I just don't like statements that make assumptions that the author cannot possibly know. Not having seen her work I couldn't compare my work to hers. Try to be thoughtful instead of aggrandizing.
I just don't like statements that make assumptions that the author cannot possibly know. Not having seen her work I couldn't compare my work to hers. Try to be thoughtful instead of aggrandizing.
Toughy toenails, my little sourpuss.Originally Posted by Toyon
"It could not have happened to a better person!" is a colloquialism. It is the equivilent to saying that she very well deserves the award...which is not aggrandizing, but merely stating my informed opinion. An opinion derived from knowing both the photographer and her work.
Vaughn
PS -- re-reading my earlier post I saw a typo. She has nine children.
Right, your "informed opinion" is based on seeing her work, and none of the other entrants. I think you are confusing "informed" and "opinion" with mere solipsism. As for being a mother of 9 - are you thinking that is a good thing?Toughy toenails, my little sourpuss.
"It could not have happened to a better person!" is a colloquialism. It is the equivilent to saying that she very well deserves the award...which is not aggrandizing, but merely stating my informed opinion. An opinion derived from knowing both the photographer and her work.
Vaughn
PS -- re-reading my earlier post I saw a typo. She has nine children.
If you wish to take offense so quickly from what people write, you should take the time to read more carefully. I wrote earlier that she has a blended family -- she did not give birth to nine children, but instead is a great mother to nine. So, yes, it is a very good thing. As a father and principle care giver to a set of triplet boys (now almost 13 yrs old), I admire her ability to produce such great work and raise a family at the same time. She has not produced her work is spite of her family, but instead, her family is an important part of her work -- the joys and tribulations of raising a family, and the interconnections that arise between people in the same family, all inform (is part of) her work. Something that might be difficult for most men to understand and appreciate.
Many of the entrants who did not "win" undoubtably also deserved to win. But not all who deserve to win can win. Too much good work, not enough wall space. But Laura's work is of high enough quality to have deserved the honor -- and I do not need to see the work of the other entrants to know this.
I never stated that her work was better than all the other entrants -- that was your assumption. Winning such competitions always contain a bit of luck -- having one's work spark the interest of the judge(s) at the right time. On a different day the judge(s) might have picked a different set of five winners from the same group of entrants. Such is the subjectiveness of art.
Vaughn
PS...I thought of entering, but decided that by the definition of the contest, my work would not be "contemporary" enough to be a good fit. I am just an old Left Coast landscape photographer in love with the light. I do a little that might be considered a little more contemporary, if one relaxes the definition a bit, but it is all 8x10 work. Maybe they will have an EIGHT by TEN contest some day...LOL!
PS #2. Please excuse me, I read your question of whether a family of nine is a good thing as a negative comment against large families (overpopulation, etc). I am sorry if that is not what you meant -- and I hope I answered your question sufficiently above.
Toyon, sorry about all my post-posting editing. It probably makes things harder to follow.
The middle line of the quoted paragraph is mine. Don't know why it ended up "in" the quote.
Vaughn,
Having had students who went on to critical acclaim, I can understand your pride and enthusiasm. Congratulations to your program also.
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"
Just to add to a few points that Vaughn has made:
Many of the entrants who did not "win" undoubtably also deserved to win. But not all who deserve to win can win. Too much good work, not enough wall space.
That is so true, especially for this competition. We have a small, intimate non-profit gallery space that can comfortably hold about 30 framed prints. For this exhibit we wanted to showcase work that was being done with view cameras and decided, rather than have one image each from thirty photographers, we would have four images each from five different photographers (Four by Five) in order to have a strong, small group show. Each photographer will be given plenty of wall space where their work can really be appreciated. On top of it, Steve Simmons agreed to jury and to publish the work of those particular photographers. We were pleasantly surprised by the amount and quality of the work submitted. There is a ton of great work being done out there and I wish we could show it all. If we were looking for an exhibit that showcased strictly landscapes - we could have had that. Or portraiture - we could have had that. Or urban landscapes - we could have had that. Or conceptual - we could have had that. Believe me, Mr. Simmons had quite the job choosing only five bodies of work out of the 108 that were presented to him.
Winning such competitions always contain a bit of luck -- having one's work spark the interest of the judge(s) at the right time. On a different day the judge(s) might have picked a different set of five winners from the same group of entrants. Such is the subjectiveness of art.
Yes, so true. Mr. Simmons juried strictly on the images, not on the photographer. Our system assigns a number to each entry and he choose the images based strictly upon what appealed to him visually. We offer our jurors two options: they can look at artists statements, names, etc. along with the images or they can jury purely on imagery. Mr. Simmons chose the latter which is what I personally prefer.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks