# Master of Photography - photo tv contest



## andrei1989 (Jul 11, 2016)

is anyone else excited about this? 
http://petapixel.com/2016/07/08/master-photography-major-new-photo-competition-tv-show/

i'm really curious how it will turn out to be and if there will be a season 2..


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 8, 2016)

I'm up to episode 3.

I'm not sure how they picked the photographers but they are not a very inspiring bunch.
They eliminated a lady in episode 2 who I thought produced the most imaginative set of images.

The judges are totally pretentious and cryptic in their opinion.
I thought the guest artist was good the first night.
Bruce Gilden wasn't great and the one for Episode 3 was downright poor and unhelpful

One person has been sent home for cheating (using his own memory card!)
It was okay he was getting his own friends to turn up in Berlin to pose in his pictures.

It's been a bit of a disappointment. It was always going to be a difficult program.
It could have been a 500px competition (lots of glossy photos) but its actually more about producing ugly pictures.
They seem to have very limited editing skills (or the software options are restricted - it's not clear).

So far it's treating it's audience as if the judges are the only people who know what good art is.

Maybe later episodes will be better


----------



## krisbell (Aug 8, 2016)

I've only seen one and a half episodes but so far I would echo Hector1970's thoughts - not a very inspiring bunch of photographers. 

Bruce Gilden was awful from a mentor or judging point of view, though great TV as he just slated all the photographers and all for the same cryptic reason, like his photos somehow belonged in a different stratosphere to what they would ever achieve. 

Will watch the remainder though I'm not holding out much hope of actually picking any valuable lessons up from it.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 8, 2016)

I watched an episode, I won't be watching another :-X


----------



## unfocused (Aug 8, 2016)

I find the whole concept repulsive. 

I'm currently reading a history of the f.64 group and I'm thinking: "This is what we've been reduced to?" 

"Mr. Weston, your challenge for this week will be to photograph a toilet."


----------



## LDS (Aug 8, 2016)

unfocused said:


> "Mr. Weston, your challenge for this week will be to photograph a toilet."



You mean something like this:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fileuchamp_Fountaine.jpg

(photo by Alfred Stieglitz)

;D


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 8, 2016)

Photography is art. A group of pretentious snobs trying to reduce it to reality show pandering is like trying to improve the Mona Lisa by spraying it with a paintball gun.....

FAIL!


----------



## unfocused (Aug 9, 2016)

LDS said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > "Mr. Weston, your challenge for this week will be to photograph a toilet."
> ...



No. I mean this.

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/photographs/edward-weston-excusado-mexico-1926-5374552-details.aspx


----------



## JohnUSA (Aug 9, 2016)

Like most forum topics, this one is heading towards the crapper!


----------



## andrei1989 (Aug 9, 2016)

i don't have a SKY subscription and wanted to watch this show...can't find it anywhere...
but if you're saying it's really that bad then maybe i won't bother searching for it anymore..


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Aug 9, 2016)

Man, I just barfed a little in my mouth watching the trailer video for that show. I already get a sense that the judges are much like the douchey judges you see on some cooking shows, like Chopped. Incredibly inflated sense of self worth and importance. Like, yeah, your fancy piece of cooked meat with a fruit doily on top is nice, but not quite the pinnacle of human endeavor. 

For the general public, watching someone's butt crack while they bend over to taken photos for a day, isn't very good TV. Watching people take photos is pretty boring in itself. They have to insert some sort of drama by casting contestants and judges who think their shit is gold and everyone else stinks. They always create the best TV, even at the expense of letting the world believe that this is how real photographers act. Hell's Kitchen is one of the best examples of the TV producers casting self-absorbed idiots instead of talented chefs.


