Family Edition
Previous thread >>4433835

Why don't we take a look at some photography that isn't technically well shot

Richard Billingham(born 25 September 1970) is an Englishphotographerandartist, film maker and art teacher.
His work has mostly concerned his family, the place he grew up in theWest Midlands, but also landscapes elsewhere.

For this thread we'll focus only on his book "Ray's a laugh"

Billingham is best known for thePhotobookRay's A Laugh(1996), which documents the life of his alcoholic father Ray, and obese, heavily tattooed mother Liz

The photos were originally intended as studies for paintings.
However, a tutor at Sunderland University came across them in a plastic bag and encouraged Billingham to display them as is.

Ray's a Laughis a portrayal of the poverty and deprivation in which he grew up.

Richard Billingham's "Ray's a Laugh" significantly impacted his life by launching him from a shelf-stacking job at a Birmingham Kwik Save to the international art world.

The project, which documented his dysfunctional family, particularly his alcoholic father Ray, resonated with audiences and critics, leading to his recognition as a prominent photographer.
-Google AI

And that's it
Thanks and bye

Sike
What's your opinion on this body of work? Do you feel the need to have a dysfunctional family to make it? Does this prove subject > gear?
Please upvote and like and honor

>>4437872
I think it’s more of that “art” bullshit that only was brought to us because he sucked the right (((person))). Every time we see trash like this in /rpt/ it gets ignored or torn up, him having it “published” doesn’t elevate it from that.

>>4437877
Its because its shaming and humiliating white people. If his family were any other color or nose shape, this would be in the trash.

>>4437877
Maybe the difference is that one is a book with over 50 photos in the same theme vs a single snapshit

>>4437881
That's kinda simplistic no? You could also look at it as an insight into a way of life, in an intimate and caring way

>>4437885
50 mounds of shit is still shit.

>>4437838 (OP)
Did he ever produce any other noteworthy works?

I hope he made enough to get out of this hellhole, this looks like a grim place to grow up.

>>4438010
He mostly did landscape after that I think, not noteworthy in my opinion

>>4437890
that doesn't give the photos merit or make them deserving of accolades. my snapshits of my pets are also intimate and caring.

nice. the medium works well

>>4437877
i've never seen something like this in rpt
>>4437890
that's either a troll or a callous, small-minded person. either way, their opinion isn't worth much
>>4438206
i think it does give the photos merit. if your intimate, caring snapshits give insight into the lives of your pets then i'd say the same of those

>>4438210
>i've never seen something like this in rpt
Yeah, incredibly somehow this is all an order of magnitude worse than rpt
The >no no it’s bad on purpose angle is a cheap trick attempt at novelty

>>4437872
It's a type of poverty porn, imo.

>>4438166
That's really bad lol.

>>4438269
I haven't seen the book in it's physical form so maybe the printed version has some kind of editing that elevates the work?
I think it might be a mix of morbid curiosity and genuine appreciation for a candid insight of his family (horrible life but still shown with affection)

>>4438215
not sure what you mean. what parts do you think are bad on purpose? by mere virtue of having a nonzero emotional content, this blows away almost anything you can find in an rpt

>>4437850
>>4437857
awesome

>>4438320
You disingenuous mongoloid, assuming you’re op, you yourself specifically mention “isn’t technically well shot”. That’s the bad on purpose schtick and it’s trash.

Dear Diary: Today OP was a pretty cool guy.

>>4438359
That's not OP

This photo set hurts for me to look at. I can't get through it. I suppose it's a success in that sense and I appreciate it exists, but damn.

>>4438359
from my understanding, 'good' or 'bad' wasn't a consideration at all because they were shot as references for paintings. what specifically do you do you think is bad about the technique? frankly i think a chaotic process is quite appropriate for the chaotic tone and content of the work.

>>4437877
This is better than anything in recent snapshit general by virtue of it being actual pictures of people and not the 1000th snapshit of a duck in the park or generic lamp post. Technically these are not good, but conceptually there is some interest in here in so far it gives you insight into a certain set of people and their lifestyle which elevates it above 99% of the lifeless slop that is posted on this board.