Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: "Taking a Second Glance at Eye-Stopping Landscapes"  (Read 5742 times)
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892


« on: February 25, 2013, 03:52:41 PM »
ReplyReply

"Schlaug feels his images appear as a cross-section of landscape that lure the viewer into believing they are seeing something below the surface of the land."
Logged
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 782



WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2013, 08:34:52 PM »
ReplyReply

The "trick" gets old after a couple of photos.  Everyone is trying to be different - our ego in overdrive.  So we turn the camera on an angle, stick people in the upper corner of the frame or whatever.  Isn't it terrible not to be an Einstein or Mozart or Michaelangelo?
Logged
louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2013, 08:46:35 PM »
ReplyReply

It took me about 1/1,000 less time to get tired of those images than HDR.
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8075



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2013, 10:45:19 PM »
ReplyReply

The "trick" gets old after a couple of photos.
+10.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6875


« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2013, 03:11:24 AM »
ReplyReply

The "trick" gets old after a couple of photos.  Everyone is trying to be different - our ego in overdrive.  So we turn the camera on an angle, stick people in the upper corner of the frame or whatever.  Isn't it terrible not to be an Einstein or Mozart or Michaelangelo?

Agreed, one photo is enough and those ones are just like cough syrup, first sip is fine…
Logged

Francois
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2013, 03:17:57 AM »
ReplyReply

My initial dislike of digital photography began with stock catalogues. The very fist image that I saw of canoes going over Niagara Falls was quite enough to dampen my ardour for ever. Why did it impact upon me so negatively? Because there is so much magic in reality, and it is so little well documented, that chasing false gods appears almost disrespectful of the existing creation around us.

The question has to be: why is anyone moved (positively) by such obvious fakery? Why don't they just say to theselves, how silly that is?

Rob C
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892


« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2013, 11:09:50 AM »
ReplyReply

The question has to be:

... would we have looked at those photos if they didn't have the stripes?
Logged
Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1567


WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2013, 11:32:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for that. That's about 37.5 seconds of my life I won't be getting back.
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892


« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2013, 01:22:14 PM »
ReplyReply

You chose to spend your time, and now you've chosen to spend more time on a complaint.
Logged
walter.sk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1332


« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2013, 03:21:37 PM »
ReplyReply

While I tend to agree with the general statements, the 2nd image, with the railroad tracks providing the receding horizontal lines, there seems to be a more integrated purpose for the foreground vertical lines, and I kind of like the picture.  The others leave me cold.
Logged
Ed B
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129


« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2013, 10:17:59 PM »
ReplyReply

My initial dislike of digital photography began with stock catalogues. The very fist image that I saw of canoes going over Niagara Falls was quite enough to dampen my ardour for ever. Why did it impact upon me so negatively? Because there is so much magic in reality, and it is so little well documented, that chasing false gods appears almost disrespectful of the existing creation around us.

The question has to be: why is anyone moved (positively) by such obvious fakery? Why don't they just say to theselves, how silly that is?

Rob C

How do you feel about Uelsmann's work?
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2013, 03:20:48 AM »
ReplyReply

How do you feel about Uelsmann's work?


I haven't taken a great, investigative interest: I have seen some of it here and there (not as print) and it only says manipulation skills to me. That isn't what photography, to me, is all about. I simply don't see the point of juxtaposing all manner of things that make little or no logical sense (to me) at all. Because one can doesn't mean that one should. I have no doubts as to his skills, only their application.

In photography, I really do believe in the notion that simplicity means more focussed thought rather than contrived thought. No, I'm not saying that a shot of a blank sky says more than WYSIWYG!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6419



WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2013, 04:58:39 AM »
ReplyReply

+20
Logged

Patricia Sheley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 578


WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2013, 08:43:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Referencing the Schlaug images...can't see the seeing...can see a random experiment but the leap to "body of work" seems a steep stretch... I need the rising to the surface aspect of seeing in my life personally...only way I've found to start this conversation with young children on our photohike days armed with our phones is by starting the day over cocoa at the hob adjusting the flame under a pot of water with a loose egg within. It's just the surface at first of the water, and then the alchemy of the albumin, water and heat and the almost faint/invisible perception of something on the rise. We adjust it back and forward and see it's many descriptions...these are 7-12 year olds mind you... they aren't blinded to the possibilities by the RULES. Then we go out for several hours to see what we can "see". It is amazing to travel in their paths!

Then this morning I came across this:   http://www.aperture.org/2013/02/jeff-wall-and-lucas-blalock-a-conversation-on-pictures/  

It felt good to read.
Followed by this:  http://www.aperture.org/2013/02/nine-years-a-million-conceptual-miles-by-charlotte-cotton/    

(An aside re: Uelsmann. The manipulation aspect is but a dust spec on the negatives of his vision...I freely admit that seeing only select images here and there might suggest otherwise, but for anyone able to view the larger body of his work the "manipulation" aspect ceases to exist. jmho)
« Last Edit: February 27, 2013, 09:10:32 AM by Patricia Sheley » Logged

A common woman...

www.patriciasheley.com
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 803


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2013, 10:25:26 AM »
ReplyReply

What I find most interesting about Wall's discussion about photography and photographs is that we have been hearing roughly the same "Photography is on the verge of/finally free to explore its etc etc etc" stuff essentially since the beginning of photography. I find it fascinating (and Sontag found it equally fascinating in the 1970s) that photographers of a certain sort feel apparently compelled to argue for photography as Fine Art, as Art on the same footing as everything else. Sometimes the words change around a bit, now we have photography participating in the dialectic between high and low genres (it seems to *me* that photography's been doing this for 150 years already, but I am not very sophisticated), but the thrust is the same: Photography is legitimate, it is, it it, it is!

Every year seems to be the year that photography has finally achieved this.

Which is, well, a little odd, isn't it?
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2013, 02:16:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the confusion arises because of great expectations and the insistence on yes or no.

Some photographs are art just a some paintings, drawings and sculptures are art. And some of all of these are not art. Some are rubbish and failed attempts. Probably most of all of them are failures if one is seeking art, but that doesn't mean that they have failed other purposes.

If we could collectively get rid of this all or nothing vision, we'd all be much more settled and happy with our creative lives.

Rob C
Logged

kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2013, 02:18:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Meh.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #17 on: February 28, 2013, 03:26:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Meh.


?


Rob C
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892


« Reply #18 on: February 28, 2013, 09:58:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Referencing the Schlaug images...can't see the seeing...can see a random experiment but the leap to "body of work" seems a steep stretch...

The images did seem to grate, but not today. When I look again the stripes seem to add vertical movement to landscape's dominant horizontals.

(But I hate the turquoise greens of limited area 03.)
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892


« Reply #19 on: February 28, 2013, 10:01:16 AM »
ReplyReply

And some of all of these are not art.

It's Art if it's too big or impractical to be in an average home, but will occupy lots of space in a gallery or mansion.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad