"Michael runs a bussiness. Plain and simple." could not have said it better myself.
as for the comparison to Misrach they are similar they both shoot color landscapes of the west.the differnce is Misrach is good and does not need the gimmicky hyper saturation that is inherent to Fatalis work.-J
Josh, I can't but tell you that your way of comparing one photographer to anoth er is rather childish. We, the human race, were not made all out of the same mold. And this is why there is such a br oad and rich diversity in the creative expression. Should we like it all? not at all! We take what we like and leave the rest for others who like it.
I am not a cultivated musician but to take an example, just because I love Bach and don't like Beethoven doesn't allow me to say the second is hopeless, does it? I would soon be confronted to people who think differently. Where does all that dirty hatred between races an d religions come from? Should we let the world be teared apart by all that "one is superior to th e other" shit? Giving lessons of moral is the last thing I should be doing and I hope you can b ear with me. Photography is now recognized as an art and we all should consider ourselves as artists, and not merely goods producers or art consumers. Now, what definition would we give to t he word artist? I will give my own: Someone who has developed skills to express to others a part of the personal heritage he has received in the way he perceives the world in and around him. W hy do we do so? Maybe because we love the world and believe that putting in common our personal note will produce at the end a symphony that will please everyone (again, my own interpret ation). See, I admire the work of Misrach, who by the way uses sometimes artificial lighting techniques. He is a very good pho tographer and I am glad some as you like his pictures. But, if I recognize his talent which is far above mine as a photographer, his pictures do not make me vibrate personally. It dosen't touch m y fiber. As I said earlier it's a Bach against Beethoven type of comparison.
We could stick to more down to earth comparisons: how would you like choosing a car if the only choice was a russian car? Or even if the only choice was a Chevy? Everyone having your car wouldn't make it pleasant to o wn, would it? By the way, this is perhaps were the cold war originated: The Russians didn't like the kitsch and over saturated look of the Yankee's Chevies and the Yankees had disregard for the pur ely functional Russian cars. Maybe we could divide this forum in two sections: one for the Fata li type worshippers and the other for the Misrach type unconditionals. I'm sure this would make the two photographers laugh. Diversity is the distinctive particularity of our Blue Planet and that's why life is still beautiful. Let's n ot forget it!
Perhaps I overstated earlier about Fatali's work. I commend anyone who is trying different things. Trying to light the arch in a different way was an interesting idea that apparently backfired. I just feel that most of what I have seen has been unsuccessful. Rather than the use of color complementing the work it only seems to distract. Now exaggerating colors has worked well in painting (Van Gogh, Gaugin, Kandinsky....) the list goes on and on. I'm sure this can be done successfully in photography I have just seen very few examples of it. The best thing about B&W photography is that very quickly the photos become about shapes and textures as well as the subject matter. In my opinion the color photographer has to be extremely careful to use color in such a way that adds to rather than takes away from the picture. The issue of the difficulty of what Fatali is doing isn't a valid point. There are many technically superior musicians and painters that accomplish nothing more than exersizes. Sometimes the most simple thing is much stronger than the most comlicated. Just being hard doesn't make you a good lover.
Paul I was about to respond to your post but its not even worth it, because it does not make any sense. but I will say this just as Bach and Beethoven are both classical composer and can be compared in that they both are in the same genre of music. I would consider Misrach and Fatali to be in the same genre that was the basis of my comparsion. Also I think we can have a discussion without calling someones opinions "childish" or insulting their views. I disagree with you but I dont need to insult you to show that.-J
Josh, I'm sorry if I called you names and insulted your opinions. But by saying F. is a mediocre photographer with incredibly bad taste, you should be prepared to get overreaction from guys who t hink differently, and who maybe feel insulted themselves in their own perception of photography. If Fatali's wo rk is mediocre, then there are many well known and unknown photographers out there who should not even call themselv es photographers any more. As for my post not being worth the reply, I'm glad you changed your mind.
Paul, let Josh call fatali a calendar pimp if he wants to... this stoopid PC "oh, let's do get along" crap is making me nauseaous... if Josh doesn't like it let him express himself in the most vitriolic way he can .... and you can bash Misrach if it pleases you, just don't let it pull your "fiber" out of tune...
and that rot about something "touching your fiber"? Please!!! what the hell is that? Can't you get it surgically removed? I know I would if it vibrated everytime I saw a fatali photo.
I agree, this discussion is leading nowhere. Let's take a day out together poor ing our sweat on mountain tracks, get to know each other, have fun and possibly take a few pictures but just for the f un of it. Sorry for talking bullshit.
Emil,
Sorry, just saw yours... and in order to rebutt I'll need your definitions of "homogeneity and constancy of... yadda yadda" and of course the beautifully turned frag, "distilling abstract harmony".... so on and so forth...
thanks Lumberjack... I can deal with that..
love,
trib
Hey Trib
Thanks. May I share your barf bag?
Love
Erik
I am not a photographer so I cannot comment on Michael?s ?technical? abilities. But I am a close friend and I can comment on Michael the man and I do know how Michael makes his photographs, having been in the field with him many times. Michael does NOT use artificial light, he has always said he doesn?t have to, that there is nothing that can improve what God has created. Michael packs an 80-90lb. pack into the most remote places, then he waits, sometimes days, or he returns over and over and over again. He is intimate with the places he photographs, he knows them through all the seasons, he loves them deeply. And that is what he is trying to portray, the magnificence of the land and how it touches his soul. Yes, Michael ?runs? a business, but he doesn?t care about the money, what he does care about is sharing his passion. This is not just hype, this is the absolute truth. I worked for Michael last fall in his gallery in Springdale and even I was amazed at the impact his photographs had on the people who walked into his gallery. Because of the proximity to Zion Nat?l Park, people from all over the world visited the gallery, many had heard of Michael, but I would say most just discovered him for the first time. No one was untouched. All you have to do is stand in front of one of his images and you can see his soul. He has nothing to hide. He writes what he feels- no, he is not an accomplished author, he never went to school to learn to write, all he can do is express what is in his heart. He is totally honest, totally real, he doesn?t know how to be any other way. The incident at Arches has devastated him. He is the last person who would intentionally damage the land, the mission of his life is to preserve and protect and to share. From the very beginning he has taken total responsibility for his actions, he has spent hours with the NPS answering questions, trying to work with them to rectify what happened. I don?t understand all this negative energy that is directed at him, especially by people who don?t know him. Why is it that some people need to tear others down to feel good about themselves. Michael has never attacked another photographer, never criticized their work, and especially never attacked them personally. All he wants to do is let his work speak for him, and it does, straight to your heart if you?re willing to listen.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks