Steve ... That's their problem, not yours. Regardless of what approach you take, what subject(s) you present, there will be people who don't get it, don't like it, don't appreciate it, or who love what you're doing. You must work from the premise that you can't please everyone all the time, that no matter what you do there will be those who like, appreciate, and understand your work and those who don't. If too many people like what you're doing, then you're not trying hard enough, not pushing the edges of creativity. Do what you do, what you like to do, and damn the naysayers, but, on the other hand, always listen to constructive criticism (you don't always have to follow it, but pay attention to it) and don't let your head get too big when you receive a lot of praise.
A lot of people (here and in other venues) produce mediocre pap which is very appealing to many people. Their work makes few, if any, demands on the viewer, offers little to think about, teaches nothing, and is appealing only in its inoffensiveness and neutrality. If that's what makes them happy, fine. OTOH, some photographers (and other artists) take a different approach, push themselves and their creativity, and try to stimulate their audience with something that's new or challenging. These people will offend and upset more people than the "Hallmark" artists, yet, in the long run, their work will better stand the test of time and the rigors of creative criticism. Well, time to suffer some more for my "art." <LOL> Back to work. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 6/30/2004 7:18:00 AM > Subject: Re: PAW: at long last > > I tried that with my last PAW - I got two confused replies from people > saying they couldn't work out what the subject was, and not a single > comment on the photo! :-) > > S > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, graywolf wrote: > > This brings up something I have been thinking about here a bit. > > > > In the past couple of weeks we have seen several photos which had long > > intros. The thing I noticed about them all is that the long intro led me to > > expect something I did not see in the photo. In every case the photos were > > capable of standing on their own, but did not live up to the intro. So my > > conclusion is that one should not explain a photo before showing it.
