New prints released at by the Fish Eye Guy
Todd
The "Fish Eye Guy" has released some new photos/prints:
http://www.fisheyeguyphotography.com/galleries.asp?galleryid=7
My favorite is 212:
http://www.fisheyeguyphotography.com/pics/trout-small/yellowstone-cutthroat-trout-photo-212.jpg
The guy has got some extraordinary talent! (Although
way too expensive for me.) Take a look, even if you can not
afford anything. They are extraordinary.
-T
DaveS
> Hi All,
>
> The "Fish Eye Guy" has released some new photos/prints:
>
> http://www.fisheyeguyphotography.com/galleries.asp?galleryid=7
>
>
> The guy has got some extraordinary talent! (Although
> way too expensive for me.) Take a look, even if you can not
> afford anything. They are extraordinary.
>
> -T
Interesting. The lighting in these photos seems somewhat at odds with
how light moves thru water. I am no expert but I would have liked a
more forthcoming revelation as to the extent that the original images
from the camera were "photo-shopped" to get to the final product. In
particular, it looks like the bodies of the fish were a lot lighter
than would be consistent with the light cues in the backgrounds, and
that the backgrounds in some photos were separately color filtered.
Some of the fish colors I believe only fluoresce in daylight, not
under water as these images show. Finally, if these digital paintings
rely on software to the extent that I believe these do, isn't it
appropriate for the artist to at least credit the software used to
create the effects and to print the image?
Dave
DaveS
Correction: He does offer this as per the printer, ink and
support. . .
"All prints are created with an Epson 4000 inkjet printer using
ultrachrome ink on archival acid free canvas." Epsons are the go to
mid market printer for art giclees.
Dave
rw56...@gmail.com
> how light moves thru water. I am no expert but I would have liked a
> more forthcoming revelation as to the extent that the original images
> from the camera were "photo-shopped" to get to the final product. In
> particular, it looks like the bodies of the fish were a lot lighter
> than would be consistent with the light cues in the backgrounds, and
> that the backgrounds in some photos were separately color filtered.
> Some of the fish colors I believe only fluoresce in daylight, not
> under water as these images show.
"You kids get off my lawn!!!"
> Finally, if these digital paintings
> rely on software to the extent that I believe these do, isn't it
> appropriate for the artist to at least credit the software used to
> create the effects and to print the image?
Jesus, dude. Do painters credit their pigments and brushes?
It's art, and Photoshop or whatever he uses is just another tool. Get
over it.
Giles
> On Nov 25, 11:32 am, DaveS <snedek...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Interesting. The lighting in these photos seems somewhat at odds with
> > how light moves thru water. I am no expert but I would have liked a
> > more forthcoming revelation as to the extent that the original images
> > from the camera were "photo-shopped" to get to the final product. In
> > particular, it looks like the bodies of the fish were a lot lighter
> > than would be consistent with the light cues in the backgrounds, and
> > that the backgrounds in some photos were separately color filtered.
> > Some of the fish colors I believe only fluoresce in daylight, not
> > under water as these images show.
>
> "You kids get off my lawn!!!"
Moron.
> > Finally, if these digital paintings
> > rely on software to the extent that I believe these do, isn't it
> > appropriate for the artist to at least credit the software used to
> > create the effects and to print the image?
>
> Jesus, dude. Do painters credit their pigments and brushes?
>
> It's art, and Photoshop or whatever he uses is just another tool. Get
> over it.
Agreed.....sort of. Traditionally, photo buffs have enjoyed, and to
some extent insisted on, full (more or less) disclosure, and while I
don't think it's an inherently bad policy, the torturously complete
(especially now, in digital times) list of data is tedious in the
extreme.
On the other hand, Dave's observations DO make sense to me. Something
about those photos appearss to shriek manipulation. Doesn't make any
difference to me as far as appreciation is concerned, but a boy does
like to know how it was done.
g.
DaveS
> On Nov 25, 11:32 am, DaveS <snedek...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Interesting. The lighting in these photos seems somewhat at odds with
> > how light moves thru water. I am no expert but I would have liked a
> > more forthcoming revelation as to the extent that the original images
> > from the camera were "photo-shopped" to get to the final product. In
> > particular, it looks like the bodies of the fish were a lot lighter
> > than would be consistent with the light cues in the backgrounds, and
> > that the backgrounds in some photos were separately color filtered.
> > Some of the fish colors I believe only fluoresce in daylight, not
> > under water as these images show.
>
> "You kids get off my lawn!!!"
Would that it WAS all my lawn, but alas, . . .
Maybe I don't yet understand just what EyeGuy is doing. Is he
depicting underwater reality? Is he depicting a surreal interpret of
underwater reality? Are these portraits, where as is normal in
portraiture, background is subservient to advancing the structure,
(the planes?) of the subject? Are they landscapes (waterscapes?) real,
surreal, abstract?
My comments reflect that I chose the simplest interpretation, IE that
he is photographing reality, BECAUSE his description focuses on the
placement of the camera, the thousands of shots, apparently taken in
his absence, from which he chose some as worthy of publishing. He says
nothing about HIS ARTISTIC contribution to the images. And so, seeing
in the image some evidence of ARTISTIC manipulation, I would like to
know more. If he pressed buttons Id like to know who made the buttons.
> > Finally, if these digital paintings
> > rely on software to the extent that I believe these do, isn't it
> > appropriate for the artist to at least credit the software used to
> > create the effects and to print the image?
>
> Jesus, dude. Do painters credit their pigments and brushes?
By definition the painter's hand is evidenced for all to see in the
brush strokes and texture of the painting surface. And yes, it is
common for a lot to be recorded, particularly for well known paintings/
artists/fussbudgets etc. It would be unusual to credit brushes, but
many pigments and brands are pretty distinctive. Understand also that
this comparison is really apples and oranges, because it is relatively
easy to deconstruct the physical composition of a painting from the
fabric of the support, to the rabbit glue priming, to the gesso coats,
to the charcoal drawing, to the under painting, the lay in etc etc..
>
> It's art, and Photoshop or whatever he uses is just another tool.
That is a given. But I don't think you get something. Here is an
analogy: In science disclosure of authorship, credit, assumptions,
hypotheses, processes, and results, via publication in peer reviewed
media is seen to have value. Similarly, many artists feel that
crediting the work of others, and sharing something about the basic
materials and tools has value. And I think this attitude in both
science and art is one of the divides that separates "corporate"
science and engineering, from "real science," and art from pretty
pictures.
