Neil Barnes wrote:and if it requires me to spend a lifetime studying to try and work out what it is that he's trying to say, then that's his fault, not mine. He's not doing his job right.
Jackson Pollock is the classic example: what on earth is a heap of paint-drippings actually saying? To me, it's saying, look, I can get money from the credulous for infantile drivel - and good luck to him. But I'd never have one on my wall - gimme one and it's straight to the auction house.
That is a good point about communication, Neil. Who is the intended audience? Should all art appeal to all people? All books don't.
I think that my life has been enriched by learning about some art history and contemporary art. There are lots of different kinds of reading that are not strictly related to everyday life that can be enjoyable. Reading sheet music, for example.
Neil Barnes wrote:Perhaps I lack the art gene?
Not at all. You have a different perspective. Our differences are the things that stop life becoming tedious
Charles Twist wrote:For me, one of the great strengths of the LF camera has to be the movements it commonly offers by default. By using them, you can link your grandma to her surrounds. For me, too much portraiture is about the person rather than the person-in-context (there are exceptions - I am fascinated by Newman's picture of Stravinsky). This is especially true for those folk who use wide apertures and Victorian cameras. I don't know if that's what you were using for your project. Beyond that, there is nothing to say that photographers can't go the Crewdson route (interesting photos - thanks joolsb for the suggestion) and stage a backdrop for the sitter. A bit like the old studio portraits with painted backdrops but updated. Then you can have all the fun in the world with out of focus effects, Petzval lenses, selective plane of focus, in silico post-processing, you name it.
Large format is simply a tool. The image is king. I can't remember the last time that I picked up my van from service and the mechanic ran down the list of Snap-On tools that they used. For some reason, photographers think that this kind of information is relevant. Mechanics emphasise the end result. They point out how smoothly my engine is running.
To me, out of focus effects, Petzval use, etc are simply condiments. They can add a subtle (or not so subtle) flavour to a meal but the meal itself should already be substantial. This is why my creative journey is not unduly interested in Petzval aside for their speed for wet plate. Again, this is only my perspective.
julesb wrote:Conceptual art is a particular subset of modern art which is somewhat controversial, where collectors, galleries and artists are all locked together in a highly profitable business that owes nothing to the practice of true art.
I think that the commercial side of things should be considered separate from the integrity (or lack, therin) of the art.