May I comment (as if you could stop me)?
Man is a tribal, village creature. The psychs say that although we live
in cities with millions of people in them, we still limit ourselves to
about 200 whom we interact with seriously. You seem to have noticed
that, and your photo shows your reaction. It is good art. I know you
feel pretentious about calling your photography art, but art in not
pretentious. (However ART is. Folks who say they are ARTISTS are those
we have to watch out for.) Most of the photos you show do convey
something to the viewer beyond the obvious (unlike most of my stuff
which are simply pictures of people or things). To me that IS art.
--graywolf (who really has to get his sig file reconnected, but at least
the computer is working again).
-----
frank theriault wrote:
On 9/19/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What I was asking about, and commenting upon, is that I find it strange
that ~you~ wouldn't know why you liked your own work.
Every time you edit your photos you're critiquing your work. When you
shoot a roll of 36 and decide to print but one or two, you've made an
editorial decision, decided which is acceptable and which is not. I would
think that if you understood why you liked a photo, what made it work for
you, it might be helpful.
I'm just trying to have a conversation with you frank, open a little
dialogue. Sounds like I've offended or annoyed you in some way.
Shel
Well, to be quite honest with you, Shel, I did bristle a bit last
night when I read your initial comment, and I admit that I was being
petulant and maybe even a bit childish in my responses - for which I
apologize.
What bothered me wasn't the "wasted frame" thing, although I disagree,
and I suppose I'd have simply preferred that you said you didn't like
the photo - with or without reasons. What bothered me was (what I
perceived as) your sarcasm as follows: "Print it big, mount it
nicely, display it with good lighting, and will become something
special for someone. Oh, yeah, ask a lot of money for it as well."
All that being said, I actually know why I like it, I just feel rather
uncomfortable talking about it, and besides, I really do think that
it's more important viewers form their own opinions as to why they
feel the way they do about a given piece. However, I like it due to
the following (among other) reasons:
Okay, it's blurry. It's not a motion blur like a car, scooter, bike
or even a pedestrian going by. It's me, the photographer, moving past
the scene that's causing the blur. When I'm walking through a crowded
city, I don't make connections with most of those that I pass. I only
see them peripherally. I walk by them without noticing them, and they
don't notice me - as the fellow in the foreground of the photo seems
to be unaware of my presence.
So, to me, this is about the disconnect of living and moving about in
a big city. The irony that among millions of people, we actually have
fewer close relationships - we walk around with blinders on, oblivious
to what's around us. It's as if we have sensory overload, and it all
becomes a blur - just like the picture. Have you ever felt that way?
I have.
The reason I don't like talking like that, is that I hate sounding
overblown, pretentious and all artsy about it - especially since it
really is just a blurry photo. I didn't intend for it to come out
that way, it just did, and I saw the neg, and I thought it looked
pretty cool. I wouldn't say it was an accident, but I wouldn't say
that I took the photo thinking it would look that way, either.
It just is what it is.
cheers,
frnk
