Your rule. Lack of a catch light does not mean a photo or subject is dead. If anything, it can be an overused gimmick.
Your rule. Lack of a catch light does not mean a photo or subject is dead. If anything, it can be an overused gimmick.It has a catch light so it's not dead.
Some art is timeless. A number of ancient Greek statues come to mind off the top of my head. Regardless of norms, many quite beautiful pieces have been created since man started to make art.
I appreciate the beauty of art from a multitude of different cultures and eras. Plus, art does not necessarily have to be beautiful to be appreciated, though. Sometimes its purpose is to educate, celebrate, document or induce fear or revulsion or any of a plethora of emotions.There are large swaths of time and circumstances where Art that was or is considered beautiful is now or in other contexts considered obscene and/or ugly.
As we are both of the same time and come (I think) from similar parts of the world, there is a reasonable chance that you and I will agree that many things are beautiful.
But that would not necessarily be the case if our shared experiences differed greatly.
Complex and contentious, but not dull. It’s a fact of life.
No. It's actually dull. The first thing to realize is that everything you can say about something in context can also be said about everything that constitutes the context.
Not contentious. Dull.
Dull in what context?
It may seem dull to you, but context is pertinent.This context.
How does that jibe with verticals and square compositions?
You are looking for rules—or let's call them photographic norms—after the fact, in order to make sense of the photo, based on your expectations about what makes a photo make sense. You don't actually know Friedlander was following rules, because you don't know what he thinks about rules. To "follow rules" means Intentionally, consciously follow rules. You have to have the intent of following the rule. It can't just happen by chance. But what we do know about Friedlander is that he sees photography as a very instinctive reaction, one in which rules don't play (or don't seem to play) any part at all—neither intentionally following nor intentionally not following.
Not saying Friedlander doesn't have personal strategies. Use of a wide-angle lens is one. Use of mirrors is another. But these aren't rules.
It may seem dull to you, but context is pertinent.
That doesn't necessarily make the concept of context dull. Say I shoot you with a gun. In self-defense or with malice? Dull.The concept of "context" is not interesting in this thread. Whatever context you're referring to may be, but the concept of it is dull. As in, the concept of context is a single thing, but context is a set of things (things being ideas, objects, people, events. etc.).
That doesn't necessarily make the concept of context dull. Say I shoot you with a gun. In self-defense or with malice? Dull.
You seemingly don't understand the concept.
This seems to be going nowhere…
This seems to be going nowhere…
This seems to be going nowhere…
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?