And . . . did you steelhead on the Clearwater this year?
Dave
rw56...@gmail.com
> On Nov 25, 6:02 pm, "rw56r...@gmail.com" <rw56r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > "You kids get off my lawn!!!"
>
> Would that it WAS all my lawn, but alas, . . .
> Maybe I don't yet understand just what EyeGuy is doing. Is he
> depicting underwater reality? Is he depicting a surreal interpret of
> underwater reality? Are these portraits, where as is normal in
> portraiture, background is subservient to advancing the structure,
> (the planes?) of the subject? Are they landscapes (waterscapes?) real,
> surreal, abstract?
The images are what they are. They stand alone as objects of art. Some
are very good, IMO. Some less so. At the very least, it's
a hell of an effort.
The mere fact that you're curious about the artist's technique is a
tribute, BTW.
> My comments reflect that I chose the simplest interpretation, IE that
> he is photographing reality, BECAUSE his description focuses on the
> placement of the camera, the thousands of shots, apparently taken in
> his absence, from which he chose some as worthy of publishing. He says
> nothing about HIS ARTISTIC contribution to the images. And so, seeing
> in the image some evidence of ARTISTIC manipulation, I would like to
> know more. If he pressed buttons Id like to know who made the buttons.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me like he's not, so to speak, adding
information to is photographs, at least in any significant way. No
doubt, he's _enhancing_ the photographs, using any one of a number of
applications like Photoshop. So what? The information is captured by
the camera. How it's rendered is up to the artist.
Are you arguing against photography as art? It kind of sounds that
way.
To my way of thinking, 90% of this guy's art is getting the photos in
the first place, and it's impressive.
> > > Finally, if these digital paintings
> > > rely on software to the extent that I believe these do, isn't it
> > > appropriate for the artist to at least credit the software used to
> > > create the effects and to print the image?
>
> > Jesus, dude. Do painters credit their pigments and brushes?
>
> By definition the painter's hand is evidenced for all to see in the
> brush strokes and texture of the painting surface. And yes, it is
> common for a lot to be recorded, particularly for well known paintings/
> artists/fussbudgets etc. It would be unusual to credit brushes, but
> many pigments and brands are pretty distinctive. Understand also that
> this comparison is really apples and oranges, because it is relatively
> easy to deconstruct the physical composition of a painting from the
> fabric of the support, to the rabbit glue priming, to the gesso coats,
> to the charcoal drawing, to the under painting, the lay in etc etc..
Give me a break, Dave. Are you seriously complaining that the artist
didn't credit his tools? Do you think there's a "make a really cool
fish picture" button in Photoshop?
>
>
> > It's art, and Photoshop or whatever he uses is just another tool.
>
> That is a given. But I don't think you get something. Here is an
> analogy: In science disclosure of authorship, credit, assumptions,
> hypotheses, processes, and results, via publication in peer reviewed
> media is seen to have value. Similarly, many artists feel that
> crediting the work of others, and sharing something about the basic
> materials and tools has value. And I think this attitude in both
> science and art is one of the divides that separates "corporate"
> science and engineering, from "real science," and art from pretty
> pictures.
If you write a polite email to the artist I'll wager he'll tell you
all about it,
> And . . . did you steelhead on the Clearwater this year?
No, missed the Clearwater. Stopped at the Deschutes, with no success.
Barely fished. That's one tough river unless you have inside help or
lots of time, IMO.
DaveS
Well I had written out this elaborate incredibly reasoned
response. . . and then zapped it by accident. So this is the kernel.
Yep photography can be an art saith Dave. But . . .
it is not a plastic art. Painting is considered a plastic art.
I don't think of myself as an artist; I am a painter. On a few
occasion i have produced "art."
Painting is closer to sculpture than it is to video and photography.
Its the human tissue transmitting whats in the mind's eye to the hand
and stylus of some sort, working with a physical pigment. Its not
capturing and editing an image of reflective light with an
electromechanical device in digital form, and sending that information
thru a non-living channel to another electromechanical device which
activates servo-ed aperatures thru which ink is sprayed onto a
support.
I envy folks who can take great photos. Ive used a camera to "take
notes" of landscape. But I just don't understand how someone could use
a camera to create an image from the mind's eye. I can see how a
camera and software can be used to capture and manipulate an existing
image. I can also understand how photos (digital information) can be
incorporated into an image from the mind's eye. Ive a departed friend,
Chuck Smart, a painter/photographer who literally pioneered melding
digital info with the painted and sculpted image. I liked his work.
But our conversation on this very topic began when we met and never
reached resolution.
By the way, I don't see some grand conflict between painting and
photography. I see photography as relieving painting of the burden of
simple recording what things people etc look like. Apart from the
tactile pleasure of painting . . . I think that painting has to convey
much more (or much different) than what the camera can do, or why
paint. Enuf
Dave
rw56...@gmail.com
> On Nov 26, 7:02 pm, "rw56r...@gmail.com" <rw56r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well I had written out this elaborate incredibly reasoned
> response. . . and then zapped it by accident. So this is the kernel.
>
> Yep photography can be an art saith Dave. But . . .
> it is not a plastic art. Painting is considered a plastic art.
> I don't think of myself as an artist; I am a painter. On a few
> occasion i have produced "art."
On the "About" page of his website he writes, "With the advent of
digital cameras this type of photography became possible. Using a full
frame Digital SLR with large capacity cards allows me to take as many
as ten thousand high resolution shots in one day. At this sort of pace
I will get a keeper one out of every ten days."
