Virtual Gallery
Jeff
unlikely to have another, so I've made a quirky virtual gallery of it.
The images are from the gallery. It's rough around the edges but mostly
it's there.
This is a collaborative effort with a close friend of mine. Think of
Phillipe Hallsman and Salvadore Dali and you are on the right track.
These aren't landscapes, neither is this "fine art".
http://thelimit.com/seaberg_multimania/
Comments welcome. There's lots of tuning to do and I've got little
gas left in the tank tonight to do it, but suggestions are accepted.
Jeff
tony cooper
The website is a bit awkward to negotiate. Too much "closing" of one
image to see the next. It became too much trouble after about four
images.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jeff
Thanks for your input.
We often want to make life too easy, and we get out of it what we put
into it. If you didn't find anything interesting after 4 images, it's
unlikely that seeing 20 in quick succession would have improved things.
The feel intended was to be more like an actual gallery rather than a
web page of thumbs with quick arrows to the next. I've done that BTW...
Jeff
>
tony cooper
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 05:44:30 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a small photography show in a local non profit gallery. I'm
>>> unlikely to have another, so I've made a quirky virtual gallery of it.
>>> The images are from the gallery. It's rough around the edges but mostly
>>> it's there.
>>>
>>> This is a collaborative effort with a close friend of mine. Think of
>>> Phillipe Hallsman and Salvadore Dali and you are on the right track.
>>> These aren't landscapes, neither is this "fine art".
>>>
>>> http://thelimit.com/seaberg_multimania/
>>>
>>> Comments welcome. There's lots of tuning to do and I've got little
>>> gas left in the tank tonight to do it, but suggestions are accepted.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>> The website is a bit awkward to negotiate. Too much "closing" of one
>> image to see the next. It became too much trouble after about four
>> images.
>>
>
>Thanks for your input.
>
>We often want to make life too easy, and we get out of it what we put
>into it. If you didn't find anything interesting after 4 images, it's
>unlikely that seeing 20 in quick succession would have improved things.
It's your page, but it's my opinion that the 5th or the 12th might be
the one that is interesting.
If you want viewings, you are competing with dozens of other
galleries. The easy-to-navigate ones are the ones that are seen in
total.
> The feel intended was to be more like an actual gallery
Where was the wine and canapes?
>rather than a
>web page of thumbs with quick arrows to the next. I've done that BTW...
Jeff
the gallery. Those are the gallery walls.
If I wanted a web version, I would have done something like this:
http://thelimit.com/seaberg_multi_mania/altered_reality.html
Viewings are easy, getting across a view is difficult. If you've got
no time to to read and let this sink in, this isn't work you'd be
interested in. This isn't 47 landscapes and 24 portraits.
>
>> The feel intended was to be more like an actual gallery
>
> Where was the wine and canapes?
>
No food. Plenty of wine. Including the Magnum in the Mimes Last Supper.
Jeff
tony cooper
Another guy who says "Thanks for your input" and then tells you why he
doesn't want the input.
Jeff
se aren't landscapes, neither is this "fine art".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://thelimit.com/seaberg_multimania/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Comments welcome. There's lots of tuning to do and I've got little
>>>>>> gas left in the tank tonight to do it, but suggestions are accepted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>> The website is a bit awkward to negotiate. Too much "closing" of one
>>>>> image to see the next. It became too much trouble after about four
>>>>> images.
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your input.
>>>>
>>>> We often want to make life too easy, and we get out of it what we put
>>>> into it. If you didn't find anything interesting after 4 images, it's
>>>> unlikely that seeing 20 in quick succession would have improved things.
>>> It's your page, but it's my opinion that the 5th or the 12th might be
>>> the one that is interesting.
>>>
>>> If you want viewings, you are competing with dozens of other
>>> galleries. The easy-to-navigate ones are the ones that are seen in
>>> total.
>>>
>> Actually, I don't feel that way.
<all snipped away>
>
> Another guy who says "Thanks for your input" and then tells you why he
> doesn't want the input.
Would you have preferred that I didn't say that? It's tough to do
something a little different and get a favorable response.
And since you are the only one kind enough to respond I know for a
fact that this kind of concept won't fly here. That's a nice bit of
knowledge to have. I'll let Dudley have the website award from this group.
On the other hand, this is not my target audience. Since I put that
up this morning and sent out a few notices, I've had three sales, The
Flapjack Twincakes sold just a moment ago, two other pics are going to
Sweeden.
