Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 66

Thread: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Montara, California
    Posts
    1,827

    Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    For your reading pleasure:

    http://www.theguardian.com/artanddes...-art-galleries


    --Darin

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    196

    Re: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    The same could be said of the author (well, not sure about the flat part).

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southland, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,082

    Re: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    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.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,456

    Re: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    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 ...

  5. #5
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,864

    Re: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    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"

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    near Seattle, WA
    Posts
    956

    Re: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    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.

  7. #7
    (Shrek)
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,044

    Re: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    Here's my only response: tl;dr

  8. #8
    jp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    5,628

    Re: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    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.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pacifica, CA
    Posts
    1,710

    Re: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    My first thought was that he hasn't been to your studio Darin...

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Duluth, MN
    Posts
    245

    Re: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Hello, and stupid question
    By Steve Muntz in forum Introductions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 7-Feb-2012, 01:18
  2. Ever feel really STUPID???
    By Michael Graves in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 12-Jul-2008, 23:33
  3. Stupid question
    By cyrus in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 8-Jan-2007, 00:51

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •