Yeah. He's kind of dry. I must confess that I could only get 3/4 through the video, even taking it in parts, hoping for a deeper exploration into his process. He does give some interesting insights. Just goes to show that visual artists are not necessarily good verbal communicators and that sometimes you don't need to know all that goes into making the image.Thanks for the link. I can only take Jeff Wall talking about himself in small does, do it will take me a while to make it through the video.
I disagree, they likely started early on and were ignored by the me. That is why Great Expectations which was written by a woman was published under a man's name as the author.
Are you talking about the Great Expectations written by Charles Dickens? Is their another Great Expectations written by a woman. Or did a woman secretly write Great Expectations and Charles Dickens just take the credit? Or maybe you are thinking about the English writer Mary Anne Evans, who wrote under the pseudonym George Eliot. She wrote some fine books like Adam Bede, The Mill on the Floss, Silas Marner, Middlemarch, and others.
I disagree, they likely started early on and were ignored by the me. That is why Great Expectations which was written by a woman was published under a man's name as the author.
I've seen a lot of Wall's work, and I would be happy to see more.
Have you seen his wall sized transparencies in real life? They do actually benefit from the size.
Yeah. He's kind of dry. I must confess that I could only get 3/4 through the video, even taking it in parts, hoping for a deeper exploration into his process. He does give some interesting insights. Just goes to show that visual artists are not necessarily good verbal communicators and that sometimes you don't need to know all that goes into making the image.
I've seen a lot of Wall's work, and I would be happy to see more.
Have you seen his wall sized transparencies in real life? They do actually benefit from the size.
She an exception. Most women didn't do these things years ago. They kept home and hearth and were not involved in many fields, trades, and activities. So as things changed, they became more active in society outside the home. But they got a later start. Now that they're more active, you see more of them doing these things. I'm not approving or disapproving anything. I'm just reflecting on history.
And the exception proves the rule.
What I'm referring to is that women didn't get into photography years ago or many other areas of work, because they were busy with home and hearth. Their interests were not directed in those fields. Now they are. And these women are finally getting a chance to be recognized.
Women were accepted earlier in photography than in other fields, mostly because photography is such a recent development (pun possibly intended) and social acceptance of a woman as an artist was more commonplace. Julia Margaret Cameron, Margaret Bourke White, Dorothea Lange, Ruth Bernhard, Imogene Cunningham, Tina Modotti come to mind right away.
And the exception proves the rule.
Which meaning of "proves" are you thinking of here?
The current one?
Or the relatively archaic one that actually is part of the saying's meaning?
The two meanings differ substantially.
My pictures look better on my 75" TV too.
Wouldn't it be great to hear Michaelangelo discussing his work?
Just finished a very interesting essay by Karl Ove Knausgård that touches on this topic of photography and its relevance to art. 'Inexhaustible Precision' is the title. I read it in his book 'Land of the Cyclops' but it's also available online here: https://thepointmag.com/examined-life/inexhaustible-precision/
faberry, if it's agreed upon that photography (broadly) is an art I will need to buy a beret. Otherwise...
Photography is not an art, although there is an art to photography, and you can use photography, artfully or inartfully, to create art. If you are not using photography to create art, then you do not need to wear a beret. I use photography artfully to create art, some of which is mediocre and some of which is good, but I don't wear a beret when doing so. I reserve wearing a beret to when I am listening to jazz and reading existentialist novels. I have never smoked Gauloises Bleu, so I am not authentic. That is what a photographer told me during a portfolio review. I told him he wasn't all that authentic either so we were even.
What is an interesting situation is when one does not set out to intentionally create art yet the results are judged artistic. Accidental art?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?