gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #7 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File... | |
Tom K. wrote:
The emperor has no cloths.
But perhaps he has clothes? ;-)
EB-1 wrote:
It looks like a bad pan and stitch to me with poorly aligned grass. Am I missing something??
Yes.
marko1953 wrote:
I accompanied an art teacher and class to the art gallery in Sydney recently. There was a presentation on "Landscape Photography" which I sat through. I listened to a very learned art expert talk about various artists and she showed the photos on a projector. I was shocked! One work was a grassy mound with no trees. To me I would have deleted it from my camera, plain, boring no centre of interest....
As a prelude to what I'm going to write, if you don't' already know it, much of my work is probably the sort of landscape photography that many of you would do and probably the sort of stuff that you imagine "has value" in contrast to the Gursky work that has been described here in all sorts of offensive terms. Some of you might even admit to liking some of it.
I have found it far more useful and profitable to expose myself to a wide range of photographic genres, with the goal of understanding them rather than ridiculing them. It takes a bit of effort to seek out and attempt to understand work that you initially don't understand, may not enjoy, and may even think is worthless. But if you don't engage the work it will, indeed, never be anything more than this. If you do make an honest attempt to understand, a couple of outcomes are possible.
1. Your actual knowledge of the work and its creator will allow you to articulately voice your disagreement and your contrary opinion, rather than bleating stuff about "junk" and "cloths" and all the rest. In other words, you will be able to confirm your dislike for the work. No loss, aside from a bit of time.
2. On the other hand, you might discover that there is more to the work than you imagined via your initial superficial and naive look. And if you do discover this - and it happens frequently if you actually invest yourself in it - there are all sorts of potential benefits. For one, you may find to your surprise that something you regarded as "junk" actually has the power to affect and move you in ways that are worth experiencing. For another, you might find that the exposure to work outside your normal comfort zone will help you grow as a photographer - unless you think that a) there is nothing left for you to learn, and b) your work is as perfect as it can possibly be.
Again, keeping in mind the sort of work that I do, I have found inspiration for my own photography in work that bears almost no superficial connection to what I do: Gursky, Wall, Avedon, Arbus, Penn, Burtynsky, and many more too numerous to list. There is a lot to see and learn in even that non-photographic "art" stuff that some of you seem to ready to dismiss.
In my view, while conventional beauty is important in much of my photography, photography has the capacity to do much more than produce another pretty sunset photograph of Yosemite Valley from Tunnel View.
It is hubris to think that all that you know is all that is worth knowing and that the only explanation for other points of view is that those others must be naive, stupid, or fools.
Dan
|
besides looks like overexposed ... 