A beautiful archetypal photograph that stands in a different class to the hyper sexualised egocentric kitch that populates this thread. Also very appropriate.
A beautiful archetypal photograph that stands in a different class to the hyper sexualised egocentric kitch that populates this thread. Also very appropriate.
David Cary
www.milfordguide.nz
Emil Busch 150mm projector lens 4x5 HP5+ 510-Pyro, 1:500
Chan Mei Tung by bobpin2007, on Flickr
If one is going to be so judgmental, it would be helpful to use the tools available to make clear to which images or posts, one is referring. (Or you can just trust your reader to guess.)
I trust you to guess.
David Cary
www.milfordguide.nz
Is this what you mean, MDM?
You make major and sweeping dismissive criticism but don't specifiy your targets or the exception. Since Gandolfi's art is so much in favor with me, I can more easily agree with you on your point of beauty for his picture.
However, I had wondered what you referred too and could have chosen so many other pictures. When I see the letters, instead of your name, I wonder to whom I might be speaking? It would be so helpful and respectful to have real names used as one then can take responsibility for the good and bad comments one makes.
I'd like to know when I might go to buy your work what you ideas are all about. With disconnect there's no accountability.
Is this picture one of those that show "hyper-sexualized kitsch" or is another "iconic archetypical photograph of beauty"?
Actually, despite my adoration of Gandolfi's fine work worthy of collecting, the temptress woman showing her breasts is far more active, aggressive and unique. I wouldn't want to have either dismissed or trashed in a hand-wave of disapproval.
Asher
Leigh,
Feedback and critique is always helpful. If there's nothing good to say, then maybe say nothing. If one image, at last meets evokes a great experience or if other pictures have faults, the correction of which might be helpful in future work, then share these ideas, but sign with one's name!
Asher
Mr Gandolfi's ask to be seen in the same way as an old master, he does this with the context of his print and the image contained by the print. Bobpin's exist in a political space. Many reference the December 1972 issue of Playboy, an impersonal fantasy. How many of you thought carefully how you want your photograph to be seen, what you want it to mean? Why you are making it? For most what we see is an expression of the photographers ego with no thought given to anything else. I am a god, look at this. I wield the camera and thats not all. Look at the reflection of me in those eyes. Or in Franks case, theese are the imprints left by my hands. Its all about you, but unconciously, which makes for unconscionably ugly photographs (and paintings).
David Cary
www.milfordguide.nz
So if you are searching for something, a truth, thats cool. If you a rebelling, no worries. If it is worship, of a person, or a concept such as truth, beauty, universal feminine or masculine, or love or hate, or God if you have one, ok. If you are using a carefully constructed situation for your own gratification, perhaps at the deepest and most hidden level, not ok. Bad Karma. You will come back as a cockroach. It will ruin your swing, just ask Tiger.
David Cary
www.milfordguide.nz
Bookmarks