I wish ....
Quote:I for one, still bemoan the total lack of EXIF data submitted by some posters
What good is EXIF if the image is a blend (as in exposure blend for landscapes) or composite - it can be very misleading - and before anyone says it won't have the EXIF it uses the crack ground layer.
For example this was one of mine (I don't bother stopping EXIF, but in hindsight should as some obviously believe the EXIF info is gospel) but its misleading, for one only one of the images had that Lens/Camera combination, there were at least 5 other images in the mix ( I can't honestly remember)
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Perhaps (and I am mechanically inclined) the technical aspects of photography make it interesting, whereas, in my opinion, anyone can use a brush to slap some paint on.
Having evolved from simple artist to photographer quite recently, I am amused by your rather disparaging take on the world of art. Personally, though I did have some small success as a painter, I never found using a brush to slap some paint on quite that easy!
However, back to the original point, where we will probably disagree again....
An image should surely stand on its own merit without need for a description or maybe even a title. It should be judged on quality and artistic merit! alone. Surely the description is just wrapping paper to enhance and add interest to an already fine piece of work.
Surely the description is just wrapping paper to enhance and add interest to an already fine piece of work. Said p120we.
And what would be wrong with that then? It really is that seemples.
And what would be wrong with that then? It really is that seemples.
Quote:or maybe even a title
OK
If every upload here on epz did not have a title then how would you refer to them individually ?
When I meet up with some epz friends now and again we often talk about images we have seen but without even a Title that would be impossible.
Quote:If every upload here on epz did not have a title then how would you refer to them individually ?
When I meet up with some epz friends now and again we often talk about images we have seen but without even a Title that would be impossible.
One of the most acclaimed photographers at the moment is Gregory Crewdson all his works are titled "untitled", - with no description. not that I would encourage it, but sometimes as in the case of Crewdsons work it's in keeping with the anonymity desolation and hope he conveys. I would thoroughly recommend his book "Beneath the Roses".
[\quote]
Having evolved from simple artist to photographer quite recently, I am amused by your rather disparaging take on the world of art. Personally, though I did have some small success as a painter, I never found using a brush to slap some paint on quite that easy!
However, back to the original point, where we will probably disagree again....
An image should surely stand on its own merit without need for a description or maybe even a title. It should be judged on quality and artistic merit! alone. Surely the description is just wrapping paper to enhance and add interest to an already fine piece of work.
As an Artist myself I also smiled at the "Paint slapping" with painting there is a tad more to it than that
I am surprised though that you should feel the work should stand alone with out description, ? or title ?
Viewing any imagery provokes emotion, and with holding a title or description then for me that is asking too much of the viewer because it is too disconcerting, the viewer can feel they are vulnerable to being mislead, and confused.
The description provides context, no one is obligated to provide it, but endlessly enigmatic imagery is initially irritating, and many viewers will not want to climb that hurdle, and the few that will, do so because they are looking for real meaning, so it better be good! or it comes out as empty pretension.
Many people think Rothko's blue canvases are a total joke, because they do not know the context in which they were painted, and Rothko himself was determined to give as little as he could away, I don't think many people would disagree with the suggestion that Rothko is tough going for the viewer, but his work survives and has filtered down in to many peoples awareness because it is actually very good.
Placing too many demands on the viewer is a very rocky road for the amateur, they don't even have an established reputation to trust, and then the suggestion that they are "Paint slapping" or " Button pushing" becomes slightly more valid than the one of "Genius".
Having evolved from simple artist to photographer quite recently, I am amused by your rather disparaging take on the world of art. Personally, though I did have some small success as a painter, I never found using a brush to slap some paint on quite that easy!
However, back to the original point, where we will probably disagree again....
An image should surely stand on its own merit without need for a description or maybe even a title. It should be judged on quality and artistic merit! alone. Surely the description is just wrapping paper to enhance and add interest to an already fine piece of work.
As an Artist myself I also smiled at the "Paint slapping" with painting there is a tad more to it than that
I am surprised though that you should feel the work should stand alone with out description, ? or title ?
Viewing any imagery provokes emotion, and with holding a title or description then for me that is asking too much of the viewer because it is too disconcerting, the viewer can feel they are vulnerable to being mislead, and confused.
The description provides context, no one is obligated to provide it, but endlessly enigmatic imagery is initially irritating, and many viewers will not want to climb that hurdle, and the few that will, do so because they are looking for real meaning, so it better be good! or it comes out as empty pretension.
