Re: To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
AGeoJO wrote:
It really doesn\'t look difficult at all to \"recapture\" that image. Even the skypart, which is basically gray and boring, is not tough to be recreated. Oh, well....
The technical ease or difficulty required to create a piece of work does not by itself define the merits of art.
However, that point aside, much of Gursky\'s work does actually require a lot of set up time and post production effort. So I do not actually think you do realize the complexity that went into producing what on the surface is a simple abstract composition. The print itself is nearly 12 feet wide...a tad beyond the scope of a single raw file from a DSLR (especially 12 years ago when it was made). Creating the image itself also involved manipulation to remove buildings, shrubbery and other distractions from the background. And face mounting to acrylic is not as simple as popping a photograph into a poster frame.
Moreover, as another poster suggested above, what you are missing here is context.
Re: To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
AGeoJO wrote:
It really doesn\'t look difficult at all to \"recapture\" that image. Even the skypart, which is basically gray and boring, is not tough to be recreated. Oh, well....
The technical ease or difficulty required to create a piece of work does not by itself define the merits of art.
However, that point aside, much of Gursky\'s work does actually require a lot of set up time and post production effort. So I do not actually think you do realize the complexity that went into producing what on the surface is a simple abstract composition. The print itself is nearly 12 feet wide...a tad beyond the scope of a single raw file from a DSLR (especially 12 years ago when it was made). Creating the image itself also involved manipulation to remove buildings from the background. And face mounting to acrylic is not as simple as popping a photograph into a poster frame.
Moreover, as another poster suggested above, what you are missing here is context.
Re: To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
AGeoJO wrote:
It really doesn\'t look difficult at all to \"recapture\" that image. Even the skypart, which is basically gray and boring, is not tough to be recreated. Oh, well....
The technical ease or difficulty required to create a piece of work does not by itself define the merits of art.
However, that point aside, much of Gursky\'s work does actually require a lot of set up time and post production effort. So I do not actually think you do realize the complexity that went into producing what on the surface is a simple abstract composition. The print itself is nearly12 feet wide...a tad beyond the scope of a single raw file from a DSLR (especially 12 years ago). Creating the image itself also involved manipulation to remove buildings from the background. And face mounting to acrylic is not as simple as popping a photograph into a poster frame.
Moreover, as another poster suggested above, what you are missing here is context.
Re: To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
AGeoJO wrote:
It really doesn\'t look difficult at all to \"recapture\" that image. Even the skypart, which is basically gray and boring, is not tough to be recreated. Oh, well....
The technical ease or difficulty required to create a piece of work does not by itself define the merits of art.
However, that point aside, much of Gursky\'s work does actually require a lot of set up time and post production effort. So I do not actually think you do realize the complexity that went into producing what on the surface is a simple abstract composition. The print itself is something like 11 feet wide...a tad beyond the scope of a single raw file from a DSLR (especially 12 years ago). Creating the image itself also involved manipulation to remove buildings from the background. And face mounting to acrylic is not as simple as popping a photograph into a poster frame.
Moreover, as another poster suggested above, what you are missing here is context.
Re: To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
AGeoJO wrote:
It really doesn\'t look difficult at all to \"recapture\" that image. Even the skypart, which is basically gray and boring, is not tough to be recreated. Oh, well....
The technical ease or difficulty required to create a piece of work does not by itself define the merits of art.
However, that point aside, much of Gursky\'s work does actually require a lot of set up time and post production effort. So I do not actually think you do realize the complexity that went into producing what on the surface is a simple abstrat composition. The print itself is something like 11 feet wide...a tad beyond the scope of a single raw file from a DSLR (especially 12 years ago). Creating the image itself also involved manipulation to remove buildings from the background. And face mounting to acrylic is not as simple as popping a photograph into a poster frame.
Moreover, as another poster suggested above, what you are missing here is context.
Re: To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
AGeoJO wrote:
It really doesn\'t look difficult at all to \"recapture\" that image. Even the skypart, which is basically gray and boring, is not tough to be recreated. Oh, well....
The technical ease or difficulty required to create a piece of work does not by itself define the merits of art.
Nov 11, 2011 at 01:08 PM
Previous versions of artd's message #10076789 « To think I would not have even kept this Raw File... »
