I do not know why I like these pictures

Via The OnLine Photographer, I came across the work of Paloma Dooley. She photographs landscapes in the Los Angeles area of the USA.

Like the New Topographic photographers, her subjects are mostly rather mundane semi urban areas. Subjects most of us would pass by, without seeing anything worthwhile to record. But I found these pictures rather fascinating for some reason.

Why do these picture hold our interest?

I don't think anyone but you can tell why you like these pictures. Honestly, I don't like them, except two or three from the set, the same as for the cherry blossom set you posted yesterday. I took some time to look because you shared them, but I would have skipped both series in a blink. In a word, from my point of view, she is documenting garbage and I would throw the series to the bin.

However, "worthwhile to record" really depends on your purpose. This suburban set is maybe interesting for someone living there, documenting the place and maybe it's evolution if she does that again next year. Or it can be extremely effective at showing how ugly suburbs can be, and how man can destroy beautiful natural places.

Again, and surprisingly, very similar in that regard to the blossom set from yesterday: I love flowering trees in spring, but would hate to find myself in such a crowd. Nature ruined by people, one way or another.

David and s1ptome, I am more puzzled by these picture, more than anything else.

Dooly's pictures, received a lot of praise on the Blog, where I first saw them. Her work is pretty much aligned with a certain type of American photography, that since the "New Topographic", seems pretty important in the American photographic art World. Stephen Shore, is probably the most famous exponent of this type of photography. The pictures are well composed and technically perfect. But the subject matter leaves me perplexed. On one hand there is a certain fascination with the depiction of scruffy corners of semi urban America. On the other hand who cares about these places. Are these pictures just a reaction against the Ansel Adams school of romantic landscapes?

Parr, is another photographer who leaves me perplexed. The Japanese, series, probably wanted to take aim at mass tourism, and with this photojournalistic set, he has achieved his aim. But, I am always left with the impression that he is looking down on his subjects with a certain British middle class air of superiority.

The big question is, why is so much of the art photography in the two cases I have liked to, so popular with the art world? Why do what are basically boring photographs, have so much critical success? I just want to understand.

Totally unable to answer your questions and can only ask the same...

Exactly what I've come to think about modern art in general. It seems to me that what makes a good artwork is :
- a lot of provocation. In our case, maybe taking pictures of random bland places is enough to stand out of the crowd, and that's all that matters ? But even that is boring compared to the self-destructive thing, the toilets, or the million dollar banana :)
- a complicated, obfuscated title to look clever (obfuscated could definitely be ok for a title !)
- some luck/boldness/help to get known, after what everything you do will receive praise
- a price high enough to make it worth showing

I had to photograph a series of Modern Classical Music once. Some of the pieces were very difficult to listen to, and had zero melody. Sure boundaries are pushed, but it was not something I would like to listen too on a lazy Sunday afternoon. I love Jazz, and here again the music drifts occasionally into the unlistenable.

I can only speak for myself. After having looked at everything available at her site I have mixed feelings. She presents us to several sets of images. Some of them are the images only taken from different essays she has done, f eks for Contemporary Art Review Los Angeles. I went to the essays and got her images again but now with the text as well.
In the sets "On hill" and "Ground control" I found several images I like, a couple I like a bit more. OTOH there are several images I don't care for. The images in the essays are kind of bland with perhaps one or two in total I "like".

I like mundane, I like the traces of people and their activity and I like how well the images together shows how the mankind is flawed, or, if you like that better, insufficient. The images tells us about humans, human planning and efforts and the outcome. How can L.A. actually exist and be L.A.? I understand she is fascinated and she got me interested as well.
In general I don't mind showing, photographing and looking at the bad, the ugly and the repelling. If only images of the beautiful and fantastic were allowed there are a lot of progress of the society that never would have happened. Documenting the mundane may look boring but I see a value (I think) and some nice images (for sure).

But, the majority of the $50 per image images leave me uninterested. As i said, mixed feelings.

The textual parts of the essays are of little interest to me. I find them to fuzzy or woolly dotty.

A few of them are good of "On Hills", I mean I liked them. "Borrowed Landscape " has filmic soft look that I find attractive. Again a few nice ones from "Edges".
But I am 100% sure of that if I take these photos, no-one will pay any attention to them. As Nigel said compositionally and technically they are good.
In the end I find all art things confusing!

We are the poor sods that never showed up at the right place at right moment. We also don't have famous parents. No well-known artist or producer adopted us. How could we be famous?
Instead we have this type of forums for amateurs (I use the word as it is supposed to be used, not in a condescending way at all) were we from time to time can post an image a few aficionados appreciate.

