On Dec 6, 2011, at 1:28 AM, Larry Colen wrote: > > On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:17 PM, Bob W wrote: > >> What you're talking about there are the types of photos shown as examples in >> books about photo composition, in which people 'obey the rules' and come out >> with something competent but dull. Pictorial, essentially, in that the >> subject matter is not important, just the formal properties. To get beyond >> that you have to take more interest in the subject matter, and use visual >> grammar as your servant, not as an end in itself. > > That isn't what I thought I was saying, but it's an excellent point. I > wonder if there is a common stage in a photographer's development where they > concentrate so much on technical mastery, that their photos become a little > sterile. According to all of the rules, their photos are excellent...
This is a issue across all the arts--all apprentice artists deal with this at some point in their apprenticeship. Take short fiction: there are lots of technically proficient short stories published in literary journals--and that's good--but in the end, only a few stand out because of subject--or in literary terms their characters jump off the page and the reader cares about them--or in other words--the character's are compelling--they are interesting subject matter. Cheers, Christine -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
