Ramblecrap...does it have a purpose?

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Oh dear, what world do I live in? For a purely agricultural perspective may I put it this way.

If I like what I'm seeing.
I'll shoot how I see it.
And hang how I saw it on the wall.

Now if the image strikes a cord and causes the viewer to pause just a moment in reflection, I consider it a success. Any attempt to tell the viewer how or what to think, I feel, is an insult and takes away proportionally from the image. Who am I that needs to tell others who or what I am or even what I think? Look at the image.

Have I lost the plot?

RJ does very nice work, but IMHO the pretentious photo-speak detracts from it. I think that many other photogs are turned off by this, but it seems to work with the general public. Most of the photographers who sell a lot of prints use a similar approach- I think it makes many photo buyers feel like they're getting more for their money.

From the website-

"RJ does not accept digital manipulation of photographic images as a standard and his work eschews digitalisation or manipulation of the image."

This statement I find somewhat offensive and hypocritical- ALL photography involves manipulation of images- RJ is selling the old "digital and/or manipulation of photos is inherently inferior" rant.

[Dick Hilker]

When the art is good, an elaborate statement seems superfluous and, when it isn't very good, the fanciest statement doesn't help. The situation seems much like that of a recent discussion relating to picture titles.

Some artists' statements suggest that they take themselves much too seriously for the quality of their work and it seems that their lofty pronouncements detract, rather than add to the impression they try to convey. As somone who's perhaps taken himself and life a bit too casually, I'm often stumped when asked to provide an artist's statement for a show, much preferring that my pictures speak for themselves: after all, it's all about them, isn't it?

[QT Luong]

"RJ does not accept digital manipulation of photographic images as a standard and his work eschews digitalisation or manipulation of the image."

This statement I find somewhat offensive and hypocritical- ALL photography involves manipulation of images- RJ is selling the old "digital and/or manipulation of photos is inherently inferior" rant.

Maybe he eschews digitalisation, but I thought I saw his images on the web ?

[Alan Davenport]

Cows do it, too.

[domenico Foschi]

RJ does very nice work, but IMHO the pretentious photo-speak detracts from it. I think that many other photogs are turned off by this, but it seems to work with the general public. Most of the photographers who sell a lot of prints use a similar approach- I think it makes many photo buyers feel like they're getting more for their money.

From the website-

"RJ does not accept digital manipulation of photographic images as a standard and his work eschews digitalisation or manipulation of the image."

This statement I find somewhat offensive and hypocritical- ALL photography involves manipulation of images- RJ is selling the old "digital and/or manipulation of photos is inherently inferior" rant.

Brian, I don't think it's a hypocritical statement, since he mentions digital manipulation.
Why do you find it offensive?

He is talking about his approach and his value system when it comes to creating images, without attacking other photographers.
He probably works hard in his darkroom and he would like to underscore what kind of process he uses.
Everybody has his/her own approach and it seems fair to me that he mentions this as information for his potential collectors.

[domenico Foschi]

About the description?

I, as an humble immigrant, understood very little.
Too many circumvolutions around pretty effective images.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Brian, I don't think it's a hypocritical statement, since he mentions digital manipulation.
Why do you find it offensive?

He is talking about his approach and his value system when it comes to creating images, without attacking other photographers.
He probably works hard in his darkroom and he would like to underscore what kind of process he uses.
Everybody has his/her own approach and it seems fair to me that he mentions this as information for his potential collectors.

Hi Domenico,

The reason that I found it slightly offensive is because it implies that digtal printing is inferior to darkroom. Those of us who print digitally also work hard at creating the finest prints. Neither method is innately superior to the other- they are just tools.

[Randy H]

Heck RJ, ya gotta talk "really slow" so the hillbillies can unnerstan whut you sayin'. After all, Jethro jus gradiated sisth grade last year. An don' be usin words that are more than monosyllabic.

Why is it that if someone speaks or writes something that is above our feeble comprehension, that we are so ready to crucify them? I found no problem with him sharing his thoughts and emotions regarding his work. Kinda cool. Just because he did so on a level that average Joe did not comprehend, does not make it B.S.


But then again, I am just an ass-kiissin old long-haired hippie. (so I've been told )

[Rob Champagne]

If you wrote a book or magazine articles or just about anything else using that kind of language, you would be laughed at by the publisher. The fact is, it is trying to be elitist which is fine and dandy if thats the clientelle you want to attract. But if you are the sort of person who thinks that the masses don't count and your art is only for the few who can decipher your statement, then that says more about you than your images ever will. Thats why your artists statement is so important. This guy has F*****d up big time.

[Randy H]

why some photographers/artists choose to write statements in language which is both obscure and let's be honest, pretentious.

Perhaps he is being neither obscure nor pretentious.
Perhaps it is the reader being dull of understanding and of a difinite lower level of intelligence.
Nah. That cain't be it.



"The ass-kissin old hippie"
Peace Out