Trick is, he gets paid well for his "$hitty" pix, whatever you think of 'em.
Art without commerce is a hobby.
Art without commerce is a hobby.
Yep. No news there. People get paid well for making shitty movies, TV shows, etc. Thomas Kinkade made a shitload off of shit.
I was wondering how long it would be until you trotted out your favorite saying.
I'd rather look at shitty pictures of olympians rather than technically perfect pictures of some random tree in a backyard.
Seemed doubly applicable here, especially given the prissiness and rancor washing around Clendenin's Olympic shots. Guess it never dawned on the disbelievers that these striking images might actually help the analog cause rather than harm it. The self-absorption level here is getting toxic.
Going back to read the first post, it appears to me that the OP may have misunderstood what he was seeing and what the photographer wanted to accomplish. The accusations of trickery and fakery followed. (Edit: Actually, it was asserted from the start, in the thread title.) Is this possible, and would that explain all this umbrage over what amounts to the photographer's vision, like it or not? I'm sure no one could any longer support the claim that there was any trickery or fakery involved at all. What constitutes trickery and fakery too is a matter of opinion, unless one maintains that any manipulation of an image to satisfy the photographer's vision amounts to trickery and fakery. If that is the case, then is arranging your subject or the light or your camera to achieve a certain effect also trickery and fakery?
No one likes all photographs or every artist's style. That's no cause to accuse someone of employing trickery and fakery.
"Modern crap art with a ridiculous "artist statement" can sell for huge money. That doesn't make art in the eyes of anybody but those who buy it, and possibly not even (considering that those buying are often just speculating on its raise in value, regardless of its artistic quality). "
Care to share some examples?
Thomas Kincaid.
Peter Lik.
That fuckwit in Britain(?) who makes "art" of dead animals.
Just to name three. But according to you, they're great because thay make/made a lot of money.
Robert Rauschenberg made "art" with a stuffed goat once. Damien Hirst is your man. That's it, eh?
Thomas Kincaid.
Peter Lik.
That fuckwit in Britain(?) who makes "art" of dead animals.
Thomas Kincaid.
Peter Lik.
That fuckwit in Britain(?) who makes "art" of dead animals.
Just to name three. But according to you, they're great because thay make/made a lot of money.
Edit - Andy Warhol's big soupcans were garbage, too, as was most everything else he did. And that guy who does all that horrible dreadful stuff with the eagles - garbage.
The public doesn't know shit about this stuff one way or the other,
nor do they care.
Guess it never dawned on the disbelievers that these striking images might actually help the analog cause rather than harm it.
They care to some extent, or the Times wouldn't have run the piece.
Most of the what's in the LA Times nobody cares about.
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?