Your comment is fascinating in that it contradicts itself. Much of what I am posting now are, indeed, older photos, but many newer photos with a totally different slant have also been posted here. There's a reason why the older pics are being posted, but, interspersed with them are newer ones as well. You choose to see, or exemplify, that which makes your point. You say I haven't grown as a photographer in 30 years, yet you choose to ignore, or even ask about, any newer work.
Newer work includes my mural project, Bonnie's Piano, the porn star portraits (which will never appear here) any number of digital snaps, several portraits (Man Waiting for Ketchup comes to mind), some pet photos, and so on. Whether I've grown as a photographer is, of course, a matter of opinion. A lot of what I photograph comes from a singular vision - no different, essentially, than those photographing rocks and bugs, or macro shots. I choose mostly to photograph people, and choose to explore them in some depth (whether or not the photos are successful is also a matter of opinion - I sometimes fail, and am not the least bit reluctant to acknowledge that). Of course, this begs the question: what constitutes growth? Different subject matter? Using different or more advanced equipment? Honing one's skills? Using different film stock (moving from B&W to color, or vice versa)? Greater insight? Without defining your term, it's hard to agree or disagree with you. Personally, since you know so little about me, and the work I do, I wonder how you can make such a judgement, at least without qualification. As for sophomoric pretentiousness, methinks you're riding too high a horse and tend to look down from that vantage point. Let's be fair, though, for in the past you've made it clear that you find my work boring, so comments from you about their quality and value are considered with that in mind. And, just to be fair about it, I know that a lot of people on this list consider me to be pretentious, and that's fine. Of course, none of those fine folks have ever met me, sat down across the table for a good conversation, or had a chance to look at my work apart from a few pics I've put up here. So, join the crowd ... or create one of your own <LOL> And don't foist off that bullshit about you not meaning to be critical. By making comments, judging us and our work, you are indeed being critical, and being a critic. That's cool, for by posting our work here, and by contributing to this forum, we - Frank, Ann, I, and others - open ourselves up to criticism. What you seem to be trying to do by your comment is to soften any blows or hard feelings you may have created, slap a happy face on your comments, and distance yourself from your words, perhaps even abrogate some responsibility for your them. Stand up to them, Tom They're your words, and if you mean what you say, own 'em completely. If you don't mean what you say, think twice about posting them in an open forum. One of the aspects of criticism, or, rather, critics, that is so fascinating, is that many critics are just that. They will judge, compliment, condemn, and suggest that the artist do this or that, place a value on his or her work, and so forth, without being an artist themselves, or without putting their work where their mouth is, so to speak <vbg>. While this is, of course, an acceptable practice, and maybe quite valid, it leaves a gap that, imo, needs to be filled, especially on this forum, and that is seeing the critic's creative work (apart from the criticism, which, in and of itself is sometimes quite creative <LOL>) to be able to put the critic's comments in perspective. So, here are Frank, and Ann, and so many others, stepping forth and putting their work out there for all to see, and maybe for some to criticize. And when these same people offer a critique or suggestions for someone else's work there is a context for their comments. We know what their work is, what they like to photograph, their technical skills, the quality level at which they work, and so on. Their comments (and their guts in putting their egos and sensitivity on line for all to see) are welcome and applauded, regardless of whether there is agreement or not. You, OTOH, talk a good game, but, apart from one photo, as far as I know you've not presented your work here, certainly nothing recently. You clearly know some technical stuff, but where's your work? Show us some of what you do. Let us have a point of reference for your comments and opinions. If you want to jump into the pool and splash water at the other kids, you should at least be a good enough sport to allow yourself to get splashed back. Give us some context for your comments. It's easy to be a critic and to be judgemental in the fashion that you've chosen. It's safe, for what can anyone say? You stand protected by a certain anonymity. You separate yourself from those that choose to expose themselves. Let's get back to pretentiousness, for a moment. It was recently pointed out to me that pretense is defined as something fake, the act of holding out something false or feigned, that which is pretended or false. You call my work pretentious, yet the work is here and real, it is done - and you said it - with technical skill, a point that I might argue. Regardless, there's no pretense here. Yet you espouse your criticism and show no body of work, new or old, good or bad. One may argue that such is quite pretentious. So, Tom, after bad-mouthing the PAW at its inception, after accusing me of attempting to hijack the list for my own purposes (you never did make it clear what those purposes were or are), after judging others and labeling them, and labeling me and my work as well, I ask you, why are you commenting here? Where's your work? Back on the streets of New York we'd say "Put up or shut up." Shel > [Original Message] > From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 6/30/2004 9:35:51 AM > Subject: Re: PAW: at long last > > "I don't like it", is a positive statement. You have hit an emotion. > > "I don't get it", is not. It is a shrug and a yawn. > > To me most of Shel's stuff is a rehash of the college student's "My snapshots > are great art" pretentiousness of the late 60's early 70's (to give him credit > most of what he shows us was shot back then). However, I do not see where he has > grown in the last 30 years or so. > > As an example look at the difference between Shel's technically excellent shots, > and Frank's seemingly similar "I don't give a damn about that technical stuff" > shots. Frank somehow conveys his sense of excitement with what he is doing to > me, while Shel's come across as "I have done this 10,000 times before". > > As a contrast, for those who have seen AnnSan's portfolio, her street photos are > kind of in the middle, between Shel's and Frank's emotionally, but her photos > also stand up separately from her as a photographer. Which to me indicates that > as a photographer she is a better artist. She also shows comfort with a much > wider range of subject matter than either Shel or Frank seem to. > > All the above is obviously merely my opinion and terribly subjective. It is not > meant as a criticism of any of the folks whom I have mention. I used them as > examples because I feel that many on the list are familiar to a certain extent > with their photography. > > To put all this into perspective I consider myself as a technically adequate > snapshooter without pretension to being anything else. In 50 years of > photography I can only think of 10-12 of my shots that I feel had much in the > way of artistic merit, and those were accidental rather than planned. > > One thing everyone here on the list should remember. If your photo does for you > what you wanted it to do, whether as a memory jogger, to make you a buck, or as > great art to be hung on the wall, then it is a successful photo, no matter what > I, or Shel, or any one else on the list says of it. If it does not then you have > more to learn. > > -- > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > -- > graywolf > http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html >
