Tom C wrote:
I really thought one (Eggleston) was excellent and two others were
very likeable. So I didn't totally dislike his exhbited work, though
those three represent probably 5% of what was displayed.
He just, IMO, seemed a charlatan. Maybe Picasso was too, based on
some elementary school art exhibits I saw hanging in the local mall
today.
It seems to me a question of:
1. Do I like it because it was REALLY a good photograph?
or
2. Do I like it because it brings back fond memories for me, despite
it being a CRAPPY photograph?
If #1, then it was probably a really good photograph.
If #2, then it's because I'm in love with my own memories (nothing
wrong with that) and my emotional response to the image has little to
do with it's artisitic merit.
Tom C.
OK, if we're going to discuss this, first you have to define what
exactly makes a good photograph, without saying "a good photo is not
this..." or "a good photo is not that..."
Fire when ready.
--
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.