Many people think Rothko's blue canvases are a total joke, because they do not know the context in which they were painted, and Rothko himself was determined to give as little as he could away, I don't think many people would disagree with the suggestion that Rothko is tough going for the viewer, but his work survives and has filtered down in to many peoples awareness because it is actually very good.
Placing too many demands on the viewer is a very rocky road for the amateur, they don't even have an established reputation to trust, and then the suggestion that they are "Paint slapping" or " Button pushing" becomes slightly more valid than the one of "Genius".
Once again, the peasant, I've just had to type 'Rothko' into google images because I've never heard of him and having seen what google brought up, I can understand why.
If that nonsense has some kind of meaning for someone, then OK, they might enjoy it but however much people might choose to read into it, it would be hard to deny that to most people, those images really do look as if someone's slapped on some paint.
With all due respect to those than can somehow appreciate it, I've seen very, very similar work in the 'Early Years' classroom at the school where I used to work.
If that nonsense has some kind of meaning for someone, then OK, they might enjoy it but however much people might choose to read into it, it would be hard to deny that to most people, those images really do look as if someone's slapped on some paint.
With all due respect to those than can somehow appreciate it, I've seen very, very similar work in the 'Early Years' classroom at the school where I used to work.
Quote:[\quote]
Many people think Rothko's blue canvases are a total joke, because they do not know the context in which they were painted, and Rothko himself was determined to give as little as he could away, I don't think many people would disagree with the suggestion that Rothko is tough going for the viewer, but his work survives and has filtered down in to many peoples awareness because it is actually very good.
.
Some people say that my photography is a total joke, and I certainly don't give the secrets of my brilliance away lightly. Just because the peasants out there don't appreciate it, it just means they haven't caught up with me yet!
Come on; who are you trying to kid! It's the Emperor's new clothes all over again. If the general public don't appreciate it; it's rubbish, a bit like an unmade bed!
Quote:If the general public don't appreciate it; it's rubbish, a bit like an unmade bed!
So somethings got to be popular to be good ??? like Jedwood ?
Greatest talent to come out of Ireland in many a decade!
Quote:Van Gogh was crap,
You've seen "Sunflowers" then!
Quote:Once again, the peasant, I've just had to type 'Rothko' into google images because I've never heard of him and having seen what google brought up, I can understand why.
If that nonsense has some kind of meaning for someone, then OK, they might enjoy it but however much people might choose to read into it, it would be hard to deny that to most people, those images really do look as if someone's slapped on some paint.
With all due respect to those than can somehow appreciate it, I've seen very, very similar work in the 'Early Years' classroom at the school where I used to work.
I had to find this quote on Wikipedia for you, as i wasn't sure i remembered it correctly.
Rothko had undertaken a Commission to produce paintings for the very expensive up market four seasons restaurant in New York.
"he disclosed to John Fischer, publisher of Harper's, that his true intention for the Seagram murals was to paint "something that will ruin the appetite of every son-of-a-bitch who ever eats in that room. If the restaurant would refuse to put up my murals, that would be the ultimate compliment. But they won't. People can stand anything these days."
I read somewhere that Rothko was profoundly disturbed by the sight of the homeless and poor rummaging in the restaurant bins for discarded food,
and he despised how his work had become a commercial commodity for the rich.
The trouble with Rothko was he was so unwilling to disclose his intentions at the time, he made his painting easy to dismiss, but then again perhaps that was his deliberate intention ?
I've seen several of his canvases at the National Gallery in London, and his method of painting very thin layers over very thin layers, gives them a glow that is impossible to reproduce in print, but seeing them as they were meant to be seen in person, some of his work is breath taking in its warmth and very beautiful, and some of it makes you glad you don't have to live with it. knowing a bit of back ground to them makes that very understandable.
But again its the lack of context that is the barrier to the work, once you know that some of it is meant to be repulsive, you get why you feel that.
( Rothko also took much inspiration from his work with children , so you are spot on with your observations jester about the classroom walls.
young children see things very directly, and you never hear a very young child say they cannot draw, that only starts when they reach the point of understanding comparison and applying it negatively to themselves.)
Quote:Van Gogh was crap,
You've seen "Sunflowers" then!
And I thought that would be right up your street Jester - simple central composition
Cafe Terrace At Night is superb, what I like is that even the simple has a dark under current. The turbulence in the brush strokes in all his images probably was a reflection of his state of mind.
