And it's framed!
-----Original Message----- >From: "Daniel J. Matyola" <[email protected] >Subject: Re: And now... a fake moon photo > >Rhine II must be great art. It is in the Tate. > >Dan Matyola >http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola > > >On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Knarf <[email protected]> wrote: >> Well, here's what I think about Rhine II: I don't know. >> >> I've never really seen it. I've seen representations and scaled down copies >> of it but before I can really comment I'd have to personally experience one >> of the six existing copies of it and spend some time with with same. After >> all isn't it's scale part of tbe message? >> >> That being said, I think part of what many see as problematic with it is >> summed up thusly: "I coulda takin' the same thing with m' iPhone when me 'n >> Mabel wint ta Europe there, las' summer!" >> >> But of course Jeb didn't and if he did, it surely isn't hanging up in the >> Tate Modern just now, so there must be something special about Gursky's >> piece. >> >> I like the proportions, the colours and what it says, the fact that the >> Rhine, or at least portions of it and other industrial "working" rivers, are >> about as far-removed from Nature as an Interstate Highway or the Autobahn. >> >> I have a problem with its value, to be sure, but that has more to do with >> the fine art industry than whether it's a good or great photo. Its value (or >> more precisely, its price) make it a pretty juicy target for reactionary >> "critics" in the right wing tabloids and make it hard for anyone to be >> objective... >> >> I've said too much already. So I'll stop. But I'm with you, Ann! >> >> Cheers, >> >> frank >> >> On 29 September, 2015 11:24:38 PM EDT, ann sanfedele <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>On 9/29/2015 11:07 PM, P.J. Alling wrote: >>> >>>......(snip snip) >>>> The issue I have is when someone represents a composite photo as >>>reality. >>> >>>Me too, P.J. >>> >>>I rather like RHINE II , actually. But then I like Kenneth Noland too >>> >>>ann >>> >>>> >>>> On 9/29/2015 10:57 PM, Knarf wrote: >>>>> Well, for one thing Rhine II sold for $4.3 million while this piece >>>>> of dreck is on Facebook. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> frank >>>>> >>>>> On 29 September, 2015 10:13:37 PM EDT, "P.J. Alling" >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Though the technique leaves a bit to be desired, is this really any >>>>>> different than Rhine II? >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/29/2015 8:43 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: >>>>>>> I'm normally averse to grabbing other people's shots from >>>Facebook, >>>>>>> but this fake really pissed me off. I forget who the (claimed) >>>>>>> photographer is, but that's just as well. This is allegedly an >>>>>> "antler >>>>>>> arch" in Jackson Hole, Wyoming photographed at such an angle as to >>>>>> put >>>>>>> the lunar eclipse right next to it. Count the ways in which this >>>>>>> screams "fake"... before you even try opening it up in Photoshop >>>and >>>>>>> brightening it enough to see how shitty the cut-and-paste really >>>was. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.robertstech.com/temp/FakeRedMoon.jpg -- 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.
