- Messages
- 4,645
- Name
- droj
- Edit My Images
- No
You claim to have an opinion about his work (that's dismissive of it), and yet you can't articulate that? Isn't something missing there?It's my opinion. We're talking opinions here.
You claim to have an opinion about his work (that's dismissive of it), and yet you can't articulate that? Isn't something missing there?It's my opinion. We're talking opinions here.
You claim to have an opinion about his work (that's dismissive of it), and yet you can't articulate that? Isn't something missing there?
Thanks for posting some of your photos, the cat in the headlights and the behatted pensioner in the fog both work for me, with the latter giving me a melancholy feeling. Without getting 'poncey' about it, it makes me think... is it a metaphor for us getting older, slowly plodding on until we gradually fade away and disappear? Does it represent loneliness? Is that place a cemetery or a garden of remembrance where the person has been visiting a dearly departed relative or friend? And I think that's what art should do, as well as entertaining us or amusing us, etc.. But that's just my take on it.
The cat in the headlights also makes me think a bit, is the cat just crossing the road, is it sniffing some roadkill or a discarded take-away, or has it been using a chainsaw (my 'humorous' side speaking up in my head again there!). So what do you see in them, Keith, and which one is your favourite and why?
I've not looked through your Flickr account yet as I haven't had time, but I'll enjoy a look when I do. As for mine, it's not a side account, it's the only one I have; I just use Flickr as a hosting site so I can post photos on here. Most of it is photos taken on film (as with the 'animals' shot) as I generally hang out in the Film & Conventional section of the forum... one of those people who likes to use vintage and classic cameras and go back to my roots to take photos 'the hard way'. 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.
So come on, who's next to show us some of the photos they took that they consider is/are art? I'd love to see some more; and it would be good to know what others have 'seen' in those photos too.
A negative prejudice with little basis, then. Curiosity might have been a healthier option. You couldn't see what was there, so you threw up your wall. I realise that your puzzlement is genuine, but it's as if you were too impatient for the nature of Tom's work to seep through your wall.
And what does constitute landscape, then?
At least you don't suffer from mouth and trousers syndrome!
It wasn't 'poor', Jerry, it was informal, and of course intentional. There's no reason that I can think of why art seems to be beyond you, maybe you could relax your prejudices a bit. Let it seep in. No need for the wall.I seem to remember the presentation of the work was rather poor, in terms of mounting and framing, as if it had been thrown together rather quickly. But perhaps that was intentional?
Poor old Kyffin had a chip on his shoulder ...
It wasn't 'poor', Jerry, it was informal, and of course intentional. There's no reason that I can think of why art seems to be beyond you, maybe you could relax your prejudices a bit. Let it seep in. No need for the wall.
I explained the 2 buckets in post ... #75.
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?
I must say, I do like those project photos you've taken, Ed; some interesting takes on the lives we lead there, so keep on doing it.
You weren't invited to talk on someone else's behalf. All you do on here is moan like a demented little child. The adults sort it between themselves, they certainly don't need a know nothing like you backing them up.
Pot............kettle; except you enjoy being rude - normally indicates an inferiority?
You're an expert on psychology now too? Any more hidden talents?
I enjoy being rude to certain types only.
There's already one childish argument playing out in this thread, let's leave it at that. I have more than made up for my part. Where's your examples of art btw?
Keith - I have no examples hence I am keen to try and learn - I hope that is OK ?
You surely have some photos that you consider art? I'm not waiting to critique, just like to see what you got is all. I normally wouldn't post up a string of my images and claim them to be art, but when asked to do so I found it refreshing tbh, to dip into my past images and chose some I actually really like. I rarely ever do this.
Seriously Keith, you are welcome to look at my Flickr account (it's certainly 'no great shakes') but as i have tried to explain on numerous occasions before - the taking of the photograph has given me as much enjoyment as the final image but I now want to learn more about my hobby.
My flickr account is here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147585014@N03/albums
Some really nice stuff there, in particular the MF film images, also the B&W street. There's certainly a bunch of images on there I would deem to be art or artistic
Never holds a 'grudge' no matter what you say to him - hence I quite like you in an internet way Keith!
Dave,
That was a really excellent post. I would never claim that any of my work was "Art" and l have often wondered whether it is actually "Photography" either.
I think l remember you saying that you have the Pembrokeshire book? I have always hoped that a collaboration between a photographer and an author should be just that - a real two-way process - but it hardly ever has been. In this case the author suddenly got some tv work and l was left trying to predict what he would (eventually) write about.....
I'm aware that my own work often straddles boundaries or falls between two stools - landscape/documentary or landscape/wildlife.
This could suggest that one is working in new areas and thus producing something worthwhile. But equally some people find pigeonholes are preferable and if you don't fit one they can't relate to it.
Back to the two blue buckets. I've been pondering this one over the last couple of days and have an inkling of what its success might be down to. It might be a reaction to what photogrphs are traditionally "about", which is the spectacular, the beautiful, the meaningful, the interesting..... lt is none of those things. It would therefore appeal mainly to those with a knowledge of the history of photography and a desire to subvert these traditions.
I thought l would throw that in.....