My goodness Graywolf, I thought you were sporting a Hillary for President sticker for a little while there... Bob S.
On 9/19/05, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > May I comment (as if you could stop me)? > > Man is a tribal, village creature. The psychs say that although we live > in cities with millions of people in them, we still limit ourselves to > about 200 whom we interact with seriously. You seem to have noticed > that, and your photo shows your reaction. It is good art. I know you > feel pretentious about calling your photography art, but art in not > pretentious. (However ART is. Folks who say they are ARTISTS are those > we have to watch out for.) Most of the photos you show do convey > something to the viewer beyond the obvious (unlike most of my stuff > which are simply pictures of people or things). To me that IS art. > > --graywolf (who really has to get his sig file reconnected, but at least > the computer is working again). > > ----- > > > frank theriault wrote: > > >On 9/19/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>What I was asking about, and commenting upon, is that I find it strange > >>that ~you~ wouldn't know why you liked your own work. > >> > >>Every time you edit your photos you're critiquing your work. When you > >>shoot a roll of 36 and decide to print but one or two, you've made an > >>editorial decision, decided which is acceptable and which is not. I would > >>think that if you understood why you liked a photo, what made it work for > >>you, it might be helpful. > >> > >>I'm just trying to have a conversation with you frank, open a little > >>dialogue. Sounds like I've offended or annoyed you in some way. > >> > >>Shel > >> > >> > > > >Well, to be quite honest with you, Shel, I did bristle a bit last > >night when I read your initial comment, and I admit that I was being > >petulant and maybe even a bit childish in my responses - for which I > >apologize. > > > >What bothered me wasn't the "wasted frame" thing, although I disagree, > >and I suppose I'd have simply preferred that you said you didn't like > >the photo - with or without reasons. What bothered me was (what I > >perceived as) your sarcasm as follows: "Print it big, mount it > >nicely, display it with good lighting, and will become something > >special for someone. Oh, yeah, ask a lot of money for it as well." > > > >All that being said, I actually know why I like it, I just feel rather > >uncomfortable talking about it, and besides, I really do think that > >it's more important viewers form their own opinions as to why they > >feel the way they do about a given piece. However, I like it due to > >the following (among other) reasons: > > > >Okay, it's blurry. It's not a motion blur like a car, scooter, bike > >or even a pedestrian going by. It's me, the photographer, moving past > >the scene that's causing the blur. When I'm walking through a crowded > >city, I don't make connections with most of those that I pass. I only > >see them peripherally. I walk by them without noticing them, and they > >don't notice me - as the fellow in the foreground of the photo seems > >to be unaware of my presence. > > > >So, to me, this is about the disconnect of living and moving about in > >a big city. The irony that among millions of people, we actually have > >fewer close relationships - we walk around with blinders on, oblivious > >to what's around us. It's as if we have sensory overload, and it all > >becomes a blur - just like the picture. Have you ever felt that way? > >I have. > > > >The reason I don't like talking like that, is that I hate sounding > >overblown, pretentious and all artsy about it - especially since it > >really is just a blurry photo. I didn't intend for it to come out > >that way, it just did, and I saw the neg, and I thought it looked > >pretty cool. I wouldn't say it was an accident, but I wouldn't say > >that I took the photo thinking it would look that way, either. > > > >It just is what it is. > > > >cheers, > >frnk > > > > > > > >