Cheers,
Jeff
>
>
>
>
Sianlover
<jeff@spam_me_not.com> writes
I like it. It's a good mix of retro and modern, and it doesn't hammer
the visitor with too many bells and whistles. There is a good mixture
of image and text, and I think you have conveyed the feel of a real
gallery in a simple but effective way.
I had never before heard of the Seabergs, but after looking at the
gallery and reading some of her poetry I was sorry to read that Ronnog
died in 2007.
--
Sianlover
Jeff
She was a terrific poet. Most women poets can't get past being angry
at men. Her last poem, written two days before her death:
OLD AGE
Old age like a tiger
ripping at your skin
to set your mind free.
We kneel of course.
If old age has such force
what strength birth should be
or the full length of life
and the whole earth!
The old silent movies run
from rusty projectors.
The spiderwebs the spiders spun
on spider spindles
food and fun.
10-15-2007 Ronnog Seaberg
Steve is working on getting all 140 some poems together in one "book".
And he's been editing some of the video. Remember that there is
acrobatics and all kinds of other craziness associated with this. Walt
Whitman never did that!
It's a shame that so many of the most original and creative people
don't find success during their lifetimes. But it's also symbolic of a
society that punishes creativity until it's no longer a threat.
Jeff
Peter
news:rbqdnaQp5cyf_rTV...@earthlink.com...
I think you conveyed the look and feel of a gallery. I am free to browse at
my leisure and look more closely if I care to.
I have read some of the comments below and don't think that your not
conforming to "web standard" is a negative. Quite the opposite.
Nor do I think that your expressing a reason for what you did is a denial of
your request for constructive critique.
As to the art itself, I saw little I would like to hang on my wall, but I
accept it as art. Then again, most of my work might not be something you
would like on your wall. <g>
Keep up your refreshingly creative work.
--
Peter
tony cooper
><snip>
>
>se aren't landscapes, neither is this "fine art".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://thelimit.com/seaberg_multimania/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Comments welcome. There's lots of tuning to do and I've got little
>>>>>>> gas left in the tank tonight to do it, but suggestions are accepted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>> The website is a bit awkward to negotiate. Too much "closing" of one
>>>>>> image to see the next. It became too much trouble after about four
>>>>>> images.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your input.
>>>>>
>>>>> We often want to make life too easy, and we get out of it what we put
>>>>> into it. If you didn't find anything interesting after 4 images, it's
>>>>> unlikely that seeing 20 in quick succession would have improved things.
>>>> It's your page, but it's my opinion that the 5th or the 12th might be
>>>> the one that is interesting.
>>>>
>>>> If you want viewings, you are competing with dozens of other
>>>> galleries. The easy-to-navigate ones are the ones that are seen in
>>>> total.
>>>>
>>> Actually, I don't feel that way.
>
><all snipped away>
>>
>> Another guy who says "Thanks for your input" and then tells you why he
>> doesn't want the input.
>
> Would you have preferred that I didn't say that?
It's not a matter of what I would prefer. However, if I was to post a
link to a photo or website and ask for comments, my reply to any
comment - favorable or unfavorable - would be "Thanks for the reply.
I'll take your comments under consideration". That consideration
could be from a nanosecond to a serious review of the applicability.
> It's tough to do
>something a little different and get a favorable response.
>
Not if it's good.
> And since you are the only one kind enough to respond I know for a
>fact that this kind of concept won't fly here. That's a nice bit of
>knowledge to have. I'll let Dudley have the website award from this group.
Ahh, not even gracious in losing.
> On the other hand, this is not my target audience. Since I put that
>up this morning and sent out a few notices, I've had three sales, The
>Flapjack Twincakes sold just a moment ago, two other pics are going to
>Sweeden.
So you were spamming. Your intent was not to solicit comments. It
was to flog your product without the honesty to explain what you were
doing.
Jeff
> "Jeff" <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote in message
> news:rbqdnaQp5cyf_rTV...@earthlink.com...
>> I have a small photography show in a local non profit gallery. I'm
>> unlikely to have another, so I've made a quirky virtual gallery of it.
>> The images are from the gallery. It's rough around the edges but
>> mostly it's there.
>>
>> This is a collaborative effort with a close friend of mine. Think of
>> Phillipe Hallsman and Salvadore Dali and you are on the right track.
>> These aren't landscapes, neither is this "fine art".
>>
>> http://thelimit.com/seaberg_multimania/
>>
>> Comments welcome. There's lots of tuning to do and I've got little
>> gas left in the tank tonight to do it, but suggestions are accepted.
>>
>
>
> I think you conveyed the look and feel of a gallery. I am free to browse
> at my leisure and look more closely if I care to.
That's good.
>
> I have read some of the comments below and don't think that your not
> conforming to "web standard" is a negative. Quite the opposite.
> Nor do I think that your expressing a reason for what you did is a
> denial of your request for constructive critique.
>
> As to the art itself, I saw little I would like to hang on my wall, but
> I accept it as art.
What, no "Mimes Last Supper" hanging in the Dining Room?
Seriously, this isn't work that a decorator would put in any home!
Then again, most of my work might not be something
> you would like on your wall. <g>
I don't know, got a link? Well, I've got no money to buy... Actually,
along the way I've collected a good bit of photography. Interesting work
comes in all genres.
> Keep up your refreshingly creative work.
Thanks. I feel better!
Jeff
>
Jeff
There's a long list of artists who are revered today that were reviled
during their lifetime.
>
>
>> And since you are the only one kind enough to respond I know for a
>> fact that this kind of concept won't fly here. That's a nice bit of
>> knowledge to have. I'll let Dudley have the website award from this group.
>
> Ahh, not even gracious in losing.
I believe I've spent a good bit more time trying to help Dudley than
you have.
Look, everyone wants to beat someone down. It's common. Happens all the
time. But it does no good to the artistic community at large.
>
>> On the other hand, this is not my target audience. Since I put that
>> up this morning and sent out a few notices, I've had three sales, The
>> Flapjack Twincakes sold just a moment ago, two other pics are going to
>> Sweeden.
>
> So you were spamming.
Christ, do you think I'm trying to sell art to this group? You would
have to be a lunatic to believe that. There's not even a buy link or
contact info on the site. Nor do I have a real email address. You
ignored the line about this not being my target audience.
I asked here in that I thought I'd get some feedback on tweaking it.
I've made a few adjustments on comments I've gotten elsewhere. If you
close the image, it now also closes the description. I've changed a few
other things and am working on another tweak. I also think it's
interesting work and that might merit a comment.
My intention behind the site is to get more people to see the live
exhibit, not throw up yet another collection of linked thumbnails. Hence
why it looks like the gallery, not some web page.
I sent it to people that I knew, and who would be interested.
Individuals, not groups. I solicited comments here and to one specific
individual in CIWA.stylesheets. I don't consider that SPAM.I find it odd
that you do. But I think you are just looking for an avenue of attack.
Your intent was not to solicit comments. It
> was to flog your product without the honesty to explain what you were
> doing.
You just seem bitter. You may be great to your friends, but to me you
just seem bitter.
I told you that I wanted to make this seem like a live gallery, not a
web gallery. And your comment was that I should have made it like
everything else.
Now, if you can't see that there is room for variety, then there is
little I can say to you. I think you just hate it and unless it looks
like something you are familiar with you will never like it. And that's OK.
Jeff
>
>
tony cooper
>
> I told you that I wanted to make this seem like a live gallery, not a
>web gallery. And your comment was that I should have made it like
>everything else.
No, my comment was that it was difficult and tedious to navigate
around the site. A site can be unique, fresh, and a quite different
format from other sites and still be easy to navigate through. You
just haven't found a way to do it. You probably don't even see the
difficulty in navigation because you know the site too well.
An open site blocks the view of the icons to the other sites. If you
close the text box, you also have to close the image to see the other
site icons. The text block covers part of the image. The visitor can
finally figure out that the text block can be moved and that closing
the image now closes both image and text.
You want it to be like a real gallery, but in a real gallery I walk
from picture to picture. I don't have to figure out how to best walk
around the place. I can stop and pause, or move along smoothly.
> Now, if you can't see that there is room for variety, then there is
>little I can say to you. I think you just hate it and unless it looks
>like something you are familiar with you will never like it. And that's OK.
Nah, I don't hate it. Hate is a strong emotion, and there's nothing
about the site or the images that incur strong emotion. What's going
on here is mere annoyance.
>You just seem bitter. You may be great to your friends, but to me you
>just seem bitter.
I think you have the shoe on the wrong foot. You evidently came for
accolades and came out with a mild criticism and not much interest.
So you launched into the unappreciated artist trying to blaze a new
trail routine with a "It can't be me, it must be you" subplot. That
sounds like bitter to me.
> I'll let Dudley have the website award from this group.
>
> Ahh, not even gracious in losing.
>I believe I've spent a good bit more time trying to help Dudley than
>you have.
I thought Dudley said his site was done by a grade school kid. Was
that you?
In case you missed it in my earlier post, the best way to respond to a
critique when you have solicited comments is a brief acknowledgement
because the person has taken the trouble to organize and post the
critique. Cranking out a defense and justification is tantamount to
saying "I only wanted praise. Don't bother to respond if you aren't
going to praise me".
Jeff
>
>> I believe I've spent a good bit more time trying to help Dudley than
>> you have.
>
> I thought Dudley said his site was done by a grade school kid. Was
> that you?
No who is being childish
<plonk>
>
Dudley Hanks
I'll pretend I haven't seen this thread... :)
But, hey, I appreciate the comments each of you has sent my way.
Go easy on each other, I'm hoping each of you will have enough energy to
read my posts...
Dudley
Peter
news:79uk24tk044meak2c...@4ax.com...
> In case you missed it in my earlier post, the best way to respond to a
> critique when you have solicited comments is a brief acknowledgement
> because the person has taken the trouble to organize and post the
> critique. Cranking out a defense and justification is tantamount to
> saying "I only wanted praise. Don't bother to respond if you aren't
> going to praise me".
>
Assuming all are in good faith, as I assume here, I think a response by the
artist to a critical comment can lead to an interesting discussion.
I have been to lazy to set up a site, but will illustrate by example. At a
critique of one of my shots there was a consensus that the shot looked like
something out of a horror movie. I my reply, I simply pointed out title.
"Mrs. Bates."
Art is often intended to convey emotion and evoke comment. I don't think it
inappropriate for the artist to respond. With some artists the response is
another image. With others it is words.
Tony, when I finally get around to setting up my site, I will invite your
candid comments. If I respond please don't take that as my only wanting
praise.
--
Peter
Striving as per Faust
tony cooper
My comment was not to say that a lively discussion is not appropriate
when discussing a photograph. What bothers me is the sensitivity some
show when they post a photograph, receive a comment that the
background contains a distracting water tower, and then post a peevish
reply defending the presence of the water tower.
The photographer knows the water tower is there, he may not have been
able to position himself to not include the water tower, and the
photograph may have been such that cropping out the water tower
created a greater loss.
Asking for comments opens the door to comments about the water tower,
and the photographer should just accept that some will object to it in
the frame.
The photographer need not agree with all criticism. A photographer
may feel that an image looks better in soft focus and that a sharp,
detailed presentation of the subject is not the best presentation.
When stated in the reply, that's an explanation. When the explanation
gets personal and includes remarks like "You just hate it" or "You
don't have any sense of artistic composition", then it's a peevish
defense.
There is a difference to me between a peevish defense and an
explanation of the conditions. Like the man said about pornography,
"I know it when I see it".
This was a discussion about website navigation. No comment was made
about the images. The originator of a website is sometimes too close
to the results to understand how it works for others. I found that
website to be one that presented obstacles to viewing rather than a
site that encouraged viewing. The defense was that I was not
artistically savvy enough to accept something other than a page of
thumbnails and too declasse to appreciate a virtual gallery effect.
That's peevish.
tony cooper
I did err. Dudley said "My daughter, Amelia (grade 6), did the
post-processing on the pic, so the colour scheme is a bit youthful.
But, I want to build her enthusiasm, so I just let her run with it."
I didn't pay attention and didn't retain the bit about post-processing
of the pic and thought that Amelia did the entire site. Actually,
that's not beyond the capabilities of some 6th graders.
Peter
Then I may have misread your comment.
> Asking for comments opens the door to comments about the water tower,
> and the photographer should just accept that some will object to it in
> the frame.
>
> The photographer need not agree with all criticism. A photographer
> may feel that an image looks better in soft focus and that a sharp,
> detailed presentation of the subject is not the best presentation.
> When stated in the reply, that's an explanation. When the explanation
> gets personal and includes remarks like "You just hate it" or "You
> don't have any sense of artistic composition", then it's a peevish
> defense.
I understand that some replies may come accross as peevish. We all have a
tendency to defend our actions and artistic creations. Some consider their
art as posessivly as their children. Can you tell a mother her child is
funny looking.
When I was paid for giving advice I never expected it to be slavishly
followed, just fairly considered.
>
> There is a difference to me between a peevish defense and an
> explanation of the conditions. Like the man said about pornography,
> "I know it when I see it".
>
> This was a discussion about website navigation. No comment was made
> about the images. The originator of a website is sometimes too close
> to the results to understand how it works for others. I found that
> website to be one that presented obstacles to viewing rather than a
> site that encouraged viewing. The defense was that I was not
> artistically savvy enough to accept something other than a page of
> thumbnails and too declasse to appreciate a virtual gallery effect.
>
>That's peevish.
I didn't read his response that way
--
Peter
The One
Shite, plain and simple, keeping things simple would be better for you.
The One
Are you two gay?