Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Photographers' started by larfe, Nov 12, 2016.
I'd need to translate the text to put it in context. "Pin-Fat" ??
A Chinese name.
I don't think the text really adds much but you can otherwise see directly from the publisher:
I think its rather lovely work. Doesn't mean he's either a genius or insane though
I find the pictures aesthetically rather pleasing. This kind of stuff is surely not everyone's cup of tea, but for me it works.
Not my cup of tea, but neither insane nor genius.
i like this stuff
thanks for posting the link~
It is what it is. I quite like most of it, some of it appeals to me less. There's certainly nothing insane about it, but for me, it doesn't sing out genius. It's interesting work using its medi
It is so much out of the ordinary that I felt compelled to use the terms "genius or insane"
I cannot make up my own mind wrt to it though
it's not very out of the ordinary.
well I suppose it is for apug, but then this is a very photographically conservative community
Is it? Do you know others who you could point out to?
You could start with Alison Rossiter , she works with old paper , flashlights and basically pushes the negative in the darkroom.
Also my good friend Osheen Harruthoonyan works with stressing the negative before placing on paper.
I like some of this work, I would point out there are many more working in this genre.
Non-"representational" photography: Robin Broadbent, Garry Fabian Miller.
There are others, Bob's already indicated some working more near in the style in the OP.
And lets not forget that Stieglitz' "Equivalents" are close cousins
You might also look at thework of some eccentric guy called john nanian ...
I was also going to mention John's work.
In Russian it is called as ЧБГ. BWS, black and white sh#t. It means what image is crappy, but creative.
After looking, I think he won't be posting here anytime soon about whether or not to prewet.
how about the sharpest lenses though?
Well those certainly won't be confused with vacation snapshots, but I think many of them are rather interesting and appealing abstracts. When all is said and done, the camera is a tool, just as with brushes, palette knives, etc. and "art" covers a spectrum of styles and approaches that is simply "yuge!"
It would take a special person to look at and contemplate 20 of these abstracts in a row, compared to most representational photographs. Abstract is just not my thing in any art medium, and I'm only expressing my opinion, not judging the work or those who make and like it.
I would prefer looking at the prints rather than tiny internet images, before casting judgement. There does appear to be some nice "effects", but as Frank said, generally not my cup of tea either.
What do you think of this guy's work?
To my way of thinking, one hundred and twelve pages for that sort of work, would hardly be an efficient decision for a genius, and perhaps it would be closer to the second adjetive. It seems, at the same time, a rather confusing and complicated reading as well, because the idea (not new) is being expressed bringing the overflowing photographic fragments and the book itself at the same level.
Not to mention, that the very photographs on that website are not doing any kind of service to the author, but that's another story.
Thanks for sharing!
Thank you all for the contributions so far.
It does nothing for this old concrete-minded Philistine.
i don't really think about genre, its just a label ... if the imagery can
keep my attention whether it is like the work linked to, or an urban/suburban landscape,
deadpan/highend portrait, or still life i enjoy it. too many labels and they distract from the imagery.