I recently saw an exhibition of polaroids taken by Andy Warhol. It was like 100 images and perhaps two of them were any "good". When standing in front of a couple of the images showing Warhol's friends having fun at a party holding drinks in their hands I started to wonder what's wrong with me. Did I really throw away an hour plus traveling of my day on this? Why? And why was the exhibition held at all?

A long time ago, I was able to glimpse how the world of art photography works, when I photographed for our provincial theatre, and moved on the edge of certain circles. Political patronage played a huge part in getting a show, or getting prints bought by a museum. You are correct; being a "famous photographer", has little to do with talent. It was, and is all about brown nosing, being a member of a political party, or having friends who count.

Take away the "art speak", and most art photography falls flat. Of course there are exceptions.

I experienced exactly the same thing at a local club here. I could not believe some of the judges choices. It starts with who is in charge and chooses the judge.

In fact, over many years, I have become very disenchanted with clubs of many kinds, especially the power politics. I have been a president a few times, and on many committees - but NEVER again.

My experience with contests is slightly different. The ones I enter involve other photo clubs, not only mine, so a lot of people I don't know. There are always some very highly rated pictures that I can't understand, even when the contest has a specific theme (eg low quality photos of animals in a "nature" contest). But overall, over a few years, despite some oddities, the most successful people from my photo club are always the ones making the best pictures, dedicating the most time to photography.

And when things are strange, it usually is due to one of the three judges, the other two being OK (funny thing, that's us judging judges, despite all of this being a matter of personal taste !). Maybe having three judges helps.

"In the end I find all art things confusing!"

I have tried to understand the world of art photography, and art in photographs. I have read Gerry Badger's The Pleasures of Good Photographs which examines the work of several contemporary, art photographers, I trudged through Poiverts, La fotografia Contemporanea, and several other books, some of which I never got past the first chapter.

The result is that I understand less than before.

But I have come to a couple of conclusions, the big one thanks to a book about modern trends in Jazz (my other great passion). Jazz like Photography has become institutionalised, and University courses created to teach a whole lot of students, who have no professional, or financially secure future, other than becoming teachers, teaching the next generation of teachers. The output of this cohort, needs to be serious and difficult, to be institutionally relevant, but ends up being just boring. A by-product is artspeak, impenetrable to those not in the game.

The second is that if you pretend to understand all this difficult art, you can pose, as being more intelligent and cultured than the unwashed masses.

I witnessed this at a talk that Michael Kenna gave, at a show opening. A rather pompous woman in the audience, dragged out a whole lot of artistic and ecological reasons why there are no people in his photographes. His reply was a joy. He replied that as every photographer knows, placing a person in a picture, however small, makes that person the focal point of the picture.

It came to me what I think is at least in part an answer. I knew this but had forgotten it. The answer is readily seen in the art world but also applies to photography and many other creative pursuits.

There are many incredible artists whose work I admire when I see it - but I rarely know the creator's name. I don't seek out formal displays but will follow a link if someone provides one. So most of what I see is just graffiti. I did recently see a photo of one of the murals on one of the buildings in Cannes - cameraderie.org/threads/a-z-no-rules.56808/page-222. I am impressed with graffiti and murals like this because I don't have an artistic bone in my body - I couldn't draw or paint to save myself. I really respect those artists who have that ability.

Why don't I seek out formal displays?

Because perhaps more than any other creative pursuit the art world is overrun with cliques of self important types, hangers on, ludicrous egos etc. I distance myself from those types of people and institutions they create / inhabit. Was Warhol a good artist? I don't know. I may have seen something of his that I like but once I saw the personality I had no interest - I am quite anti substance abuse (legal or otherwise) as well, so some bias there. Another aspect is that someone may create some really good work, but then they and / or the hangers on put any subsequent work up in golden lights no matter how crappy.

Similar types exist in the photography world. I think they lose their objectivity (if they ever had any) and are incapable of comparing their work against the greater pool of quality endeavour. With regard to Nigel's link in his OP, I can understand someone may be trying to tell a story. But there are stories and there are stories. Something needs to stand out.

I know it is just human nature and there will always be people of all types. But that doesn't mean there can't be (and aren't) dedicated sites that are more grounded. I am always open to links to sites that fit the latter and couldn't care less about the former...

It is a pretty important "rule" in Architectural photography, and I often have to wait some time for that instant, when a scene is people free, in some popular places.

This thread has wandered off track to provide an interesting insight into something else. We have come to believe in many areas, that three to five years of study in an institution, can substitute for years of experience in the field.