look at me
We will never see all the best photographs. They were not made for all of us to see. But, some of those breathtaking photographs that have come from boxes in closets and family albums and have ended up online are being posted at Look At Me. Spend at least 10 solid seconds per picture.
This and this and this and so many more.
I’d also like to add that the layout and design of this site is nearly perfect.
update
>>>Mark said:
“I know we’ve talked about this before: when it comes right down to it, you have to evaluate a photograph based on its final form, without worrying about what the photographer was thinking. ”
and I said:
“Exactly. The scary and liberating part of all that is that the photographer means very little to the work once it has been made. But at the same time, who the photographer was when they took those photos (notice that each photo has at least one person looking directly at the camera) matters considerably- there is a sense of intimacy or at least familiarity in most of those photographs. Looks and expressions that would not be presented towards anyone else other than the person who was holding the camera. They are recorded moments and proof of some sort of exchange, a small little ceremony of Getting Your Photo Taken. I can’t get enough of this type of Pure Photography.
Looking over this sort of work has made me consider what I am working on. Last night I printed a bunch of photographs quite small, snapshot size on 8×10 paper. The paper was a mistake- I did not get multigrade contrast paper and instead got the kind with a fixed contrast- so I played around and wound up printing a small stack of photographs that I had otherwise looked over, mirror self portraits and photographs of women I know. The end results were quite unexpectedly interesting. Less like I AM MAKING A PHOTOGRAPH than, Look At this Photograph I Took. How different? Not sure what I mean just yet. ”
And “October, 1967″; “Ruth & Fred Van Veersen, April 1934” has amazing framing.
I know we’ve talked about this before: when it comes right down to it, you have to evaluate a photograph based on its final form, without worrying about what the photographer was thinking.
Comment by Mark Larios — 2/14/2006 @ 4:04 pm
Exactly. The scary and liberating part of all that is that the photographer means very little to the work once it has been made. But at the same time, who the photographer was when they took those photos (notice that each photo has at least one person looking directly at the camera) matters considerably- there is a sense of intimacy or at least familiarity in most of those photographs. Looks and expressions that would not be presented towards anyone else other than the person who was holding the camera. They are recorded moments and proof of some sort of exchange, a small little ceremony of Getting Your Photo Taken. I can’t get enough of this type of Pure Photography. Looking over this sort of work has made me consider what I am working on. Last night I printed a bunch of photographs quite small, snapshot size on 8×10 paper. The paper was a mistake- I did not get multigrade contrast paper and instead got the kind with a fixed contrast- so I played around and wound up printing a small stack of photographs that I had otherwise looked over, mirror self portraits and photographs of women I know. The end results were quite unexpectedly interesting. Less like I AM MAKING A PHOTOGRAPH than, Look At this Photograph I Took. How different? Not sure what I mean just yet.
Comment by John — 2/15/2006 @ 10:44 am