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 9, 2016)

Hi Folks. 
We need to bear in mind that all tv is about viewer numbers, as already stated by PhotographyFirst watching photographers at work is fairly boring, (even when you have an interest in the subject). Competition and the tension and conflict it creates sells programming to the masses, after all very few of us can help being fascinated by a wreck unfolding in front of us! 
Sometimes these shows will even engineer a situation to elicit an outburst!   Especially if the participants haven't managed an outburst for some minutes! ;D
Is it any wonder that quality viewing is getting more scarce. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Aug 9, 2016)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Folks.
> We need to bear in mind that all tv is about viewer numbers, as already stated by PhotographyFirst watching photographers at work is fairly boring, (even when you have an interest in the subject). Competition and the tension and conflict it creates sells programming to the masses, after all very few of us can help being fascinated by a wreck unfolding in front of us!
> Sometimes these shows will even engineer a situation to elicit an outburst!   Especially if the participants haven't managed an outburst for some minutes! ;D
> Is it any wonder that quality viewing is getting more scarce.
> ...


What's funny, is that even the judges are probably not in on "it" either. The producers know exactly what they are doing and what is going on, but I don't think the judges are on that level. They probably think they were picked because of they excellence in photography (they actually suck really bad, IMO. Checked their work out.) Someone who knows what they are doing does not give vague and cryptic feedback, they give useful feedback. People who think they know what they are doing, but really don't, will often poop all over something and give little or lame reasoning to their stance. 

If I ever get asked to be on one of these types of shows, I will first check myself into a mental ward for a psych eval. I must be crazy if they want me to be on there! Ha!


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 9, 2016)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Man, I just barfed a little in my mouth watching the trailer video for that show. I already get a sense that the judges are much like the douchey judges you see on some cooking shows, like Chopped. Incredibly inflated sense of self worth and importance. Like, yeah, your fancy piece of cooked meat with a fruit doily on top is nice, but not quite the pinnacle of human endeavor.
> 
> For the general public, watching someone's butt crack while they bend over to taken photos for a day, isn't very good TV. Watching people take photos is pretty boring in itself. They have to insert some sort of drama by casting contestants and judges who think their S___ is gold and everyone else stinks. They always create the best TV, even at the expense of letting the world believe that this is how real photographers act. Hell's Kitchen is one of the best examples of the TV producers casting self-absorbed idiots instead of talented chefs.



Just watch _'War Photographer'_ a documentary that follows photographer James Nachtwey across the globe on several assignments. He even has a camera on his camera (years ago) and the viewpoint is riveting to anybody with half a brain or an ounce of empathy.

But it is true, lifting people up to a higher level is much harder work than dumbing down to a universal low.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 9, 2016)

I haven't seen the show, and don't want to, but in the UK we have a singing talent show called "The X Factor." It has run for many years, and has shown, and found some real talent, as well as success. However in recent years viewing numbers have plummeted, and I guess it is because they have made the show about the judges rather than the contestants. In fact often as not the contestants are just a foil for the judges. This photography show sounds similar, but then TV is generally just about entertainment, one way or another.


----------



## Nitroman (Aug 9, 2016)

I watched the first episode, but switched over to youtube and found this much more interesting  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpk4q_Zo2ws

;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 9, 2016)

Nitroman said:


> I watched the first episode, but switched over to youtube and found this much more interesting
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpk4q_Zo2ws
> 
> ;D



Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaBZVYM_4P8


----------



## Nitroman (Aug 9, 2016)

Sadly blocked on copyright grounds in UK. 

On the plus side, I still have two hours of paint drying to watch.


----------



## LDS (Aug 13, 2016)

unfocused said:


> No. I mean this.
> 
> http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/photographs/edward-weston-excusado-mexico-1926-5374552-details.aspx



I didn't remember that 

Anyway, the aesthetic - not only about toilette - changed a lot in the years... if you look at Stephen Shore's "American Surfaces" he doesn't try at all to turn them into something "pleasant to see" (i.e. see http://blakeandrews.blogspot.it/2012/10/shores-filthy-photographs.html). Nor did Corinne Day (i..e http://www.gimpelfils.com/pages/exhibitions/exhibition.php?exhid=6&subsec=2).

