I just can't leave this subject alone. I've got to pipe in
here.
Regarding Galen Rowell: What he lacked in specific photographic
technical skills, he made up for in other areas which will allow
his reputation to transend generations. He will remain one of
the all-time greatest "Adventure Photographers". I think that
most of his stuff had little to do with specific artistic or
technical talent (he learned through the years what worked and
didn't work) than with "being there" with the right mental
working attitude.
Will he go down in the anals of time and be referenced in the
same breath as Ansel Adams or Monet? Hardly. In no one single
category did he excell, but as a package, he truely was great.
Regarding Photography being about Light: Hogwash!
Light is strictly an element which makes the visual
interpretation of the artform possible. It's like saying that
sculptures are all about clay/stone/metal. In many photographs
Light is the subject, or a critical elemetn in the composition,
but when I photograph my kids, I'm not photographing "Light",
I'm photographing a memory or emotion or a subject important to
me. Same thing with so many other of my 20,000 stock
photos--the light is just a tool or element in the picture, but
not the picture itself.
Anytime that you narrow in on a single element of a photograph,
be it light (or shades of or lack of), composition or subject,
the photograph becomes a teetering entity that fails to stand
for long on its own.
This is why, so little contemporary art has staying power. Art
students and other narrow minded dweebs (not necessarily saying
that art students are narrow minded dweebs) tend to focus on one
element of the package and making that element the subject of
the picture. The result is a one-legged milkstool. There is
nothing creative or original about a painting that contains but
one line across it in some contrasting color. What has that
artist proved? Oh, that green and purple are opposite colors.
Nice to know, but nothing that I'd call worthy of a second
glance.
I forgot, they make up some mumbo jumbo about how the green
field represents the unfed masses and the purple line is the
elitist royalty (ugly 'mericans) and their failure to share the
riches of a successful capitalist society with the downtrodden.
Whatever!
It's all about balance. Put too much emphasis on "light" and
the photo will fail. Too much emphasis on the subject will
cause the composition to fail. Compositions without interesting
subjects fail. Too much emphasis on equipment/film/working
methods will cause everything to fail.
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
< 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 >
|