I find this very interesting. The combination of innovative use of
technology and dedication in screening many thousands of photos is
impressive. The "art" isn't solely in the images themselves, but in
the process of getting them.
pat
pat
Dave,
Don't appreciate u saying I am "dishonnest"? Photoshop with digital
photography is a given and need not be even stated. That would be no
different than getting up in a Potters face about the fact he/she did
not state they used a kilm and a wheel vs. their hands and a
campfire... As for the lighting. There are these things called
flashes and strobes that could light the subject matter more than the
say background. As for color spectrum. Gray pointer adjustments
remove the built in underwater filter. Do I also need to state the
fact I selectivly sharpen? Or maybe the fact each image has maybe 10
hours of clone stamping and healing just to remove backscatter. Glad
everyone is enjoying my work. Pat
DaveS
> Dave,
> Don't appreciate u saying I am "dishonnest"? Photoshop with digital
> photography is a given and need not be even stated. That would be no
> different than getting up in a Potters face about the fact he/she did
> not state they used a kilm and a wheel vs. their hands and a
> campfire... As for the lighting. There are these things called
> flashes and strobes that could light the subject matter more than the
> say background. As for color spectrum. Gray pointer adjustments
> remove the built in underwater filter. Do I also need to state the
> fact I selectivly sharpen? Or maybe the fact each image has maybe 10
> hours of clone stamping and healing just to remove backscatter. Glad
> everyone is enjoying my work. Pat- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pat. first thank you for providing more info on how the images were
made. As i said in a prior post, it is a given that most photographers
use editing and enhancement tools. What has changed in the digital
world is the degree of manipulation of the original image. And,
separate and apart from curiosity as to the technique used in this
rapidly evolving technology, it appears to me that things have moved
beyond a simple relationship between man and material; it seems to me
that what is evolving is more like a collaboration between man and the
built in intelligence of the electromechanical devices used and their
creators.
The analogy of a brush and a printer doesn't work IMHO. Particularly
with images of the natural world. For example, if i see an image of
the earth from space, I cannot avoid the question of how much does a
specific image reflect the true nature of the observed Earth, and how
much of the image was "enhanced."
Second, I could not find where I said you were "dishonnest." You say
""> Don't appreciate u saying I am "dishonnest"? I said no such
thing. Why do you put quotes around something that I did not say?
Correct me if I am wrong about this.
Finally, I find your pictures striking. I wish you success. But i
disagree with you as to whether other collaborating people and other
intelligences warrant mention and credit. Don't take that too hard, I
would guess there are more photographers that agree with your take
than agree with mine.
Dave
DaveS
Snip
> I find this very interesting. The combination of innovative use of
> technology and dedication in screening many thousands of photos is
> impressive. The "art" isn't solely in the images themselves, but in
> the process of getting them.
Kind of like performance art.
Dave
DaveS
SNIP
> Agreed.....sort of. Traditionally, photo buffs have enjoyed, and to
> some extent insisted on, full (more or less) disclosure, and while I
> don't think it's an inherently bad policy, the torturously complete
> (especially now, in digital times) list of data is tedious in the
> extreme.
Well yes, there is some absurd level to which it may be taken.
>
> On the other hand, Dave's observations DO make sense to me. Something
> about those photos appearss to shriek manipulation. Doesn't make any
> difference to me as far as appreciation is concerned, but a boy does
> like to know how it was done.
What he said, minus the shriek.
>
> g.
Dave
rw56...@gmail.com
The same analogy occurred to me. The question that immediately occurs
to me when I see these photos is, "How do he DO that?"
DaveS
By the way, are you still drawing? Nothing like a weekly live figure
session to keep the Winter at bay.
Dave
rw56...@gmail.com
Not much. It's a source of guilt.
Every now and then I get obsessive about it, but can't seem to sustain
it as a habit.
DaveS
Exactly, and that is why it is recommend all old men find a life
figure drawing group. A proven elixer for the ages. Guilt free. There
is no art without leachery, and no lechery without . . . .
Dave
Giles
And yet you get a major bug up your ass when someone else wonders the
same hing.
Do you ever read ANYTHING you write?
g.
the boy just WILL NOT learn. :)
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
Is Warhol's work "art"? Howabout Hirst? Rembrandt? Monet? Degas? Art is in
the eye of the beholder - that's why it's art, not science...
HTH,
R
Giles
> Is Warhol's work "art"? Howabout Hirst? Rembrandt? Monet? Degas? Art is in
> the eye of the beholder - that's why it's art, not science...
Profundity, thy name is diminutive.
> R
Imbecile.
g.
DaveS
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:27:35 -0800 (PST), "rw56r...@gmail.com"
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are kidding right? Damian Hirst's paintings are art but IMHO they
are also shit. So is most of the found art that just copies stuff that
was done and novel in the 1920s IMHO. And 90% of the "Art in America"
stuff. . . 3678 red plastic soda cups lined up on a stairway. Boy oh
Boy. Shit. Art? Yes. Shit? yes.
Eye of the beholder? Sure, but lots of folk love shit. No skin off
anyone's nose. Soup cans, collaged garbage etc., bring it on.
Crucified frogs? Piss Jebus? Why not. All art. Shit to me but who can
account for differing tastes?
Photography and painting can both produce art. But for me, photography
is photography and painting is painting, You can paint on a
photograph and photograph a painting. But painting and photography are
two diff thangs. IMHO
Dave
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
What about hand-tinted "photographs" or Warholesque silk-screening, etc.? As
long as private funds are being used to produce and/or procure it, art is
whatever artist and patron wish - you are entitled to behold that which purports
to be art however you wish, just as is everyone else, but as long as one person
considers it "art," it's art...that's why there's Rovira and divinity, if you
will...
HTH,
R
DaveS
So, lets see, then if it's public money paying for it, there IS a
standard that defines what is and what is not art? . . . and what you
are and what you are not entitled to behold etc.?
That would rule out most of the art financed by the Doges of Venice?
And much of what is in the Louvre right? How about the US Postal
Service stamp competitions? Public architecture? Public museum
purchase prizes?
"What about hand-tinted "photographs" or Warholesque silk-screening,
etc.? " What about paint spilled on the grass. I don't know. What
about Easter Eggs?
Warhol? Of course Warhol was an artist. He could draw and paint. But
Ive no understanding beyond his need for money as to why he did so
much of his stenciled portraiture. I don't get Francis Bacon either
but he is an artist producing art. Norman Rockwell and Maxfield
Parrish both used photography slavishly, actually traced, and produced
art. I even like some of it. But Rockwell was deeply sick about it and
ashamed. (Why do you think he was ashamed?) Maybe Warhol would have
been too if he was not so otherwise fucked up.
Interesting.
Dave
DaveS
Well I do not know Rovira so I looked him up. He is definitely a
painter. That's art he made. Divinity? The reference escapes me. But
G. Stein found and liked him in her old age so like she said "Whats
the answer?" "Whats the question?" If you own a Rovira with a good
provenance its probably a keeper.
