Thats some pretty harsh light but I like the "Flow" concept.
Posted by Mark Hudon on April 16, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Hmmm... I'm confused.
Posted by Tomas Kaspar on April 16, 2007 at 11:52 AM
No don't like. Too messy.
Posted by Doyle Thomas on April 16, 2007 at 1:39 PM
If you read my post on "advise to new photographers" then you understand the most used approach to natural landscape Photography.
The landscape is busy or messy, use what ever word you like. Go past the rules and see.
This is part of a growing body of work. While each is strong enough to stand alone as a body their strength grows.
Doyle
Posted by Marc Adamus on April 16, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Doyle, I am not feeling this one at all. Sorry.
Posted by Darren White on April 16, 2007 at 8:07 PM
Doyle, you are gonna have to explain what it is you are or were going for on this one.....
I am lost!
Posted by Rick Lundh on April 16, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Doyle,
I could ask you to explain what you are trying to get across here...but really, in my opinion...this doesn't work for me and I can bet that it wont be a seller anywhere. I am not trying to sound rude...and I hope you can understand our vantage point.
I read your post on the other thread...but didn't personally relate to that either.
Posted by Doyle Thomas on April 16, 2007 at 11:59 PM
Well, look at what is happening here, This image has invoked a response, maybe even pinched a nerve. If that is not Fine Art what is? There is no need to be grounded in convention.
There is lots of very good traditional landscape Photography on this site, and I enjoy seeing (and making)this kind of work. The key word being traditional. I am simply pushing the edge. Some people can not listen to Jazz or classical music because the sound is too complex.
These images are intended to provide the viewer with no focal point and no instructions to move the eye. The viewer must find their own way through without help. That takes thinking and thinking is work.
As to sales, if your work is based on what you think the pubic will buy THAT IS NOT ART. There is another word for that, it is called Kitsch.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Kitsch is a term of German origin that has been used to categorize art that is considered an inferior copy of an existing style. The term is also used more loosely in referring to any art that is pretentious or in bad taste, and also commercially produced items that are considered trite or crass.
Because the word was brought into use as a response to a large amount of art in the 19th century where the aesthetic of art work was associated with a sense of exaggerated sentimentality or melodrama, kitsch is most closely associated with art that is sentimental; however, it can be used to refer to any type of art that is deficient for similar reasons—whether it tries to appear sentimental, glamorous, theatrical, or creative, kitsch is said to be a gesture imitative of the superficial appearances of art. It is often said that kitsch relies on merely repeating convention and formula, lacking the sense of creativity and originality displayed in genuine art.
Doyle
Posted by Doyle Thomas on April 17, 2007 at 12:51 AM
As an aside, because these images are made on large format film they will hold their detail even onto extreme enlargement without digital extrapolation. This invites the viewer willing to explore any part of the image to make discoveries of the detail in the real world.
Doyle
Posted by Tomas Kaspar on April 17, 2007 at 1:17 AM
Doyle in this case, I don't think it matters if it was shot with 20x24 camera. Honestly the light is way to harsh (especially for film capture) subject captured is really nothing that will capture ones eye, and the whole shot is rather chaotic. You might think a lot of it, but usually when everybody around tells you it doesn't work it just doesn't
On the other side - it is your vision and you believe in it by all means go for it.
As for Kitsch word. Where I'm form (right next to Germany) it used to be (and still is) very often used especially against landscape (you might say traditional - just like a classical music- myabe they are both too complex ), and often the excuse is that everything was shot so many times and bla, bla, bla. Well I personally believe that it is just an excuse word for those who can't do. I never use that word for let say racing photography, nude photography , wedding photo etc. They all been done to death by that standard, and yet I respect other photgs work mainly because I know I'm not even half as good as those guys are, and I really don't care that somebody else somewhere shot it already ? Anyway just my $0.02 here.
Well, look at what is happening here, This image has invoked a response, maybe even pinched a nerve. If that is not Fine Art what is? There is no need to be grounded in convention.
Being unconventional for the sake of being unconventional does not (cannot) = fine art. This image possibly has merits, but the fact that it lacks mass appeal can't possibly qualify it as fine art.
The comment about searching for detail in an LF image has some validity, but if the image as a whole doesn't engage the viewer, that search is likely to never begin.
There are many ways to define success, but imo 'success' has to be measured against some sense of purpose. If the only purpose is to be unconventional, then you've succeeded. If your purpose was to test the limits of "fine art", I'd respectfully submit that the effort here requires more….effort.
Posted by Mark Hudon on April 17, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Discussion
16 repliesThe landscape is busy or messy, use what ever word you like. Go past the rules and see.
This is part of a growing body of work. While each is strong enough to stand alone as a body their strength grows.
Doyle
I am lost!
I could ask you to explain what you are trying to get across here...but really, in my opinion...this doesn't work for me and I can bet that it wont be a seller anywhere. I am not trying to sound rude...and I hope you can understand our vantage point.
I read your post on the other thread...but didn't personally relate to that either.
There is lots of very good traditional landscape Photography on this site, and I enjoy seeing (and making)this kind of work. The key word being traditional. I am simply pushing the edge. Some people can not listen to Jazz or classical music because the sound is too complex.
These images are intended to provide the viewer with no focal point and no instructions to move the eye. The viewer must find their own way through without help. That takes thinking and thinking is work.
As to sales, if your work is based on what you think the pubic will buy THAT IS NOT ART. There is another word for that, it is called Kitsch.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Kitsch is a term of German origin that has been used to categorize art that is considered an inferior copy of an existing style. The term is also used more loosely in referring to any art that is pretentious or in bad taste, and also commercially produced items that are considered trite or crass.
Because the word was brought into use as a response to a large amount of art in the 19th century where the aesthetic of art work was associated with a sense of exaggerated sentimentality or melodrama, kitsch is most closely associated with art that is sentimental; however, it can be used to refer to any type of art that is deficient for similar reasons—whether it tries to appear sentimental, glamorous, theatrical, or creative, kitsch is said to be a gesture imitative of the superficial appearances of art. It is often said that kitsch relies on merely repeating convention and formula, lacking the sense of creativity and originality displayed in genuine art.
Doyle
Doyle
On the other side - it is your vision and you believe in it by all means go for it.
As for Kitsch word. Where I'm form (right next to Germany) it used to be (and still is) very often used especially against landscape (you might say traditional - just like a classical music- myabe they are both too complex
That goes for the photo and for suggesting that "the rest of us" do kitsch.
And BTW, I don't think getting lots of comments makes or breaks a photograph as "fine art." But then it's yours to take the comments any way you wish.
To Quote Asimov:
"Any idea or discovery made independantly is no less legitimate than the original thought"
Doyle
Being unconventional for the sake of being unconventional does not (cannot) = fine art. This image possibly has merits, but the fact that it lacks mass appeal can't possibly qualify it as fine art.
The comment about searching for detail in an LF image has some validity, but if the image as a whole doesn't engage the viewer, that search is likely to never begin.
There are many ways to define success, but imo 'success' has to be measured against some sense of purpose. If the only purpose is to be unconventional, then you've succeeded. If your purpose was to test the limits of "fine art", I'd respectfully submit that the effort here requires more….effort.