Understood... falling asleep On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Doug Brewer <[email protected]> wrote: > Tom C wrote: > >> I really thought one (Eggleston) was excellent and two others were >> very likeable. So I didn't totally dislike his exhbited work, though >> those three represent probably 5% of what was displayed. >> >> He just, IMO, seemed a charlatan. Maybe Picasso was too, based on >> some elementary school art exhibits I saw hanging in the local mall >> today. >> >> It seems to me a question of: >> >> 1. Do I like it because it was REALLY a good photograph? >> >> or >> >> 2. Do I like it because it brings back fond memories for me, despite >> it being a CRAPPY photograph? >> >> If #1, then it was probably a really good photograph. >> >> If #2, then it's because I'm in love with my own memories (nothing >> wrong with that) and my emotional response to the image has little to >> do with it's artisitic merit. >> >> Tom C. >> > > OK, if we're going to discuss this, first you have to define what exactly > makes a good photograph, without saying "a good photo is not this..." or "a > good photo is not that..." > > Fire when ready. > > > -- > 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.