Dave
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
Not exactly - if it is "public" money funding anything, then "the public" should
have a voice in what is funded. In the US, if those chosen by "the public" fund
whatever, and "the public" doesn't like the choice, then the onus is on "the
public" to let them know. OTOH, if those reps choose not to fund something, or,
to withdraw funding from something, then it is not "censorship." Moreover, it
is not incumbent upon "the public" to fund "art." It's like abortion in the US
- many don't want "the government" interfering with it (and it should not be),
but many of that many, if you will, want "government" to pay for it (and it
should not be doing so, in general). Those in the opposition want "government"
to stop it, which is still "government interference." Abortion, like art, is a
highly personal matter, and no reasonable theory of modern governance (nor
Constitutional theory, in the case of the US) suggests that such matters are of
a delegated governmental nature, esp. Federal, beyond broad duties delegated for
general "welfare oversight." In the case of abortion - a medical procedure - it
would consist of regulating/licensing all medical procedure providers, and in
the case of art, doing no more than, simply, protecting what "the public"
generally considers "public decency." OTOH, if a person knowingly chooses to
use a non-regulated provider, or, chooses to see, in private, what "the public"
considers "indecent," then the government's _delegated_ role as
regulator/protector _to the public_ was fulfilled.
>That would rule out most of the art financed by the Doges of Venice?
>And much of what is in the Louvre right? How about the US Postal
>Service stamp competitions? Public architecture? Public museum
>purchase prizes?
>
>"What about hand-tinted "photographs" or Warholesque silk-screening,
>etc.? " What about paint spilled on the grass. I don't know. What
>about Easter Eggs?
>
>Warhol? Of course Warhol was an artist. He could draw and paint.
As can just about all of "the public." What each might produce when doing so
is, again, in the eye of the beholder.
>But
>Ive no understanding beyond his need for money as to why he did so
>much of his stenciled portraiture.
I was indirectly acquainted with Warhol and many other "pop"/"modern" artists
(Rauschenberg, Oldenburg, to a limited extent, Calder, and have had
nearly-unlimited access to several large collections, both broad and focused,
and including that of the Barnes' Foundation). And I've got an
admittedly-anecdotal example of what I mean. A friend's mother was a very
high-profile art dealer who was a friend of Warhol, etc. and thought much of
that type of thing was truly art. His father, who made a very good living on
his own in his own totally unrelated profession, thought as you seem to - that
much of it was simply a bunch of money-making nonsense. And they were each
absolutely correct - for themselves. I can tell you that Warhol (and many of
his instant peers, as most artists do) produced quite a bit long before he was
making anything (monetarily) substantial by virtue of it - he had an hour of
obscurity before he had 15 minutes of fame, if you will. Take from that what
you will.
>I don't get Francis Bacon either
>but he is an artist producing art. Norman Rockwell and Maxfield
>Parrish both used photography slavishly, actually traced, and produced
>art. I even like some of it. But Rockwell was deeply sick about it and
>ashamed. (Why do you think he was ashamed?) Maybe Warhol would have
>been too if he was not so otherwise fucked up.
And what about Ansel Adams?
HTH,
R
>
>Interesting.
>Dave
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
>
>Well I do not know Rovira so I looked him up. He is definitely a
>painter. That's art he made. Divinity? The reference escapes me. But
>G. Stein found and liked him in her old age so like she said "Whats
>the answer?" "Whats the question?" If you own a Rovira with a good
>provenance its probably a keeper.
http://www.enricrovira.com/castella/menu.html
HTH,
R
>
>Dave
DaveS
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:05:36 -0800 (PST), DaveS <snedek...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >Well I do not know Rovira so I looked him up. He is definitely a
> >painter. That's art he made. Divinity? The reference escapes me. But
> >G. Stein found and liked him in her old age so like she said "Whats
> >the answer?" "Whats the question?" If you own a Rovira with a good
> >provenance its probably a keeper.
>
> http://www.enricrovira.com/castella/menu.html
>
> HTH,
> R
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think maybe we are talking about 2 diff people. Enrico Rovira is a
chocolatier, I thought you were referencing Francisco Riba Rovira
(1913-2002) the Spanish painter, whose career got a big boost from a
"word portrait" that Gertrude Stein did as an intro to a 1945 show of
Rovira's painting in Paris I believe near the end of her life.
So were you comparing Enrico's chocolate to divinity chocolate meaning
different strokes for different . . . .?
Dave
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
>On Nov 30, 9:15�am, rdean3REM...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:05:36 -0800 (PST), DaveS <snedek...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Well I do not know Rovira so I looked him up. He is definitely a
>> >painter. That's art he made. Divinity? The reference escapes me. But
>> >G. Stein found and liked him in her old age so like she said "Whats
>> >the answer?" "Whats the question?" If you own a Rovira with a good
>> >provenance its probably a keeper.
>>
>> http://www.enricrovira.com/castella/menu.html
>>
>> HTH,
>> R
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Dave- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I think maybe we are talking about 2 diff people.
Yeah, I sorta got that, um, impression...
>Enrico Rovira is a chocolatier,
Hmmm...OK, that's 3 different people...
>I thought you were referencing Francisco Riba Rovira
>(1913-2002) the Spanish painter, whose career got a big boost from a
>"word portrait" that Gertrude Stein did as an intro to a 1945 show of
>Rovira's painting in Paris I believe near the end of her life.
>
>So were you comparing Enrico's chocolate to divinity chocolate meaning
>different strokes for different . . . .?
Yes and no. No, I wasn't referencing anyone named "Enrico," nor was I
comparing, but rather, contrasting. But yes, I was saying, essentially,
"...that's why there is chocolate and vanilla..." Besides "that's why there's
somewhat obscure recently deceased Spanish painters whose careers were boosted
via Gertrude Stein's involvement, or, in the alternative, a person called
'Enrico Rovira' and vanilla..." doesn't exactly, er, melt in one's mouth...or
their hand, either...
HTH,
R
DaveS
SNIP SNIP
"I was indirectly acquainted with Warhol and many other
"pop"/"modern" artists
(Rauschenberg, Oldenburg, to a limited extent, Calder, and have had
nearly-unlimited access to several large collections, both broad and
focused,
and including that of the Barnes' Foundation). if you will. Take
from that what
you will."
I am impressed. Seriously. I am. The best access to the Pop Art stuff
I ever had was in the MOCA Annex over in LA's JTown. I expect its
still over there. And MOCA has an incredible modern collection. IMHO
LA is one monster of an art town, not to be missed.
The Barnes collection (Philly) : Ive seen only in photos. Is it still
difficult to get access, I had read somewhere that the state of the
endowment, restrictions or somesuch was becoming unsustainable. Do you
know the current state of play?
