I especially like the textures. As well as the angles and subtle colors. Is this intended to lean more toward art, than photography? (Is there a difference?).
Nice image. I don't get the stomp vs no stomp theme that seems to be percolating below the surface in Fallbrook Shutters. I think you have developed an individual style and that is always a big accomplishment in photography and it ought to be saluted. In my unsolicited editorial opinion the "photographic monoculture" is the most oppressive aspect of photography. It can be seen in any open show--almost all images look like they were lifted off the pages of National Geographic. This uniformity is enforced unconsciously, I think, by judges and attendees who respond to images that have a high initial impact but which usually aren't worth looking at for longer than five seconds. So STOMP, STOMP STOMP away! Myself, I don't see it as stomping I see it as interpretation and expression.
PS I think photography can be art and art can be photography but the debate means nothing to me. I think of my self as an amateur photographer. I don't try to puff up by self labeling as an artist as I don't have a lot of formal art training while I do have formal photography training. Likewise I don't have a pages long exhibition record.
I started this stomp conversation and I am frankly sorry I did. After all, I am one of the world's worst serial offenders. I use the cut out filter like it's toothpaste. I was speaking about my own quest for figuring out what is right for me, where I want my own images to go. And inarticulately offered that I was beginning to see the value of well composed and exposed images that arrived au natural.
I have done a couple shows with Lou alone. They were great. I have nothing but the highest regard for his vision and execution. He was out of the box before I knew the box even existed. If you are going to break through the standard model, break through like Lou and push it to the hilt. He is in the land of serious conceptual art.
The danger is when yutzes like me use the same filter effects over and over again ad nauseam and you just say, oh #47. We all have the same crayons in our toy box. Then it gets tiring.
I like what you say about the photographic monoculture, Jon. And your antipathy for highly charged works that don't hold up. But I think that all the media have risen to a populist plateau where it is difficult to separate amateur from professional. There is bad, good and killer and every human being has the capability to pull something great off if equipped with an eye and a nervous system and motor skill abilities that will allow a one/onetwentiyfifth of a second button compression.
I see photography break down like any other field of art, technicians and designers or conceptualists. You can get too far in either direction or feel comfortable somewhere in the middle.
Thanks for your contributions to our group and this dialogue.
I especially like the textures. As well as the angles and subtle colors. Is this intended to lean more toward art, than photography? (Is there a difference?).
ReplyDeleteNice image. I don't get the stomp vs no stomp theme that seems to be percolating below the surface in Fallbrook Shutters. I think you have developed an individual style and that is always a big accomplishment in photography and it ought to be saluted. In my unsolicited editorial opinion the "photographic monoculture" is the most oppressive aspect of photography. It can be seen in any open show--almost all images look like they were lifted off the pages of National Geographic. This uniformity is enforced unconsciously, I think, by judges and attendees who respond to images that have a high initial impact but which usually aren't worth looking at for longer than five seconds. So STOMP, STOMP STOMP away! Myself, I don't see it as stomping I see it as interpretation and expression.
ReplyDeletePS I think photography can be art and art can be photography but the debate means nothing to me. I think of my self as an amateur photographer. I don't try to puff up by self labeling as an artist as I don't have a lot of formal art training while I do have formal photography training. Likewise I don't have a pages long exhibition record.
I started this stomp conversation and I am frankly sorry I did. After all, I am one of the world's worst serial offenders. I use the cut out filter like it's toothpaste. I was speaking about my own quest for figuring out what is right for me, where I want my own images to go. And inarticulately offered that I was beginning to see the value of well composed and exposed images that arrived au natural.
ReplyDeleteI have done a couple shows with Lou alone. They were great. I have nothing but the highest regard for his vision and execution. He was out of the box before I knew the box even existed. If you are going to break through the standard model, break through like Lou and push it to the hilt. He is in the land of serious conceptual art.
The danger is when yutzes like me use the same filter effects over and over again ad nauseam and you just say, oh #47. We all have the same crayons in our toy box. Then it gets tiring.
I like what you say about the photographic monoculture, Jon. And your antipathy for highly charged works that don't hold up. But I think that all the media have risen to a populist plateau where it is difficult to separate amateur from professional. There is bad, good and killer and every human being has the capability to pull something great off if equipped with an eye and a nervous system and motor skill abilities that will allow a one/onetwentiyfifth of a second button compression.
I see photography break down like any other field of art, technicians and designers or conceptualists. You can get too far in either direction or feel comfortable somewhere in the middle.
Thanks for your contributions to our group and this dialogue.