These photos would have been utterly unacceptable in Weston's time. Yet they became the work of renowned photographers in the more recent years. Like it or not, contemporary art photography is different than that of f/64.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 13, 2016)

LDS said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > No. I mean this.
> ...



Yes. My reference though was merely meant to illustrate the irony of thinking that you can reduce the concept of a "master of photography" to pop culture tastes on a reality show. I was imagining the absurdity of someone on such a show telling a true master of photography to go churn out a masterpiece on command each week. 

On a side note, while you are correct that contemporary art photography has moved far beyond the f.64 school, popular photography often seems trapped in the aesthetic of the 1930s in general and more narrowly in the aesthetic of Ansel Adams in particular. Sadly, many people are not even ready for Weston, much less Stephen Shore. And that despite the fact that Shore's own aestheic reflects an era that is now more than 40 years old.


----------



## LDS (Aug 13, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Yes. My reference though was merely meant to illustrate the irony of thinking that you can reduce the concept of a "master of photography" to pop culture tastes on a reality show. I was imagining the absurdity of someone on such a show telling a true master of photography to go churn out a masterpiece on command each week.



IMHO it should be taken for what it is - a contest with its specific rules - despite its title. And probably not aimed at people already deeply involved in photography.

Of course you can't command a masterpiece in a few hours or even minutes. Nor many artists would bend to such rules, not even for 150K euro (which can be a lot for someone, or very little for others). The format unluckily also doesn't allow nor any good description of the image taking process, nor any deep enough critic of the images - even if you may not agree with it - Toscani for example is well known for his provocative stances, and it's no surprise he was selected for the show. But we all know how media regard the general public.

Even so, Sky Art (or whatever is called in your area), is offering something more than what you can find in non-specific media (not this show, but some of the documentary aired), and may introduce some people to different ideas of art than that seen on mainstream media much focused on the "pleasant image - feel good" only.

Don't know, maybe just looking at people still working without a smartphone can light a bulb in someone's mind... probably not the next Gursky, yet it's better than a contest for the best photo of a cat 



unfocused said:


> On a side note, while you are correct that contemporary art photography has moved far beyond the f.64 school, popular photography often seems trapped in the aesthetic of the 1930s in general and more narrowly in the aesthetic of Ansel Adams in particular. Sadly, many people are not even ready for Weston, much less Stephen Shore. And that despite the fact that Shore's own aesthetic reflects an era that is now more than 40 years old.



There is an aesthetic that is surely "easier" to the eye (and the mind). Some others are often a fist in your eye. I like very much Shore's "Uncommon Places", in my deep I'm sometimes a bit more perplexed about "American Surfaces"  Day's non-fashion work is also very anti-aesthetic. These image requires a lot more effort by the viewer to be analyzed and understood, and often many just look for something simple and pleasant, and that is what most media deliver, knowing most images will be watched for just a brief time, and then mostly forgot. Probably there are so many images today, each one becomes less important.

Luigi Ghirri already noted in the 1990s that in "ancient times" most people saw very few images in their life (probably some church paintings, and little more), while today we are literally bombarded (and the diffusion of the Internet amplified that even more) - and this fact changed how people approach images. Especially when most images are ads, which are designed to capture attention for a brief moment.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 13, 2016)

Just a commentary on Episode 4 Celebrity Portrait.

I must say I was very impressed by Michael Madsen.
There was alot more to him that met the eye.
I thought he was very courteous and a sensitive soul.
I didn't know he was a poet.
Some of the photographers treat him very poorly and others went to alot of effort to learn about him.
I really liked the winning pictures but many of them were poor.
I don't know what speciality some of the photographers have but they haven't shown much so far.
The judge Oliviero Toscana is awful. Nothing positive to say, no great advice to give. He's famous for the Benetton ads. He must be dreadful to work for. His own work has been good at being controversial. It certainly has impact but not consistently good


----------

