On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:53 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote: >> > > I think it was great to see so many of Eggleston's images together. What > emerged was more than the sum of the individual images. Take series of > pictures called "election eve", for example. The individual pictures in that > series I found to be badly composed and mere recordings of mundane places and > objects of daily life. Together, they conveyed something about the mood on > that particular night in American history to me. And maybe something about > ordinary people's attitude to the whole election process? I dunno... But put > together like that I found Eggleston's images to have far more power than I > had ever expected from seeing individual pictures presented together with > works of other photographers. They seemed carefully selected to be pieces in > a bigger puzzle. > Then take our PDML exhibit. Images produced by 40 minds, with 40 individual > styles, ideas, techniques, etc., etc. > Excellent imagery, and put together it spoke loudly of how much fun we have > together on this list. Visitors to Dank Haus without any connection to PDML > on the other hand, would probably start looking for connections between the > images. Maybe to see some collective thought we wished to express beyond the > obvious joy of exhibiting together. > I'm not saying there isn't one. I just say the comparison is unfair.
Interesting. You must have a much more educated eye and a more cultured palette than I do. I've noticed that in almost any artistic endeavour, people's tastes tend to change the more that they learn. I was unable to appreciate the exhibit as a whole because I couldn't get past my being underwhelmed by so many of the individual photos. > >> After discussing a few technical details with "art photographers" I really >> think that what separates an art photographer from a photographic >> hobbyist is merely marketing and a finely developed sense of pretension. >> It sure as hell isn't technical skill or quality of work. > > If you strike out "finely developed sense of pretension", you're pretty close > to that art photography lecturer from Gothenburg. She redressed "marketing" > as "catering to the right audience", and the importance of putting the work > into a defined project with a defined idea or purpose. IIRC, the whole > Eggleston exhibit was also organised so that images belonging to each of his > projects hung together. > > Why do we always accuse art photographers of pretentiousness, btw? Seems like > the law of Jante to me... I had to look up the law of Jante. Actually, it's not art photographers per se, but artists as a whole. It seems that most "serious" discussion of art by artists sounds like a pedantic critique of Vogon poetry. > > Jostein > > -- > 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. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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.