> And what about Ansel Adams?
A great naturalist/landscape photographer. And Curtis, a great
ethnographic photographer. I love both and own a few of one. Neither
were painters to my knowledge.
Look, we all have our own likes and biases. And I am at least somewhat
aware of the ridiculousness of asserting my own biases as if they were
biblical. But I also know that without a point of view a painter
becomes a former painter. So, I have opinions.
Dave
DaveS
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mystery solved, meaning communicated.
Dave
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
>On Nov 30, 6:29�am, rdean3REM...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>SNIP SNIP
> "I was indirectly acquainted with Warhol and many other
>"pop"/"modern" artists
> (Rauschenberg, Oldenburg, to a limited extent, Calder, and have had
> nearly-unlimited access to several large collections, both broad and
>focused,
> and including that of the Barnes' Foundation). if you will. �Take
>from that what
> you will."
>
>I am impressed. Seriously. I am.
No reason to be. While security is generally "public-tight" nowadays, you'd be
amazed at what access employees and patrons either known to them and/or involved
with the museum have, or at least that's been my experience. Frankly, I find it
somewhat bizarre - not from a security standpoint, but from a conservation
standpoint. OTOH, I suppose, a lot of art has seen a lot of decidedly
"unconservational" treatment (on a small scale, of course) and survived with no
real damage, so ??? After all, a lot of it has hung around in homes prior to
hanging around in museums.
>The best access to the Pop Art stuff
>I ever had was in the MOCA Annex over in LA's JTown. I expect its
>still over there. And MOCA has an incredible modern collection. IMHO
>LA is one monster of an art town, not to be missed.
>The Barnes collection (Philly) : Ive seen only in photos. Is it still
>difficult to get access, I had read somewhere that the state of the
>endowment, restrictions or somesuch was becoming unsustainable. Do you
>know the current state of play?
My access to it was/is via three sources - the Kimball in Fort Worth was a stop
on its touring and we were patrons of the exhibit itself, and we are patrons of
the Kimball, the Barnes (Foundation), and the Philly museum, among others.
Access, AFAIK, isn't "hard to get" as such - IOW, it's a "first come, first
serve" thing - it is just limited because it is (currently) housed at the
Barnes' home in a residential neighborhood. It will be moving to into Philly
over to the Parkway - a new building - early next year - a whole side drama unto
itself. As can be imagined, the neighborhood isn't keen on huge volumes of
traffic, plus IIRC, the town of Merion has regs that somehow come into play. I
understand all sides of the argument, all have their points, but at the end of
the day, it all gets a bit much so I ignore the much of the day-to-day of it
all. And I don't have a strong opinion about the whole "stay or move" thing
beyond that it was Dr. Barnes' shit to do with what he pleased, he left
instructions, and that should be that. I can tell you that the last time we
were there (the house), we were technically "guests of the Foundation" or some
such nonsense rather than "visiting the collection" so as not to count against
some rule or reg.. Maybe the police were out there in the bushes counting heads
and taking photos of badges. I suspect that if it brought more revenue into the
community, at least some tunes would change, but ??? IAC, barring something
unlikely, AFAIK, it will be moving.
>
>> And what about Ansel Adams?
>A great naturalist/landscape photographer. And Curtis, a great
>ethnographic photographer. I love both and own a few of one. Neither
>were painters to my knowledge.
>
>Look, we all have our own likes and biases. And I am at least somewhat
>aware of the ridiculousness of asserting my own biases as if they were
>biblical. But I also know that without a point of view a painter
>becomes a former painter. So, I have opinions.
And you, just like everyone else, are entitled to yours...you're just not
entitled to anyone else's. And that goes for (supposed) art critics as well -
IMO, the phrase "I don't think that is art" is perfectly reasonable. However,
the phrases "That isn't art," or worse, "No one with an eye for real art would
say that is (or isn't) art" sound pretty silly and pompous - art is in the eye
of the beholder, or, that's why there's chocolate and vanilla...
HTH,
R
>
>Dave
Tom Littleton
<rdean3...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:k9j7h55k3nlv6h6io...@4ax.com...
I can tell you that Warhol (and many of
> his instant peers, as most artists do) produced quite a bit long before he
> was
> making anything (monetarily) substantial by virtue of it -
actually, Warhol made a very tidy living producing commercial line drawings
for the fashion industry. Not the kind of astronomical income his later
output gave him, but enough to live pretty well on the upper West Side.
Tom
Tom Littleton
"DaveS" <sned...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:cd54bd2b-fcca-4680...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>The Barnes collection (Philly) : Ive seen only in photos. Is it still
>difficult to get access,
Not really, nor was it ever, really. One could, by appointment, view the
work, without any secret handshake or anything. Further, one could sign up
for
small-group classes that used the collection as the basis for the study of
art. That was Barnes' intent, by the way.
Tom
>I had read somewhere that the state of the
endowment, restrictions or somesuch was becoming unsustainable. Do you
>know the current state of play?
The Barnes collection is being moved to a new museum to be built on the
Parkway in downtown Philadelphia(it is currently housed in the Barnes home
in Upper Merion, out in the suburbs). This was the result of much wrangling
over the intent and finances of the Barnes estate, and still a sore point
with some. The locals bitched for years about the traffic in the area,
somewhat restricting the access. Now that the collection is leaving, some on
the Main Line are having second thoughts. Too late. The collection is slated
to move in 2012, I think.
Tom
Tom Littleton
<rdean3...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:i6j8h5dggsaecvtb6...@4ax.com...
well, shoot......if I had read this first, I could have saved
time typing my last post<g>
Tom
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
That's what I meant by "substantially" by virtue of his "art." What he made as
a commercial artist isn't relevant to what he made from his "art" art. NYC, and
really, much of the ("metropolitan") world, is - well, with computers, digital,
etc., less and less so, so perhaps "was, in the 50s and 60s, contemporary to
Warhol" is more accurate - full of "commercial" artists making a decent living
via their work product. But there are still plenty of folks earning a good
living with "commercial" art. Most them, past and present, are and will remain
unknown outside of a limited circle in the business. And few of them have ever
had the total control over their "art" as an "artist" does.
As an aside, I've heard many who I believe to be knowledgeable, including
friends and fans of his, say that Warhol wasn't a particularly talented
commercial artist (as opposed to _commercial_ artist, I suppose...). Competent,
yes, but apparently he was never destined for much more than where he was on
that front. I've never really studied his "commercial" work, so I don't have an
opinion on it.
