slobodan wrote:
Looks like we are witnessing an epidemic of sour-grape fever among Fatali-bashers. Being light years away from his level of photography, they would rather focus their self-righteous, impotent rage on one single incident. Reducing one's body of work, life-time achievements, extraordinary efforts and dedication to a single (negative) dimension is a sure sign of small mindedness.
Now, I got to go and get my flame-retardant gear.
Slobodan
If your last statement was a pun, it was good one.
Anyways, I remember reading posts that mentioned that
1. His photography was amazing but
2. His actions were unforgivable.
I read the articles about what he did, because I was not aware. This single negative dimension you talk about is a very important dimension; it's one of respect. I'm going to be quite blunt here. The ocean is where my love of nature comes in. I wouldn't throw a drum of gasoline into the water and light it on fire to get a good night shot of the ocean.
What he did was the equivalent of taking a s*** on not only nature, but the whole idea of respect surrounding it. Anyone can have great skill and have that overlooked because of stupid actions; rightfully so.
slobodan wrote:
Looks like we are witnessing an epidemic of sour-grape fever among Fatali-bashers. Being light years away from his level of photography, they would rather focus their self-righteous, impotent rage on one single incident. Reducing one's body of work, life-time achievements, extraordinary efforts and dedication to a single (negative) dimension is a sure sign of small mindedness.
Now, I got to go and get my flame-retardant gear.
Slobodan
Actually we have been discussing the implications of his ongoing marketing campaign as well as his guilty plea to multiple incidents of destruction of public property. Read those reports, there were more instances than just the Duraflame Arch.
I think you might also want to reassess your analysis of the motivations by his critics. A recurring theme every time this comes up is that a few more people who have admired his work find out about what he has done and now hold him in contempt. If they were sour-grape Fatali-bashers then they would never have liked his work in the first place. Indeed, this is exactly what happened to me a couple years ago when I first read one of these threads. What you are seeing is the deep disappointment by those who admired him and his work and now feel betrayed because they trusted in his words of reverence for the land.
Edited by TeamSK jay on Mar 25, 2008 at 01:28 PM GMT
Edited by TeamSK jay on Mar 25, 2008 at 01:29 PM GMT
And I have to say that for me it is much more his ongoing marketing campaign that really solidifies my criticism of him than events in the past. I have actually had people, including family members, dismiss my photography as inherently inferior because a computer was used. When someone with Fatali's stature comes out and says the same thing then it is nothing short of a flagrantly falaicious attack on my chosen artistic process that others see as proof of digital's artistic irrelevance. Seems it isn't good enough for him to just make wonderful photos, he has to *mislead people* about what is really going on in the photographic process and put down other's work just because of the way it was made not because of how it looks.
There is nothing more natural about using manufactured chemicals, substrates and processes designed to achieve deeper saturation than using software on a computer to choose a saturation point. And I'm still wanting to know if he uses an electrical light source when he makes a print.
ajkessler wrote:
Additionally, the guy's a liar/embellisher (if liar is too strong a word for you). His descriptions of some of his shots are laughable. Peter Lik (as well as many others) does the same thing and it pisses me off. I don't know why these guys don't feel like they can be honest about their spectacular shots (well, other than the Delicate Arch incident ).
Desert Rat wrote:
Well, there is one thing you really have to read.. In the gallery Fatali has a statement posted somewhere about his photography. In his statement Fatali mentions he does no manipulation of his images.
I find that very difficult to believe with the colors or saturation oh his prints?
Heck even Ansel Adams did a lot of manipulation of his images in the darkroom...
People who say that in their photographes there's no manipulation are at worse lying or at best fooling themselves. Photography is manipulation. Differents films or RAW coberters will give you as many different rendition of the exact same seen taken under the same conditions. Which is truth? None of them. Heck I'd go as far as saying that a cat or a dragonfly see the world in a different way than we humans (for example by being sensitive to IR pr UV light).
So in essence Fatali's statetemen is a marketing trick.
).