For your reading pleasure:
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddes...-art-galleries
--Darin
For your reading pleasure:
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddes...-art-galleries
--Darin
The same could be said of the author (well, not sure about the flat part).
I agree with the author. Flat soulless and stupid.its the Stieglitz disease, and those idiotic clouds of his. To me that is where the beauty in an Atget comes from, soul, life, something you can hold onto. strand, Weston and the best of the modernists, they had a point.
David Cary
www.milfordguide.nz
I will have to think about this in more depth, but one phrase that got an immediate emotional response was: "Putting up massive prints is a waste of space." There is a trend in current art gallery photography to use inkjet printers to make very large prints. There is a gallery nearby in NJ part of whose business model goes along the lines of "tell us how large an area of wall you want to cover, and we will make a custom print to match." So in this regard (and perhaps only in this regard) I tend to agree with the author, photography and paintings shouldn't compete head-to-head on the basis of scale. I absolutely love any number of "classic photographer's" prints in 8x10, 11x14, perhaps 16x20, but not so much a lot of current color work in 30x40. Although even there it depends on the work. I've seen some of Steven Wilkes' "Night to Day" series which is so full of details that it works in very large sizes. I guess this is where all generalizations fail, it always depends on the individual cases. But ... I admit I would rather own a Rembrandt to a Strand ...
Don't feed the trolls. This is what passes for art criticism in the age of the blog.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
The author states: "Paintings are made with time and difficulty, material complexity, textural depth, talent and craft, imagination and 'mindfulness' ".
As if none of these are a part of photographic art (in which I doubt this person has EVER been involved). But, of course, he/she is free to spout off - which I suspect is the sole objective here.
Here's my only response: tl;dr
Trolling, written to sell papers and advertising.
I agree with his opinion about the massive prints. But he's putting too much effort and opinion into stacking up two very different mediums, and sounds off a hundred year old argument doing so. Ear tickler for painters. Actually if he weren't complaining about the big inkjet prints, I'd wonder if it was one of those from the archives things being recycled for filler.
My first thought was that he hasn't been to your studio Darin...
Drivel. He makes no points to back up his assertion other than rembrant is better. If he has a valid opinion, or even a opinion worth entertaining the author could at least supported it.
As far as large prints go, I love large prints when combine with a proper subject. Not every print looks good large, nor does every print look good small. Context is key. Also, yes inkjet printers are capable of producing massive prints, but so are enlargers.
Bookmarks