TC,
R
> Tom
>
Giles
Giles
> I am impressed. Seriously. I am.
Why?
> Dave
g.
who has seen the grand canyon and an eighteen inch turd......and was
greatly impressed by both.....but is good and goddamned if he can
figure out why ayone else would be impressed by his having seen
either.....or both.
Giles
Giles
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:39:40 -0500, "Tom Littleton" <ThomasLittle...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> ><rdean3REM...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
So? You don't have an opinion on anything. So, why are we impressed?
g.
go on.....anyone.....why are we impressed?
Tom Littleton
<rdean3...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:c3s8h5h2jeep3csj7...@4ax.com...
> As an aside, I've heard many who I believe to be knowledgeable, including
> friends and fans of his, say that Warhol wasn't a particularly talented
> commercial artist (as opposed to _commercial_ artist, I suppose...).
> Competent,
> yes, but apparently he was never destined for much more than where he was
> on
> that front. I've never really studied his "commercial" work, so I don't
> have an
> opinion on it.
he had a quirky style, composed of a sort of reprinting technique(made ink
drawing and then transferred it wet to a second surface). It was what it
was, but was sort of en vogue in the NY fashion world until his urge to
create 'high art' led him to the stuff he is famous(rightfully, IMO) for.
Tom
Giles
STOP IT! You guys are killing me! :)
g.
Giles
Um.....what do YOU think, tommie?
Any self-glorification goin' on 'round hyar?......or is this all just
good plain down home Amish Mennonite common sense?
g.
:)
DaveS
> <rdean3REM...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
It's generally called a "monoprint."
Dave
Tom Littleton
It's generally called a "monoprint."
Dave
thanks, Dave.....that was essentially what he was doing.
And, one can see his preference for that in his 'fine art' work later, at
times.
Tom
Tom Littleton
"Giles" <g_go...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:13f14067-5f06-4e4d...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Um.....what do YOU think, tommie?
Any self-glorification goin' on 'round hyar?......or is this all just
good plain down home Amish Mennonite common sense?
g.
:)
hell, for a discussion of art, this one seems to have stayed rather low-key.
Self-glorification, sure. Thus far, though,
nothing flat-out untrue. Give it time........
:), indeed!!
Tom
DaveS
>
> - Show quoted text -
Calmate. We are just talking Art. Its not like we're talking about
keish or man bras or interior decorating yet. Its the manly world of
painting. None of that pussy pastel shit. Don't get nervous.
Dave
It might be time to take this thread to Italian? Thin out the
barbarian rabble from the truely cultured. Hell yeah.
DaveS
"hell, for a discussion of art, this one seems to have stayed rather
low-key.
Self-glorification, sure. Thus far, though,
nothing flat-out untrue. Give it time........
:), indeed!!"
Tom
Damn. Sorry. How did we fail? I say give it another go and maybe we
can come up with a suitably irritating run. Maybe what it needs is a
mention of the "M---" word/you know, "He Whose Name Must Not Be
Spolen?" Or George's poetry? or how about an episode of that old but
never really gone "Tales of F---Lake?" Maybe a "Cop Killer" pro/con
thread? Vets? Anyone for old midget stories? Name your poison.
Dave
OK, here goes . . . "Rembrandt never really loved Hendrickje
Stoffels." (Hows that?)
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
>
Oh, I've seen some of it, but I have no idea of the totality of his entire body
of commercial work, so I have no idea of the overall percentage and range I've
seen. Based on what I have seen, nothing seemed particularly impressive -
competent work contemporary to the period - it reminds me of typical ads of the
period, with a sort of "Esquire-ish" (of the period) feel to it. IOW, based on
what I've seen, I'd agree with those mentioned above.
I've no doubt some would bestow all sorts of accolades on him _now_, but AFAIK,
he wasn't widely thought of as such during his working period (say, early 50s to
early 60s), at least insofar as an industry-wide type of thing.
What I would agree with is that he was one of those people whose unique outlook
and personal style, combined with some happenstance of fate, if you will, at a
fortuitous period of time and it all combined to produce "Andy Warhol, artist."
IMO, he certainly had "talent" as many would generally consider "talent" to be,
both for "art" and promotion, and I do like a lot of his work.
TC,
R
Giles
> "Giles" <g_goat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:13f14067-5f06-4e4d...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> Um.....what do YOU think, tommie?
>
> Any self-glorification goin' on 'round hyar?......or is this all just
> good plain down home Amish Mennonite common sense?
>
> g.
> :)
>
> hell, for a discussion of art, this one seems to have stayed rather low-key.
As long as two gallumphing Wikipedia gleaners can convince themselves
that the world sees their antics as a pas de deux.....what key would
one expect?
> Self-glorification, sure.
Not enough to warrant a stern admonition though, huh? Or perhaps
there's another dynamic at work here?
> Thus far, though, nothing flat-out untrue.
Don't know about that.....nothing of beauty though.
> Give it time........
I'll be around.
g.
Tom Littleton
<rdean3...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:652bh514ubjb6de82...@4ax.com...
> IMO, he certainly had "talent" as many would generally consider "talent"
> to be,
> both for "art" and promotion, and I do like a lot of his work.
>
from Duchamp, taking the concept of the 'readymade' into the later 20th
century, and marrying it to a sort of very American crassness of culture and
worship of celebrity. How he would have loved the rise of 'reality
television'!
Tom
Giles
> <rdean3REM...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
Art, schmart. What I wanna know is why are sensationally successful
huckster sensationally sucessful hucksters? Anybody got any thoughts
on that?
g.
charles mackay knew.
Giles
> On Dec 1, 2:24 am, "Tom Littleton" <ThomasLittle...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> "hell, for a discussion of art, this one seems to have stayed rather
> low-key.
> nothing flat-out untrue. Give it time........
> :), indeed!!"
> Tom
>
> Damn. Sorry. How did we fail? I say give it another go and maybe we
> can come up with a suitably irritating run. Maybe what it needs is a
> mention of the "M---" word/you know, "He Whose Name Must Not Be
> Spolen?" Or George's poetry? or how about an episode of that old but
> never really gone "Tales of F---Lake?" Maybe a "Cop Killer" pro/con
> thread? Vets? Anyone for old midget stories? Name your poison.
>
> Dave
> OK, here goes . . . "Rembrandt never really loved Hendrickje
> Stoffels." (Hows that?)
