Chuck,
Your continued communications with Michal remind me that I forgot to respond to your post that got the exchange started.
I looked at all 36 of your pictures and quite frankly I dont see anything at all that would be considered Photography Art or photo journalism or anything out of the ordinary that anyone here couldn't shoot on just any city street...
One of the things that I like about a great photograph is when the apparent ease of making it is partly what makes it great. That's because the photo is so good that it appears that it would have been so simple for anyone to take ... even when I know exactly the opposite is true.
I don't know if you've ever tried street photography, but it's generally really difficult. At least that's my perception. Your comment that Michal's stuff appears ordinary, that anyone here could shoot, is the sort of thing that I hope he takes as a supreme compliment; that he makes something so difficult appear so easy is ... well ... not at all easy. :)
am I missing something special that I shouldn't be missing....
Despite having said all of the above, my guess is that you're not missing anything when it comes to your perception of whether you like his stuff. If the photos don't move you, there's nothing being missed.
However, when you suggest that none of his stuff "would be considered Photography Art or photo journalism," yeah, I think you're missing the historical context of photography that nearly undeniably says it's photo journalism. As for whether or not it's art, that's always left up to the individual viewer. But if you can find just one image that somebody, somewhere wouldn't consider art, I'd be surprised. :)
--Mike Buckley |
