I understand clearly that a photograph will evoke different responses in different people. I'm just saying that there is a difference between the response (inside the viewer) and the image (external)... I guess until it negotiates their optic nerve and visual cortex.
Tom C. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul > Crovella > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 6:44 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: PESO 2007 - 46b - GDG > > Tom, you're part right. Enjoying art means participating in it and it's interpretation. > Abstract art especially so. What the viewer brings to the table is important and a > photo > never stands on its own. > > If a photo gets someone to think, to consider it, to make associations, and to > participate in art as a verb, it absolutely displays skill of the artist. > > Relying on some schtik - overdone HDR tone-mapping, Galen-Rowell-wannabe > horridly > oversaturated colors, and the like - that's lazy man's photography. It relies on > crutches instead of expression. And that's garbage. > > Cheers, > Paul > > Tom C wrote: > > Really, truthfully, I think a lot of you are in love with the story you make > > up in your heads, instead of the image itself. You're not really admiring > > the image as much as what you think it means. > > > > Shel did this type of thing over and over. A crappy snapshot of a homeless > > person on the street may well be a tear-jerker for some, but it doesn't mean > > it's a good image or that it displays an artful skill. > > > > Because one makes up some 'profound' meaning for a still image one declares > > it to be a good photograph, whilst one walks by thousands of similar equally > > 'good' images every single day and dismisses them without even actually > > seeing them. > > > > I do like abstract art. I have attempted and succeeded I think with a > > number of abstract images. What I'm not a fan of us is putting lipstick on > > a sow and then giving it a kiss. :-) > > > > I find the genre at large to be a bit of a sham, charlatan, a fraud. Very > > little effort taking a picture of something very ordinary and rely on your > > audience to do all the mental work, and then pronounce it as good because of > > what went on in their head, not because of empirical qualities of the image. > > Sort of a 'lazy man's photography'. > > > > Actually, that's a little harsh but it's what I perceive occurring often. > > > > As far as this image goes, it does nothing for me. I see two small fallen > > leaves on a dirty sidewalk amongst bicycle tire tracks. Maybe if there were > > more leaves or if they were brighter colors... > > > > To be fair, I have seen shots Godfrey has taken that I really enjoyed even > > if not my favorite genre. > > > > Tom C. > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:08 PM > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> Subject: RE: PESO 2007 - 46b - GDG > >> > >>> I guess my distaste for the genre is, that for all appearances, it does > >>> not > >>> rely on the eye or skill of the photographer or the quality of the image > >>> necessarily to be successful. And that bothers me because someone could > >>> put > >>> ten of these in mattes and frames and show them to acclaim, when a ten > > year > >>> old with a camera snapping at random could come up with something quite > >>> similar. I certainly can, walking down any old street, in any city, USA, > >>> zip > >>> code goes here. > >> I think you are missing something. In my opinion (as a person with an art > >> degree), Godfrey's photo is an example of Photography as Fine Art. I can > >> assume from your comments that you are not a fan of abstract art, which is > > how > >> I see Godfrey's work from this particular series. > >> > >> You see a photo and want it to tell you a story, but it does not have to. > >> There are no rules in art. This means that, yes, a child could take > > similar > >> photos, hang them and call them art. > >> > >> However, if you take a closer look at Godfrey's series, I think you will > > see a > >> lot more skill involved than you think. Composition is a huge part of his > >> photos, and it's almost always very good (I realize "good" is subjective, > > but > >> I'm writing from work and don't have enough time to be less so). A child > > is > >> not going to know how to take abstract photos of everyday objects and make > > the > >> composition visually appealing, or notice colors or forms that contrast or > >> compliment each other and capture them in a similarly appealing way. > > Skill is > >> as much involved in photographing abstract shapes as it is in painting a > >> portrait or taking a landscape photograph. > >> > >> The child could call their photos art and they would be, but it takes > > skill to > >> make that art look good to more than just their parents. > >> > >> > >> John Celio > >> (I would love to cite particular artists work, but don't remember enough > > from > >> my university naps, er, art history classes) > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> [email protected] > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > > follow the > >> directions. > > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the > directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