Boring. Go back to your Laurel and Hardy routine with the diminutive
member.
g.
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
>
><rdean3...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:652bh514ubjb6de82...@4ax.com...
>> IMO, he certainly had "talent" as many would generally consider "talent"
>> to be,
>> both for "art" and promotion, and I do like a lot of his work.
>>
>equally my personal opinion, I view him as the ultimate American development
>from Duchamp, taking the concept of the 'readymade' into the later 20th
>century, and marrying it to a sort of very American crassness of culture and
>worship of celebrity.
IMO, that's an error that is often made - that it is an _American_ (I take it
that you mean "US") "crassness" and "worship"...the French idolize Jerry Lewis
and for quite a while, you could trade a dozen Levi's 501s for downtown Tokyo
real estate...I once had a chance to trade a carton of Marlboro Reds for, if I
understood it correctly, a Soviet submarine, two tanks, and a railcar full of
AK74s, RPGs, and night vision gear...not having room at the dock for a sub or
room in the garage for two tanks, I settled for a really cool special forces
pneumatic spear gun, a case of pretty good vodka, a carton of Soviet
military-issue cigarettes (for novelty's sake only - trust me or don't, you'd
rather smoke used cat litter rolled in some toilet paper picked up from the
floor of the men's room at Mumbai's central bus terminal...), and a knapsack
full of all sorts of Soviet stuff like insignia, money, etc...if the USSR hadn't
collapsed, I'm pretty sure I've got the swag to be Comrade General of the
People's Army or something and buy my own friggin' sub...and every drug lord
from Colombia to Matamoros has (or had, as the case may be...) a warehouseful of
"American" iron, from 'vettes to Blazers, Suburbans, and jacked-up pickups...
>How he would have loved the rise of 'reality television'!
Um, well:
http://www.amazon.com/Flesh-Frankenstein-Andy-Warhols-VHS/dp/6302274109
TC,
R
> Tom
>
Giles
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:45:41 -0500, "Tom Littleton" <ThomasLittle...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> ><rdean3REM...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Idiot.
g.
DaveS
Going back to some of the original discussions of digital photo art
and the intersection of dpa with painting . . . .
This link is for the work of a friend Chuck Smart, who was a painter,
a photographer, and a digital artist. Chuck was always good for a
challenging conversation, and pushy admonishments about painting on
bigger supports and using juicy paint. He pushed the envelope for
better ink, paper etc for digital art with Danial Smith and Epson.
Generous, Chuck steered a Seattle show venue my way, as a follow-on to
a show of his and poet Anne Sweet's Cuban photos. A jazz man, my best
memory is with his drum circle accompaning Anne's raw poetry in a cold
northwest rain.
http://www.chucksmart.com/index.htm
Dave
Tom Littleton
Art, schmart. What I wanna know is why are sensationally successful
huckster sensationally sucessful hucksters? Anybody got any thoughts
on that?
Something about 'one being born every minute', I suppose.....
Tom.
rw56...@gmail.com
> "Giles" <g_goat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
You might enjoy The Painted Word by Tom Wolfe. It's more about
bullshit in art criticism than about commercialism, but still
relevant.
I particularly recall his description of large abstract sculptures
placed in more-or-less uninhabitable public spaces: the turd in the
plaza.
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
From what of it I browsed through, it reminded me of Rauschenberg (that's not,
IMO, a good or bad thing, it's just an observation). And actually, that would
be an example of "art" (as in something intending to convey a feeling rather
than capture a "real image"/a record of something) meeting and combining with
"photography" (as in something intended, even if creative, meant to capture a
"real image"), ala collage. And yes, IMO, photography itself can be "art," but
it can also be, as "art"/painting once was, a recording-of-<people, place,
event, etc.> device. I hesitate to use the term "mere recording," but it does
differentiate between photography purely for "art's sake," a "in-between" (for
whatever reason, Charlie Choc comes to mind re: "creative recording"), and that
done to "merely" record, ala "snapshots."
TC,
R
DaveS
Two comments.
I am going to read your Wolfe suggestion. When he's good he is great
and otherwise he is at least entertaining.
Second, speaking of doing right by "public spaces," Lawrence Halperin
recently died. IMHO he is at least the second best landscape designer
the US has ever produced. His published notebook was a big influence
on me due to his development of a notation for water, and his scoring
and notation of the urban visual experience. Freeway Park in Seattle,
and fountains across the US, in Israel etc are part of his legacy. San
Francisco should recognize this son in some meaningful way.
DaveS
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree about the "in-between" creative recording part. The question
for the artist becomes "what are you recording?" The feeling of
something? A point in time? The light in time? History? Movement? A
natural rarity? A novel viewpoint? How something is seen with normal
human vision? etc. Chuck Smart was all about the human emotion, I
think.
IMHO Choc for me is a continuation of the traditional dramatic
presentation of the American landscape, with a bold assertion of
shadow, light, COLOR and contrast, and I assume, a deft handling of
software and printing to make these statements. His pix are surely
art.
Dave
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
My view is that _any_ purposeful manipulation of the "as-is" image "recording",
via filters, software, film processing techniques, etc. and done while recording
the image and/or after-the-fact, is moving toward "art." I realize there is an
argument to be made that "getting the best shot, in the best (natural) light,
etc." is "manipulation" in that the photographer is "setting up" the "record,"
but it's a subjective, arbitrary line. I guess I would offer that if would have
been at least possible for an "amateur" attempting to take no more than a
"snapshot" could have wound up with the same "recording" using nothing but the
same camera and clear lenses, then it is "skillful photography," whereas if it
took some "artistic manipulation," via whatever means, then it has moved across
that arbitrary line. Another way to look at it might be that if 50 people were
standing with the photographer when the shot was taken, and they would
(objectively) all have seen the same "record," then it is "mere recording"
rather than "art." Again, I understand the argument that there is an "art" to
being able to capture a record that also _seems_ (subjectively) to most folks to
be more than "a mere record," even if that is all it is from an _objective_
standpoint. And again, it is an arbitrary and subjective thing. Which is among
the reasons why I maintain that art is in the eye of the beholder.
And getting back to the original point of the thread, I have no problem
whatsoever with one calling what "Fish Eye Guy" does "art." OTOH, I have no
problem with someone who prefers to consider it "skillfully manipulated images."
