Henry Bottjer-BA wrote:
>
> Anyway, in looking at the pictures linked to below, I would say
>
> 1. Yes, this is a landscape
> 2. Close. I could probably go either way
> 3. Nope. This is a picture of the bridge, and clearly the main element
> 4. This one with the stone wall I think is a landscape photo
> 5. The people in the park with the fountain - nope, not a landscape.
Interesting. Just goes to show that one person's clear categories are
another's grey areas.
Tris Schuler wrote
>
> You're entitled to your opinion as to what constitutes this or that when it
> comes to categorizing these things, but as with all artistic endeavor I
> believe you'd be further ahead in the long run if you opened up your mind
> to all of the possibilities. Rules might clarify but they just as often
> inhibit.
I completely agree with your sentiments. Classifications and genres are
superfluous. I think I've got an open mind anyway: I just take photos
of things I like the look of, without heed to what pigeonhole they'll
fit in. It just happens that most of my work is what I would call
landscapes. Same when I look at other people's work - I never even
consider what heading they'd come under.
OT bit: proof to me that classifying things is harmful - the habit of
record shops of putting every bit of music that originates from the 80%
of the world's population that is not 'western' under the heading
'World'. Talk about cultural insularity!!
Cheers,
Roger
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|