night' series, or that it's reasonable to expect he do so. His work makes it abundantly clear that he seeks to create art, rather than to document, and I think he achieves his goal quite marvelously.
Finally, to that point - I'm not here to tell you that your opinion of Freeman's work is in error. It's yours, and you're welcome to it. But I am curious to know a little more about where that opinion originates. Is it purely in the political and, I guess, vaguely hipsterism-related concerns you raise later in your comment? Or does it in some way have to do with the fashion in which these photographs were actually composed and produced? You speak of lighting and retouching, but to me the former seems subtly and tastefully done, and the latter done with so light a hand that it's not at all evident in the final result - as I said before, there's nothing here that couldn't be done with film, by someone with a similar degree of skill and craftsmanship. I can think of some other ways in which the same subjects might be as effectively photographed, but I have no idea whether that's anything like what you have in mind, and I'd be very interested to hear more from you about why it is that you find these particular photographs so distasteful.
Having grown up in a country where nationalism kind of harks back to nazism, it's always weird for me to see all the flags everywhere. It's just not something I can get used to, even after all these years of seeing US flags everywhere.
Having grown up in small town America, it's becoming weird for me to see these flags, too. They don't feel the same as they did when I was a kid, and there are more of them, and they're used in different contexts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have a really basic need to bond over shared characteristics. Throughout the world, countries are glued together based on ethnicity, religion, or language. E.g. Pakistan separated from India over religion, and Bangladesh separated from Pakistan over language. Americans' proclivity for displaying the flag is a way of expressing unity in a country that doesn't have a common ethnicity, religion, or language. Nati…
> E.g. Pakistan separated from India over religion, and Bangladesh separated from Pakistan over language. Minor nit, it was more "culture" or "ethnicity" than language, although language was perhaps the most defining feature. It seems that the Punjabi Pakistani's looked down upon their (then) countrymen of Bengali heritage.
Having grown up in a country where nationalism kind of harks back to nazism, it's always weird for me to see all the flags everywhere. It's just not something I can get used to, even after all these years of seeing US flags everywhere.
People have a really basic need to bond over shared characteristics. Throughout the world, countries are glued together based on ethnicity, religion, or language. E.g. Pakistan separated from India over religion, and Bangladesh separated from Pakistan over language. Americans' proclivity for displaying the flag is a way of expressing unity in a country that doesn't have a common ethnicity, religion, or language. Nati…
Also I would request to pause the "you step off the plane, put that flag up in front of your house, and boom you're American" for some time. The meaning of "American" is currently under active and violent change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have a really basic need to bond over shared characteristics. Throughout the world, countries are glued together based on ethnicity, religion, or language. E.g. Pakistan separated from India over religion, and Bangladesh separated from Pakistan over language. Americans' proclivity for displaying the flag is a way of expressing unity in a country that doesn't have a common ethnicity, religion, or language. Nati…
That is the one thing I really love about American culture; once you become a naturalized citizen, you are on Team America. Does not matter where you are from or what you look like, once you take that oath to the Constitution, you're in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> E.g. Pakistan separated from India over religion, and Bangladesh separated from Pakistan over language. Minor nit, it was more "culture" or "ethnicity" than language, although language was perhaps the most defining feature. It seems that the Punjabi Pakistani's looked down upon their (then) countrymen of Bengali heritage.
Come on! Isn't the defining separating feature that huge chunk of land called India? :p
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Blood#The_Blood_telegra...
Many of those charming small town main streets like the ones in some of the photos, and the independently owned businesses along them, are in decline, if not already dead. Wal-mart and other big, chain businesses, often located down the highway, are getting all the business, so the small businesses in town cannot survive. Recently, I saw an incredible video about a main street in Mississippi that was basically dead,…
Many of those charming small town main streets like the ones in some of the photos, and the independently owned businesses along them, are in decline, if not already dead. Wal-mart and other big, chain businesses, often located down the highway, are getting all the business, so the small businesses in town cannot survive. Recently, I saw an incredible video about a main street in Mississippi that was basically dead,…
I'm working on a piece like the OP's actually to show more of these forgotten small towns. I think there's a lot of opportunity still left for some of these historic, beautiful town centers, if only more people (especially from the coasts) knew about them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or like Daniel Freeman really knows how to use a camera. Digital makes it easier, but there's nothing here that couldn't be done with film. Understanding how exposure parameters like shutter speed and aperture work, and what a careful selection of lens-mounted filters can do, goes a very long way. I'm only an interested amateur, not a professional photographer. But if you want to pick one of the photos from that arti…
You also need a number of lights to get some of those. But all of that is no less "trickery" than the photoshop and bracketing/HDR is - not that I would call any of it trickery. It's an aesthetic choice, and it's fine to disagree with that, also.
Perhaps "trickery" was a poor choice of words. Until very recently, I haven't really had much involvement or interest in photography since being taught the basics on a Nikkormat FTn in childhood; as a recent amateur armed with a low-mid-end DSLR and very little idea of what on Earth he's doing, I have to say that the modern photographic hobby, at least in its online exponents, seems in many quarters very much more concerned with hipsterism, gear fetishization, and tearing one another down, than with anything that seems more directly involved with actually taking pictures at all.
While I have very little respect for this sort of attitude, I do try where possible to avoid needlessly antagonizing anyone and I suppose the possibility exists that I might at some point need to get along with one of these sorts of jackasses, and so I'm in the process of refining my vocabulary and fashion of speaking on the subject in order to meet that need should it arise. 'Trickery' is the sort of word I'm under the impression such a person would use in similar circumstance, and so it managed to slip out here as well. Such errors will cease as I get this rather unpleasant style more accurately dialed in.