From what I understand, the guy doesn't hold them out to be anything more than
"art" - IOW, he's not claiming them as "scientific data," anything concrete or
objective - so I don't hold him to any standard of disclosure as to his "art."
They are artistic photographs, they are not purporting to be a documentation of
record.
TC,
R
Giles
> "Giles" <g_goat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
More than one, I think.
g.
DaveS
Lets see . . . Your first proposition. . . I think the general
heuristic you sketched out in the first paragraph about says it, to
the extent that "art" is usually put in categories in competitions, in
institutions, in art education, appreciation etc. . . . some permeable
but defensible lines are useful.
Second para. . . we'll disagree on the need for a disclosure
requirement. I think this newer world needs one; you don't but then I
may be more interested in the technique side, than the image. . . than
you. There IS another issue which hasn't yet been discussed which is
the extent to which disclosure and conservation go together. Several
of this country's leading artists left conservators nightmares.
Asphaltum as a pigment, fugitive colors, ungessoed supports, rotting
linen, and my favorite, Post War, tar core building paper as a
support.
And then there is the question . . . Is the "art" the original
physical image, or is it the digital stream sitting on the machine
readable media? How do you save/conserve either without disclosure?
and. . . I'd put the fish pix in the aforementioned "in-between"
category.
Dave
Giles
So, who's first?
giles
Giles
So, in other words (which is to say stripped of evasion, gibberish and
empty verbiage), and as always, you don't have an opinion that you
dare express for fear that someone will recognize it as such and take
you to task.....thereby striking you profoundly dumb.....which is not
at all the same thing as stupid......which you were evidently struck
at or before birth.
So.....what's new?
Moron.
g.
Giles
Oh good god.....do you people ever read the shit you write?
g.
who would pay a lot of money (relatively speaking) to read a review of
"Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics
of Quantum Gravity" written by one of these clowns.
Giles
Congratulations......you may now pass to the fourth grade.
g.
Giles
Art? Well, hell yes, it's art. But ANY fuckin' moron can make
art......look at all the millions who have. But is it pretty?
g.
DaveS
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yep, usually before I hit the "send" button.
How much would you pay? Trespassing Herman's neuticles what?
"Transformative" is that like "changed?"
Lighten up dude, bullshitting about art is fun. Try it. Feel it. Be
happy. Its fun. Kinda like finger painting when you're a kid. Try it.
feel it. Be happy. Its fun.
Dave
DaveS
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ahhh Grasshopper, it depends.
Dave
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
>On Dec 2, 12:34锟絧m, rdean3REM...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>> My view is that _any_ purposeful manipulation of the "as-is" image "recording",
>> via filters, software, film processing techniques, etc. and done while recording
>> the image and/or after-the-fact, is moving toward "art." 锟絀 realize there is an
>> argument to be made that "getting the best shot, in the best (natural) light,
>> etc." is "manipulation" in that the photographer is "setting up" the "record,"
>> but it's a subjective, arbitrary line. 锟絀 guess I would offer that if would have
>> been at least possible for an "amateur" attempting to take no more than a
>> "snapshot" could have wound up with the same "recording" using nothing but the
>> same camera and clear lenses, then it is "skillful photography," whereas if it
>> took some "artistic manipulation," via whatever means, then it has moved across
>> that arbitrary line. 锟紸nother way to look at it might be that if 50 people were
>> standing with the photographer when the shot was taken, and they would
>> (objectively) all have seen the same "record," then it is "mere recording"
>> rather than "art." 锟紸gain, I understand the argument that there is an "art" to
>> being able to capture a record that also _seems_ (subjectively) to most folks to
>> be more than "a mere record," even if that is all it is from an _objective_
>> standpoint. 锟紸nd again, it is an arbitrary and subjective thing. 锟絎hich is among
>> the reasons why I maintain that art is in the eye of the beholder.
>>
>> And getting back to the original point of the thread, I have no problem
>> whatsoever with one calling what "Fish Eye Guy" does "art." 锟絆TOH, I have no
I don't propose _hiding_ technique, or refusing to disclose it, only
that...wait, perhaps "disclosure" is the imprecise term - let's say "labeling" -
isn't needed - IOW, the artist need not "label" his work: "Picture of fish, done
with <X camera, X lens, X film/memory card, X filter, etc.> and printed on <X
paper> using <X printing method>, and so on. Moreover, you assume that the
artist wants their work conserved/preserved (which, I grant, is likely, or at
least, it isn't likely they are purposefully putting it on perishable
media/using perishable material, but still...). IAC, it still isn't incumbent
upon the artist to provide either details or, well, a "conservator's dream."
To me, art has no monetary value as such - it is to be enjoyed or ignored, but
it isn't a commodity. I've never understood why people would pay millions and
millions of dollars for a piece of art. Even from an investment standpoint -
suppose _you_ were the top the of the curve? And IAC, and IMO, at the end of
the day, why would someone pay that kind of cash for this or that piece - it
makes no sense. I mean, I recognize that people, generally, have the desire to
possess things that others do not or cannot, but I don't understand why they do.
Further, when you start requiring (or inquiring) of the artist, at least as a
viewer of the art, as to "how," you're sorta ruining the experience. I mean,
it's like asking a magician to do the trick, then explain it - what's the point?
TC,
R
Giles
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 18:53:57 -0800 (PST), DaveS <snedek...@msn.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 2, 12:34 pm, rdean3REM...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> >> My view is that _any_ purposeful manipulation of the "as-is" image "recording",
> >> via filters, software, film processing techniques, etc. and done while recording
> >> argument to be made that "getting the best shot, in the best (natural) light,
> >> etc." is "manipulation" in that the photographer is "setting up" the "record,"
> >> been at least possible for an "amateur" attempting to take no more than a
> >> "snapshot" could have wound up with the same "recording" using nothing but the
> >> same camera and clear lenses, then it is "skillful photography," whereas if it
> >> took some "artistic manipulation," via whatever means, then it has moved across
> >> standing with the photographer when the shot was taken, and they would
> >> (objectively) all have seen the same "record," then it is "mere recording"
> >> being able to capture a record that also _seems_ (subjectively) to most folks to
> >> be more than "a mere record," even if that is all it is from an _objective_
> >> the reasons why I maintain that art is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> >> And getting back to the original point of the thread, I have no problem
Perhaps the point of asking how it's done is to learn how it's done.
Hey!......maybe that's how the magician learned to do it, huh?
The trouble with being stupid is evident in everything you do here.
Moron.
g.