No need for coverage and also no need for pictures either, cause pictures are just there. If anything happens it'll be photographed, taped, and all, for sure. You don't seek images, you don't have to, you just browse them and look at them. Also, you don't really watch pictures collectively anymore. You'll bump into pictures while you're sitting in front of your screen, it's just you and the picture, a totally new situation. And in the end good and better pictures won't necessarily make it to higher levels of publicity, they'll rather stay on the level where they were originally born to, a friend's pic won't make to MoMA, and an expensive fashion shot won't end up in cheap countryside mags nor at a small town exhibition.
Last but not least pictures can't be the best pictures anymore, they can't rock the world. The most expensive, the most appreciated images can't be any better than those that are of smaller value anymore. Practically anybody's pic can be as beautiful as the most appreciated ones, and vice versa.
No photograph can rock the world anymore. There are hundreds of millions of photographers - what's more, there must be hundreds of millions of good photographers and tens of millions of great photographers by now. New York times used to be famous for the fact that there was not one person who would actually read the whole issue, not even at the editorial. It's the same for photography now: you can't be aware of all the great photographers, and nobody can see all the great photographs, not even in one calender year. It's impossible, cause by the time you get to like 10 000 (of the million) you'll start forgetting what you saw before, your memory will start to leak. So what we know as great photographs of today they are only samples of their kind.

 
Kinga Kulcsar: finding home town / 1

Kinga Kulcsar's photos (photo studies) are perfect examples to this phenomenon, to what changes photography has just been thru. They are practically not weaved into the tissue of art history, nor into that of any context defined by any kind of community. We can say they are totally "not-linked" as well as so many thousands of photos on flickr for example. They were not published in a flashy magazine and were not shown in a gallery either. This is a very serious concept if you think behind it. It's reclaiming the right to photography in the sense that one doesn't need an initiative from outside to take pictures, nor to show them to other people. No magazine, no gallery, no scholarship, not even a project. It's just what photographers do anytime they have an urge.

------------------------------------------------------

Most of the times when we bump into photographs we'll be having some extra information like captions, the goal of the project it's made for, I mean an 'explanation' (which the photographs might end up being only the illustrations of) these picture are what thy are. Pictures, only visually 'explained' and even that only by themselves.

The interesting thing however is never the lack of something but the existence. These pictures are not interesting because they are "not-linked" and only "self-explained", but because they really make a great impression on the viewer (and they are "not linked" and "only" self explained" only in addition).

Their trick is this the instability of the viewer (which many photographs take advantage of by using information as a wrap) that is caused by the format of the images: cinemascope. Perfect choice. It's only "cinemascope" for our eyes however, pictures are actually variable sizes they only look cinemascope. They were taken in 16:9 mode and later cropped to cinemascope and the aspect ratio is not the result of a precise measurement, but of a playful artistic process that cropping has always been to photographers. This cinemacope format is a perfect choice - 16:9 is already common, but if you look at a cinemascope image you'll necessarily have to think that it's a movie still. Not another choice. Movie still, that's it. This is why this choice is perfect cause the viewer is forced to take it as a movie still, and hence forced to see this picture as a part of something, a part of an unknown story. So now the picture is 'linked' - to a sweet unknown story.

 
Kinga Kulcsar: finding home town / 2

These pictures are very pragmatic - Kulcsar doesn't seem to worry about the size and resolution, she won't go for a great show in a gallery (let's admit, any good pictures can look great when blown up to a great size and it only takes money), she composed and finished these images in screen resolution. Oh, yeah. Indeed, why do wee need those huge prints for a lot of money and for a lot of trees? Why the great art opening with the cool drinks and extra large prints - it's fun but doesn't contribute to inhaling art at all. Huge prints and great shows actually make it easy for anybody to mingle and feel safe without actually having to confront the pictures of the exhibition.
Kulcsar's pictures are amazingly fresh in this way. They're totally like great shots from a great movie that has been photographed very beautifully. They'll practically make you feel an incredible thirst for seeing that movie. And this is art, totally: creating (in imagination) a movie that doesn't exist and impressing you by the stills from it.

 
Kinga Kulcsar: finding home town / 7.

The pictures actually make up a story indeed. They're a series. All of them were taken from a height, like from a window or from a top of a high building. Typical "second unit" shots that'll make up the atmosphere for the forthcoming scenes and for the whole movie.
"Finding Home Town" - that's how the story translates literally. Some of the pictures make smaller series, sequences, either in a format of "digital zoom", or successive shots, more and more blurry. Really emotional since this gives the pictures a scent of study. A sstudy while taking the pictures and a study when editing them. Beautiful story, blurry and emotional. Birds? Yes. Birds' view? Also. But there's more: atmosphere, the atmosphere of the there-and-then. You feel that you can byte the air of that present it' so there. Is it a trick? No, it's rather magic. Transferring an experience, an impression by the simple means of an imaging device.
Really impressive shots, very strong atmosphere. That's exactly what you can get from great pictures. That is what great pictures can get you. A nice trip. Kulcsar's pictures do that without bonds to the official tissue of culture or to (high or even higher) society - it's just great pictures, screen to screen, touching you in the most intimate way.

watch Kinga Kulcsar's photos here