Comments on: 15 Outstanding Examples Of Conceptual Photography

By: Chris Helton

Chris Helton — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 01:44:00 +0000

Not marbles, their paintballs. Yes he was banished. Stabbed is his sleep and thrown out in the night.

gambling man is ‘dedication’. Living his dream to the very end. damn you all, I can ruin my own life with out your help!

Practicing his photoshop skills and Mr Santy Ago got hungry.

Thats an angel of death. He’s standing over the burning city…. laughing on the inside

Im sure each phtotography has their own idea but I think thats fstoppers point. to play pshycologist and hold up a picture and say “ok, what do you see”

Personally I freaking love the body in the cardboard box on the beach… err I mean I love the PHOTO of the body in a cardboard box on the beach, yeah thats what I meant haha

By: Abe Robinson

Abe Robinson — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 04:08:00 +0000

I am really not going to lie the ignorance in the fan base of this site is appalling and every time i read the comment section of a post it really makes me not want to come back to Fstoppers. I realize everyone is entitled to there own opinions but people on this site only spout off at the gums when they have something negative to say. As a Conceptual photographer myself I really enjoyed these pieces and I always enjoy the darker images even though most of the readers on this site seem to be very closed minded please keep up the good work

Concept
an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.

By: Tim Gallo

Tim Gallo — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 01:24:00 +0000

you see, its about the title:
“15 Outstanding Examples Of Conceptual Photography”.you have to be mad, to say “outstanding example”. it means exquisite, professional, the best, representing the whole movement of photography genre… and what you get when you open it? bad taste.

By: Charles

Charles — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:19:00 +0000

Here are some questions regarding the “concepts” :

The green marble on it’s own, bleeding- Did it separate from the others on it’s own and kill it self? Or did the others banish him?

The gambler with the dice- Is he winning? Loosing? Is he dead? Did he die (lol)…rolling dice? Overall, as a gambler did his habit kill him?

The Apple- Is that how we all see ourselves when reality isn’t so?

The angel or whatever- Doesn’t look too anxious to be doing his job. And you can’t even see his face or anything. It’s sort of….implied in the posture yeah?

These are all pretty basic…maybe even just…silly observations of mine but…whatever. I can find something in anything. It is what it is. That’s probably the point.

Now if this were a forum discussing the technical considerations and definitions of “conceptual photography” well then…I suppose by definition and or whatever….some could be excluded or disqualified. Honestly, I wouldn’t even know. Not my thing. But overall….you get my point. Give it all a rest.

By: Stefano Druetta

Stefano Druetta — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:58:00 +0000

can you tell the difference between still life and portraiture? then you can say if those pictures are “conceptual” or simply “wannabe-artist made”. the only one i’d dare to call conceptual, is the one with the cardboard box on the beach. it makes you think. it asks you to stare at it for some time. there’s something to see. what about the remaining pictures? I see some pretty landscapes, both urban and wild ones, I see a very nice staged picture of a catastrophe, I see some attempts with such little and easy content [the apple in the mirror], but all the rest is a load of overphotoshopped bad pictures with no content at all.
if i were 15 with no image culture whatsoever, I’d find most of these pictures really attracting. i don’t want to be mean, i just wish this could be a way to spread culture.

By: michael hession

michael hession — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:47:00 +0000

Obviously you can argue that there are ‘concepts’ behind these photographs. Anything, by that token, can be conceptual photography. But it is important to know that there is an actual genre of photography in a specific historical context that is often referred to as “conceptual photography” and the images in this post are not part of that definition.

By: Charles

Charles — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:43:00 +0000

Jeez. Some of you guys are just…mean. I’m just saying. I’m not sure it’s the goal nor should it be to post up everything that fits within the “parameters” of any one subject matter. In this case, conceptual photography. It is what it is. They take the time to post stuff and do a pretty good job on the regular with a variety of content. Sometimes it’s awesome, sometimes ehhh. In this case….. If it’s not “conceptual” or YOU don’t find it to be….what difference does it make…really?! Honestly…regardless of whatever you want to call it or no matter how many of these particular shots posted are “breathtakingly” good or not….the photos are pretty cool. Some more than others. But hey, that’s art. Honestly, out of the 15 pics they posted, I may have only found 2-3 of them to be madd cool. To me, that is! The way I see it….F’ it…..if I come across a blog or any site and see a cool photo for the day, I’m good. Other than that…doesn’t it suck to just get on a site and pick shit apart and be negative? Ya’ll should just “F’in Stop it!” ;~> Peace!!

By: Tim Gallo

Tim Gallo — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:48:00 +0000

sometimes i suprised to f-stoppers. why don`t you stick to “making” and “pro” posts?
c`mon guys… you can select better than that. what value does this pictures have? even in “conceptual photography” world? its just bad taste. go see luerzers “Archive” , learn something… or
a post about Cindy Sherman probably will have much more impact than some random googled “conceptual” photography.

By: Stefano Druetta

Stefano Druetta — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:20:00 +0000

those pictures are “flowers, cats and sunsets”-ish cheapo conceptual…

http://overhereplease.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/duane_michals-things-are-queer.jpg
c’mon, you get the difference?

By: Matt Mahoney

Matt Mahoney — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:19:00 +0000

How exactly aren’t these conceptual? And isn’t each photographers name posted right above each photo? Just because someone may not fully understand the concept of each photograph, (I admittedly don’t understand every single one) doesn’t mean there isn’t one.