Bryan Formhals is the founder and managing editor of LPV Magazine, a thrice-yearly publication dedicated to contemporary documentary and fine art photography. After reading an article on The 10 Most Harmful Novels For Aspiring Writers, he and Blake Andrews decided to compile a list of the photographic equivalent.
Jo Duck Gives Fashion Photogra... 853 views 
Jess Nash's Tantalizing Food P... 316 views 
Color Me Pop: She Is Frank 86 views 
Music Philosophy by Mico 74 views 
Portable Presents: The Best Ne... 52 views ![Best Wet T-Shirt Scenes In Movies [NSFW]](http://portable.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/as-good-as-it-gets-wet-t-shirt-150x150.jpg "Best Wet T-Shirt Scenes In Movies [NSFW]")
Best Wet T-Shirt Scenes In Mov... 4716 views 
Pink Hair Is The New "Rachel" 3636 views 
Things I Learned From Omar Lit... 3087 views 
Megan Draper's Sweet Style Bis... 2741 views ![Top 5 On Screen Fingerbangs [NSFW]](http://portable.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/reese-witherspoon-fear-roller-coaster-2-150x150.png "Top 5 On Screen Fingerbangs [NSFW]")
Top 5 On Screen Fingerbangs [N... 1858 views 
Our Thoughts On The Gowns Of C... 1733 views 
Lies TV Teens Told Me 1515 views 
Best 90s Screen Moms 1208 views 
The Worst Plans On Film 1078 views 
Things We Learned From Christi... 948 views 
I’m thinking a more suitable title for this would be something along the lines of, ‘Great Photographers You Can Never Live Up To, So Don’t Bother Trying’. This is like telling a painter to ignore Michelangelo, Picasso and Cezanne. Absorb the origins, and tangent off on your own accord, but never ignore them.
Maybe next time Bryan shouldn’t let his not-so-subtle hostility towards modern-day tumblr-tweens hinder his judgment so much.
I’m afraid I can’t argree with your choices, I think the “photographers?” I’ll most ignore are Bryan Formhals and Blake Andrews.
Very funny. No-one can ever really ignore the pioneers of any artistic movement; it’s like telling a kid in a garage band to never listen to ‘Nevermind’. Take this as a tongue-in-cheek comment on the boom of point-and-shoot, analog “photographers” taking pictures of their passed out friends and the sky and you’ll enjoy it a lot more.
can we add “anything that comes out of PHOOT CAMP” to the list?
I was lucky enough to take several workshops with Ansel in the 1970s. He was a magnificent teacher as well as a fine photographer. I find this attack on his work disturbing and malicious. Not only does it attack Ansel, it indirectly attacks me and all the others who studied under him and adopted his practices. The zone system isn’t a limitation. On the contrary, it’s the most liberating technique I know of. It’s the essence of controlled freedom. It’s only through the zone system that my photography has been liberated from all my past bad habits. After studying with Ansel my photography became much much more rich and majestic. Before him I shot like a child. Now I shoot like a man.
As for the others listed here, Shore, Frank, Cartier-Bresson, and Golden, I’m not as familiar with their work. After all, there can only be one Ansel. But I can surmise from the tone that they are also unfairly besmirched. I plan to find out about these lesser known shooters and, contrary to what this article advises, study their techniques.
The criticism of this article is amazing. My take is that the article is a homage to the photographers, served up with a huge dose of sarcasm. Even if Bryan didn’t like the works of the photographers, I would be willing to bet that the criticism would be constructive.
Am I wrong?
If this is meant as a homage, I’d hate to see a real critique from these writers. Ansel is rolling in his grave right now.
There is a distinct difference between entry level amateurs and iconic and prolific artists. The timeframe from which these visionaries were significant vs an age of digital free-for-all shooting should be given more consideration. This article comes off as a personal frustration toward model mayhem users and the vitality of youth than a criticism of technique oversaturation.
What is”good”photography anymore? Tells a story? Coffee table volume worthy? Controversial? Socially relevant? I’ve seen iPhone shots that accomplish all of these and sit up on Flickr with 2 comments asking if it can be used in some group pool.
If the reason to ignore these photographers is that mimicking them is limiting for an aspiring photographer, what’s more harmful is looking at their work when it’s accompanied by reductive and uncharitable instructions on how it should be viewed. Just reading this article is far more proscriptive than the study of these photographers could ever be.
Some of my favorite photographers are in the list if that gives any indication to the ‘seriousness’ of the piece.
Readers might also enjoy Martin Parr’s ‘Photographic Cliches’ too.
http://www.martinparr.com/blog/?p=282
Of if not, it’ll give something else to beat your head against the wall yelling ‘wrong! wrong! wrong!”
don’t forget about Andre Kertesz…
genius
“can we add “anything that comes out of PHOOT CAMP” to the list?”
__^ Ditto.
Enjoyed the article. Nice link bait with the title.
On a serious matter, though, it’s “cOjones”… “cajones” means drawers, as in the ones you put your clothes in.
Remember, “cojones” kinda looks like what it is: cOjOnes.
I think you guys are missing the point… The title is indeed link bait, and the author isn’t saying these photographers are bad (with the possible exception of McGinley). He’s saying you shouldn’t imitate them.
So many serious comments about this humourous piece. Isn’t the point being made that you must find your own style/vioce and concentrate on that? Take what you can from the “masters” and continue down your own road.
To paraphrase Frederick Sommer, this all strikes me as a lot of “thinking about thinking…”.
What most of the photographers featured have (or had) is a heartfelt need to do their work and a lack of interest in justifying it or thinking about what it meant.
I think the authors have good intentions, but I’m left feeling more offended than inspired. I agree with a previous comment: there’s too much not-so-subtle hostility going on here.
But if people who’ve never heard of Robert Frank or Nan Golden are intrigued to learn more, that’s a good thing.
haha this is a great list – thank you.
Interesting!
But where would they put a photographer with a collection of 280,000 images in the National Archives of Canada, another 100,000 in the National Gallery of Canada’s Museum of Contemporay Photography.
The largest collection in the history of Canada. However photographer basically unknown in the world of those to be avoided?
I could never understand the adulation of Ansel Adams if one were using only Leica 35mm equipment? Of what value is the zone system on a roll of film?
Ansel to me was an incredible photographic technition who knew how to squeeze the very best out of a sheet of film. The rest of it has always been, if you don’t get it right shoot it again a half dozen times and soup each sheet of film individually!
Hey you can’t miss with that kind of routine!
No most of you do not know my work, but how many others can you name with a colletion of 380,000 photographs in the governement of their countries National Archives?
A big name really doesn’t make you a true photographer.
cheers,
Dr. ted.
Wow, its amazing how many self-important commenters have no sense of humor about this whatsoever. I wonder how many just got caught with their pants down realizing their current project or life’s work has been all about imitating one of the greats in the article (which is saying nothing more than go out and develop your own style instead of copying from the top 10 list).