If a tree falls in the forest... Tom C wrote: > I understand clearly that a photograph will evoke different responses in > different people. I'm just saying that there is a difference between the > response (inside the viewer) and the image (external)... I guess until it > negotiates their optic nerve and visual cortex. > > Tom C. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Paul >> Crovella >> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 6:44 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: PESO 2007 - 46b - GDG >> >> Tom, you're part right. Enjoying art means participating in it and it's > interpretation. >> Abstract art especially so. What the viewer brings to the table is > important and a >> photo >> never stands on its own. >> >> If a photo gets someone to think, to consider it, to make associations, > and to >> participate in art as a verb, it absolutely displays skill of the artist. >> >> Relying on some schtik - overdone HDR tone-mapping, Galen-Rowell-wannabe >> horridly >> oversaturated colors, and the like - that's lazy man's photography. It > relies on >> crutches instead of expression. And that's garbage. >> >> Cheers, >> Paul >> >> Tom C wrote: >>> Really, truthfully, I think a lot of you are in love with the story you > make >>> up in your heads, instead of the image itself. You're not really > admiring >>> the image as much as what you think it means. >>> >>> Shel did this type of thing over and over. A crappy snapshot of a > homeless >>> person on the street may well be a tear-jerker for some, but it doesn't > mean >>> it's a good image or that it displays an artful skill. >>> >>> Because one makes up some 'profound' meaning for a still image one > declares >>> it to be a good photograph, whilst one walks by thousands of similar > equally >>> 'good' images every single day and dismisses them without even actually >>> seeing them. >>> >>> I do like abstract art. I have attempted and succeeded I think with a >>> number of abstract images. What I'm not a fan of us is putting lipstick > on >>> a sow and then giving it a kiss. :-) >>> >>> I find the genre at large to be a bit of a sham, charlatan, a fraud. > Very >>> little effort taking a picture of something very ordinary and rely on > your >>> audience to do all the mental work, and then pronounce it as good > because of >>> what went on in their head, not because of empirical qualities of the > image. >>> Sort of a 'lazy man's photography'. >>> >>> Actually, that's a little harsh but it's what I perceive occurring > often. >>> As far as this image goes, it does nothing for me. I see two small > fallen >>> leaves on a dirty sidewalk amongst bicycle tire tracks. Maybe if there > were >>> more leaves or if they were brighter colors... >>> >>> To be fair, I have seen shots Godfrey has taken that I really enjoyed > even >>> if not my favorite genre. >>> >>> Tom C. >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:08 PM >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> Subject: RE: PESO 2007 - 46b - GDG >>>> >>>>> I guess my distaste for the genre is, that for all appearances, it > does >>>>> not >>>>> rely on the eye or skill of the photographer or the quality of the > image >>>>> necessarily to be successful. And that bothers me because someone > could >>>>> put >>>>> ten of these in mattes and frames and show them to acclaim, when a ten >>> year >>>>> old with a camera snapping at random could come up with something > quite >>>>> similar. I certainly can, walking down any old street, in any city, > USA, >>>>> zip >>>>> code goes here. >>>> I think you are missing something. In my opinion (as a person with an > art >>>> degree), Godfrey's photo is an example of Photography as Fine Art. I > can >>>> assume from your comments that you are not a fan of abstract art, which > is >>> how >>>> I see Godfrey's work from this particular series. >>>> >>>> You see a photo and want it to tell you a story, but it does not have > to. >>>> There are no rules in art. This means that, yes, a child could take >>> similar >>>> photos, hang them and call them art. >>>> >>>> However, if you take a closer look at Godfrey's series, I think you > will >>> see a >>>> lot more skill involved than you think. Composition is a huge part of > his >>>> photos, and it's almost always very good (I realize "good" is > subjective, >>> but >>>> I'm writing from work and don't have enough time to be less so). A > child >>> is >>>> not going to know how to take abstract photos of everyday objects and > make >>> the >>>> composition visually appealing, or notice colors or forms that contrast > or >>>> compliment each other and capture them in a similarly appealing way. >>> Skill is >>>> as much involved in photographing abstract shapes as it is in painting > a >>>> portrait or taking a landscape photograph. >>>> >>>> The child could call their photos art and they would be, but it takes >>> skill to >>>> make that art look good to more than just their parents. >>>> >>>> >>>> John Celio >>>> (I would love to cite particular artists work, but don't remember > enough >>> from >>>> my university naps, er, art history classes) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the >>>> directions. >>> >>> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the >> directions. > > >
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
