I've been perusing still life photos in books and on photo.net etc. and have reached the conclusion that most of it is repetitious sentimentalist BS
Awwww, a photo of glasses laying on an open book...Awwww, a rose in a flower pot.....Awww, fruit in a vase...
Yawn.
So what's you're favorit still life subject/photo?
A violin and rose on top of scattered sheets of music. grin.
Sounds like you guys have been spending too much time in museums looking at paintings from a particular era. Grin.
Re: Still life = sentimentalist BS?
a photo of glasses laying on an open book with a rose in a flower pot with fruit in a vase sitting atop a violin and rose on top of scattered sheets of music with a ham and cheese sandwich on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier.
Oh - in a museum.
Try that one!
Originally Posted by cyrus
Carrots make nice repetitious sentimentalist BS...
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
...held by a nude woman along with a cala lilly, whilst sitting on a rusting truck in a field next to an old barn with some birch trees on a mountain top?
Seen it.
While disqualifying as still life, I never met a naked woman I didn't like.
As opposed to what exactly? A captured "enemy combatant" with a hood over his head and live electrical wires connected to his hands standing VERY STILL on a rickety stool?
Glasses, book and rose may indeed have been photographed to death, just as have running stream, sunset over crashing ocean waves (both taken with long exposures) and flower macros, but not for those who have never done it before.
I also don't quite understand why does a photo of something nice have to be "sentimental BS", while a photo of a napalm-burned 12-year old Vietnamese girl is... what? Realism? Reportage? Art?
I don't know, call me sentimental or unsophisticated or whatnot, but I find a well executed classical still life (flowers in a vase or fruit on the table) much more pleasing to look at than a contemporary image of gross suffering inflicted by one human on another. The latter may be a very skillful reportage, but, unlike the former, I still don't consider it art.
What about Joel Peter Witkin? - brilliant still-life compositions, but with the sensibility of a grave-robbing ghoul.
Yes - lovely.
Which brings up another question:
Now, just out of curiosity, where do you suppose does one locate dismembered body parts for photographic purposes?
In fact, come to think of it, about a year ago, a fellow living in a 1 bedroom apartment here in NYC was caught living with a pet Bengal tiger and a crocodile.
Apparently, there are stores that sell body parts, tigers, and all sorts of other things which I just can't seem to locate . . .
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks