Ah, my taste is very, very suspect also. For me, photography is about
depicting reality in a pleasing way. I will respond favorably to a
beautiful landscape from GeeBee or the Schnozz or Moose, a good macro or
micro shot, a good architectural shot (sometimes, even if it's
deliberately distorted) and always to a well done portrait. But Bill's
adventures with pin hole cameras and his other artistic ventures using
the camera as a virtual paint brush just don't do much for me... despite
the fact that they win him compliments here and accolades and awards
from others. Nothing against Bill because, other than the work of
Monet, I don't appreciate much from the rest of the art world either.
Must be a brain and visual perception defect. But I do like Bill's work
much better than some of the other images (mostly black and white) that
I see. Like you, I'll pass right on by most of the black & white
photography you'd find in a gallery. Ansel Adams or Clyde Butcher
<http://www.clydebutcher.com/> landscapes? Wonderful! Washed out,
blurry, B&W street photography as art? Sorry, I just don't get it. But
a lot of other people do appear to get it. So I'm just different. But
I'm glad we're all here and all a bit different. Life would be boring
otherwise.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> And I have to admit there is a certain genre of fuzzy, crooked, often
> washed out with no shadows and blown highlights shots of scenes that are
> completely pedestrian to me that I don't comment on. I know many people
> enjoy such images and some pros make a living from them. I was at the
> DeYoung Museum a bit ago for another show and wandered through a gallery
> of photographs. Something like 80% of them I would have simply dumped if
> I happened to take them. So I know my taste is suspect! :-)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|