Comments on: Single http://www.foundobjectsgallery.com/bartender/2007/12/05/single/ a photography journal Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:50:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Eric Hancock http://www.foundobjectsgallery.com/bartender/2007/12/05/single/#comment-95 Eric Hancock Sun, 09 Dec 2007 01:35:06 +0000 http://www.foundobjectsgallery.com/bartender/2007/12/05/single/#comment-95 Reminds me of a Kertesz polaroid. Reminds me of a Kertesz polaroid.

]]> By: Julian http://www.foundobjectsgallery.com/bartender/2007/12/05/single/#comment-94 Julian Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:07:11 +0000 http://www.foundobjectsgallery.com/bartender/2007/12/05/single/#comment-94 sorry for the delay in replying to this ed, but I'd been locked out of bits of the blog by a pluggin! Normal service etc etc I've been reading a lot recently about various calls for what photography 'should be'. I'm working on a post on this so more later, but my take is you have to shut your ears to 99.99% of comments about your work. People always comment from within their own aesthetic construct - this may be educated or not, but not all opinions are equally valid. Tim's post re atget reminded me that nothing is new. Like Atget I'm obsessed with shop windows and trees - absolutely nothing new in that. There have been so many philosophical deadends about what art should be, mimesis, expressing 'oneself' (whatever that horrible excuse for uncritical thinking ever means - and don't get me started on the generations of school kids mauled by educational theories that came out of it), expressing something 'beyond' the self... ignore it all. Be rigorous with yourself, read loads, look at art, the go with your gut. Anything is worthy of artistic investigation, anything. Go with your gut sorry for the delay in replying to this ed, but I’d been locked out of bits of the blog by a pluggin! Normal service etc etc
I’ve been reading a lot recently about various calls for what photography ’should be’. I’m working on a post on this so more later, but my take is you have to shut your ears to 99.99% of comments about your work. People always comment from within their own aesthetic construct - this may be educated or not, but not all opinions are equally valid. Tim’s post re atget reminded me that nothing is new. Like Atget I’m obsessed with shop windows and trees - absolutely nothing new in that.
There have been so many philosophical deadends about what art should be, mimesis, expressing ‘oneself’ (whatever that horrible excuse for uncritical thinking ever means - and don’t get me started on the generations of school kids mauled by educational theories that came out of it), expressing something ‘beyond’ the self… ignore it all. Be rigorous with yourself, read loads, look at art, the go with your gut.
Anything is worthy of artistic investigation, anything. Go with your gut

]]> By: Ed Nixon http://www.foundobjectsgallery.com/bartender/2007/12/05/single/#comment-93 Ed Nixon Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:19:31 +0000 http://www.foundobjectsgallery.com/bartender/2007/12/05/single/#comment-93 This is it in a nutshell: the rest of the world (as typified in my experience by my friends, family and acquaintances) would never think of or credit the idea of making a photo because it makes their skin creep. Formal qualities aside -- which they will probably not even see because of the spasmodic glaze that comes into the eye in reaction to the 'ugly' subject. And so the viewership (awful word) seems stuck back in the conceptual 20s, 30s to 50s with images of textured rocks, trees, mountains and sand dunes. (Nothing wrong with those images, by the way.) You look through the pages of a glossy periodical dedicated to fine art (and definitely analog) black and white photography for example, the ones where the advertisers are galleries and well healed art photographers, and you see a collection of variations based on, say, three images or image stereotypes -- rocks, trees and shores (with more rocks mutes by blurry water.) What to do? It's not like folks are dying to have their precious preconceptions and biases challenged. Or falling over themselves to become informed about what has been going on over the past 40 or so years. But maybe I'm misguided; maybe it really is all and only about the light; content is just glue. Nice shot none-the-less. ...edN This is it in a nutshell: the rest of the world (as typified in my experience by my friends, family and acquaintances) would never think of or credit the idea of making a photo because it makes their skin creep. Formal qualities aside — which they will probably not even see because of the spasmodic glaze that comes into the eye in reaction to the ‘ugly’ subject. And so the viewership (awful word) seems stuck back in the conceptual 20s, 30s to 50s with images of textured rocks, trees, mountains and sand dunes. (Nothing wrong with those images, by the way.) You look through the pages of a glossy periodical dedicated to fine art (and definitely analog) black and white photography for example, the ones where the advertisers are galleries and well healed art photographers, and you see a collection of variations based on, say, three images or image stereotypes — rocks, trees and shores (with more rocks mutes by blurry water.)

What to do? It’s not like folks are dying to have their precious preconceptions and biases challenged. Or falling over themselves to become informed about what has been going on over the past 40 or so years. But maybe I’m misguided; maybe it really is all and only about the light; content is just glue.

Nice shot none-the-less. …edN

]]>