Nude

[Steve M Hostetter]

sorry for the triple post!

[Emil Schildt]

sorry for the triple post!

but it was a nice post!!

[kev curry]

Steve, there's no question that we have agreement on this

[jp]

r.e.,

What's the above "it" referring to? Also Gandolfi or Francis Bacon?

Asher

I'd be far more apt to display Gandolfi rather than Francis Bacon. I Hope you are meaning to contrast them.

It's not Frank Petronio style and that's to be expected.

My art craft skills don't extend much beyond photography (and maybe page layout), so I envy the ability to do things like paint with light and scratch negatives in a creative and unique manner.

[Jay DeFehr]

To see Petronio criticizing a photographic (I won't say artistic because I don't consider Petronio an artist of any rank) superior on the grounds of pretentiousness and artifice made my morning. Yes, Emil should content himself with Model Mayhem TFP fodder propped into faux-provocative poses featuring their favorite tattoos and piercings against industrial backdrops. What a hack!

[Frank Petronio]

Ganfolfi: I'll stand by my comments but want to clarify there is no ill will meant or implied. I think your images are very high quality and appreciate them, I simply don't think the scratches are beneficial.

Jay: Some people call it "stalking" but I'll simply call you out on spending inordinate hours online focused on harassing and bullying me. So far there are no enforceable laws against it, but regardless, I encourage you to get some help and please leave me alone here and elsewhere online. I'm not going to converse or argue with you. Thank you.

[Emil Schildt]

Ganfolfi: I'll stand by my comments but want to clarify there is no ill will meant or implied. I think your images are very high quality and appreciate them, I simply don't think the scratches are beneficial.

Frank:
I had two "problems" with your "critique":

First I had a lot of trouble finding out what pretentious means (not even a danish dictonary helped me a lot). But I think I got it...

Second: If it were me, critiquing another image rather than commenting, I'd use a lot more words.
It is - for me - too easy just to say: you can do better. We all can, but if there's no hints or tools given on the how, then it is useless (to me).

Making my living as a teacher in photography might be the course of this.

Your last comment actually makes more sense to me.
I have no problem with you or any other to have issues with my images. And I am sure no ill will was behind it.

It is just, that short sentenses tend to lean that way (in my head).

Have to go and eat - will maybe be back later and explain more....

[Pete Watkins]

Frank,
You're not alone, that cretin has hounded me on a UK forum as well (WTF he's doing on a UK forum is open to question).
I bought Franks book last year and if Emil ever brings out a book I'll be in the queue. If Jay brings out a book we'll all be able to take the piss!!
Pete.

[Frank Petronio]

Ah well a photography teacher should expect more.

OK, I don't care for - and this is subjective - the added handwork to distress the images. I prefer clarity and frankly, detail and contrast. In this I am with the classic f/64, West Coast American photography, post-pictorial, Edward Weston, straight photography camp.

I don't see how the distressing adds to the image, other than to suggest that the images are aged and uncared for, disposable, and not worth taking care of properly. Given the romantic softness of the lighting and poses, I find this to be at odds with the other characteristics of the image and I find the disconnect to be troubling. But not so troubling that I am compelled to investigate further, simply troubling enough to pass by without further consideration.

If the images were printed cleanly, so that I could see them as straight photographs made with a modicum of craftsmanship, then I might look at them closer for clues and a story. But the marks and scratches make it harder for me to look, but from what I can discern, I simply see a classic pretty nude that I've seen many time before - so I give up and move on.

I understand that the marks were made to add meaning to the images and perhaps imply that they were less valuable, aged, or damaged (albeit they are well-crafted in spite the distress). But I don't think it is successful to me.

Pretension: a claim or right to attention or honor because of merit. In my criticism i used the word to apply to the scratches and signs of aging and abuse applied to the images on purpose, attempting to add meaning to the images that is lacking otherwise.

~

In any event, direct criticism is often wrongly viewed as insulting on this forum because it is rarely articulate, so thank you for pressing me for an elaboration and good wishes for your future photographs.

You're all welcome to critique my work in the same spirit of course, it is useful.

[Doug Howk]

Scratching the negatives like that is pretentious and way too arty for me.

I have a problem with the term "pretentious" as related to Gandolfi's work. It is suggesting what: 1) he is pretending to be an artist; or 2) overly ostentatious in order to impress others? I don't think either applies. Granted, I would never distress one of my negs since the few good ones are rare; but Emil's efforts show a willingness to explore. I can respect that effort and admire much of his work.