Dear old Tom - well, not that old. I don't know what happened to his Landscapes book at Steidl. Been on hold for it seems like years.
Your painting might be worse than your photography?
Oh yes I can!
Semantics! A photograph IS an image (synonymous words in functional terms). What makes a good photograph? What does 'good' mean in that context? Show us some photos that are good and tell us why. How much other work have you seen by PF?
I've given up on the book.
And it is years. A pity because I really enjoyed his landscape exhibition in Llandudno.
Snip:
Well, they might well have done, as one of the first two or three presses of the shutter button when winding on a newly loaded film. Discuss.
Grazed rather than mown.A lost ball, found, Mr Sutton.
Any other comment or observations?
None that anyone couldn't make about the wooden carvings, which seem to be by different hands.
Do you not see the joke in there? A bit like Cuneo's mouse, tucked away in plain sight, if you look for it.None that anyone couldn't make about the wooden carvings, which seem to be by different hands.
Nope.
So what do you think of the technical ability used in a Mark Rothko painting? Or a Jackson Pollock?
I still live in hope about the book. I saw the show in Llandudno AND in Aberystwyth and met him briefly. Original landscapes notable for their quiet insight - a rare thing.I've given up on the book.
OK, time's up. Look at the pigs in the bottom left-hand corner. And that photo was taken and framed that way on purpose, and now you probably can't un-see that each time you look at the photo. So there's the humour, hidden away in full view within the photograph.
Childish? Puerile? Well, it would have been if I'd put those pigs in the centre of the frame and made them obvious. Heeeeh heeee…. look what those pigs are doing! Mhhhuuuuhhhaaaa, etc. But I didn't, it was kept as a subtle joke hidden within the overall artistic composition of the photograph.
Don't worry if you didn't see it, some of the animals in the photo didn't see it either! Now look again and perhaps see the expression on the faces of some of the animals that you now believe might have seen what was going on in their midst. My own favourite is the expression on the face of that rabbit... "Ewwwwffff!" That little penguin seems to be having a good look though.
So there you go. Is it art? Well, it's not going to change the world, any more than that pocket cartoon in the daily paper that made you chuckle slightly; but if we can't have a bit of a laugh at our own preconceptions and pretentions then I think it's time we gave up and called bullsh!t on the whole damned thing.
Whoah! Nowhere did I claim this was a great photo! Do you think I'd waste my time posting a great photo on here? I'd be marketing it and selling it, not wasting my time with bothering about what you thought about it!
Secondly; "the set up is the humour, taking a snap shot of it is hardly amazing". Really? Well, that thinking probably torpedoes some of the most striking street photographs in history then! Damn, I've spotted a humorous or ironic scene in a sea of conformational mundanity... I'd better not take a photo of that then, as people will think it's a snap shot and how un-amazing will that be?!
Ding by K G, on Flickr
Catellite by K G, on Flickr
Morning cycle by K G, on Flickr
Street walker by K G, on Flickr
Misty Hill by K G, on Flickr
Into the fog by K G, on Flickr ]
That's an astounding remark. I wish you'd elaborate. It could be that you just can't 'see' what he does. Because he seems to have an Irish feyness of vision that hints at the world behind the surface of things. I may note in this context that your own work that I've seen in no way does this - you are a solidly-based craftsman (not an artist) who documents the world as it prosaically appears. Other people with some application could take the same pictures as you do, whereas they'd be unlikely to come up with a Tom Wood. Apart from the 'hidden' dimension referred to above in Tom's landscapes, for me they often occasion a smile of recognition - they are unexpected, they catch something, they wake you. In this expression they are very human too (not surprising when you remember his people pictures) - and it is all this that makes them 'art'.
So I don't usually upload my digital 'stuff'. I suspect it would be just as eclectic as you say yours is if I did.
The 'joke' (if it can be called that) is that people seem to see the photo and not notice the pigs, but when that is noticed I think the looks on the faces of some of the animals tend to take on a new meaning? It's more quirky than jokey really, but I think it might show how people's interpretation of a shot can change, with us making up our own 'story' based on what we see. In reality they're just lumps of wood, but we first see them as little animals, and then perhaps read something into the expressions they seem to have?
