Talk:Found photography

I would correct the grammar

but I am not sure what the intended meaning of this collection of words is: "Unfortunately, these physical collections remain unknown while they require prior knowledge of its existence and geographical presence from viewers." Gimelgort 04:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ransom Riggs

Ransom Riggs should be mentioned in this article. See Ransom's own article on Wikipedia. L. Thomas W. (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Original research

Imagebeau, please note that content such as "Mirelle Thijsen's typology of such artists' books will be applied here (with significant modifications) to the larger field of found-photo art, with a representative example for each category" does not belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles summarise what published sources say about a topic; they don't apply typologies. Please have a read of Wikipedia:No original research and WP:NOTESSAY before adding anything else to this or other articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Cordless Larry. The trouble (as Thijsen herself points out) is that there's no work on the topic. I will delete the section. Imagebeau (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, if you have other objections or suggestions, please keep prodding me. I want the article to be decent. Thanks. Imagebeau (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"Found photography in the sense “found photos” will be discussed below."

My edit removing "Found photography in the sense “found photos” will be discussed below." was reverted. I see no good reason to keep this in, as the article sections speak for themselves. References to "discussed below" in the same short article likely goes against MOS:REDUNDANCY, MOS:INTRO, Wikipedia:TERSE, is too short for a L2B link (Wikipedia:CREATELEAD), and is not an acceptable MOS:SELFREF. Further, it makes no sense to make this distinction in the first place, as the lead sentence states "The term found photography can be used as a synonym for found photos". Shotgunheist ^💬 16:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree - it's unnecessary. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. Some of your changes must have seemed necessary because the distinctions I was trying to make were unclear.

Most importantly, found photography does not reinterpret another artist's work. It reinterprets non-art photography.

In my original first section, I wanted to distinguish found photography as simply found photos from a more "constructive" practice. The term is used both ways. By saying "Found photography in the sense 'found photos' will be discussed below," I wanted to explain why I wasn't discussing art in which found photos are assembled, transformed, etc. Perhaps I should have said "Only found photography," etc. In your emended article, the paragraph that explains the distinction is moved down, as if you don't consider it primary. To me this reads as a kind of "burying the lede."

The trouble with your two sections, "Origin(ation) and usage of the term" and "Application," is that the first three paragraphs of "Origin(ation) and usage" cover important events in the field, which are as much "Application" as anything included in that section. Maybe you can figure out what to do about that.

I rewrote the last para, about real photo postcards. I don't know what you were trying to do, but some errors crept in. Imagebeau (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I've retitled the second section so that I could halfway reasonably redistribute the material between the two sections. Thanks again for your work. Imagebeau (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)