> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected]
> His paintings are a hell of a lot sharper than my photographs. > > ;-) > > I suppose that his technique (or at least the result) is interesting, > but the subject matter is rather banal. It looks like that's the way he > wants it, and he's entitled.to that. If some find that the technique or > style overwhelms content to the point that the mundane has value then > they're entitled to that, too. > > I actually like hyper-real painting but for me it works much better if > the subject matter holds my interest. This gentleman's work (from what > I've seen) doesn't. > > Cheers, > frank from what I've seen the banality of the prima facie subject matter is important, because the real subject matter is not the bottles, or the newspapers or the sunset, but the act of looking. I find that quite interesting. It reminds me quite a lot of the early novels by Nicholson Baker, which are minute-scale examinations of banal events, such as a worker's lunchtime spent in a chemist's shop. The world in a grain of sand, that kind of thing. Minute examination of the familiar leads to new ways of looking. In these pictures he also seems to have a thing about words, and fragments of word, which adds a dimension. B -- 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.
