You guys have got to see this guy's prints.....

[Helen B]

"What the hell does a cow on Rogaine has to do with anything?"

Enough of your sweet-talking flattery!

 

[jjstafford]

Not what I am saying, you may criticize all you want just like Michael Witting did. But to call anybodys work "unimportant" just because it does not conform to your idea of a great photograph is just plain nasty. But then that seems to be your preferred attitude in this forum.

We must have a cultural issue here. To say something is unimportant is not nasty in my universe, and I am candid enough to have pointed to some of my own work as being unimportant, even worthless. People who know me would never say I am nasty. It's something between your impression and reality that is out of synch. Someone other than myself might resent your misunderstanding, and accusations, but I'm okay with it. Please don't understand me too quickly, as I've left a lot of room for you as well.

 

[Jorge]

To say something is unimportant is not nasty in my universe, and I am candid enough to have pointed to some of my own work as being unimportant, even worthless.

Ah! I see, dismissing someone's life work as unimportant is according to your point of view a "nice" thing, uh? Of course, just so you dont look like too much of a jerk you add you consider your work the same. That sure makes it all right then.

I have no interest in "understanding" you, but I wonder what makes you such a qualified expert that you can dismiss someone's work as "unimportant." I have yet to see you make a constructive criticism of anybody's work, be that a well know photographer or an APUG member, yet you have the arrogance to dimiss work as unimportant, derivative, boring, etc, etc....

You certainly are a joy to have around....

 

[tim atherton]

btw, more at photoeye

http://www.photoeye.com/Gallery/for...ition=1&Door=1&Portfolio=Portfolio2&Gallery=1

http://tinyurl.com/8fekj

 

[jjstafford]

Jorge, you go out of your way to cast aspersions upon me, make accusations, and presumptions but you do not even know me. The problem is yours. I'm addiing you to the IGNORE list. Sorry, but I've no choice.

 

[Jorge]

Jorge, you go out of your way to cast aspersions upon me, make accusations, presumptions and you do not even know me. The problem is yours. I'm addiing you to the IGNORE list. Sorry, but I've no choice.

Knock yourself out.....no need to be sorry, I am glad you will place me in your ignore list.

 

[Ian Grant]

Thanks Tim for posting that link, I did look at Jorge's original link but yours just adds more to it. Very interesting work, I wish I'd seen it years ago.

It's a shame that visual illiterates have to denigrate anything outside their own sphere of comprehension.

So thankyou Jorge & Tim for bringing this excellent work to our attention

Ian

 

[jd callow]

To a degree I can understand what jjs is saying, his choice of words are lamentable. There have been countless works of art I have been forced to study that held no value to me. Even MS's diatribes held a kernel of truth, for me, regarding some photography.

I do not see this work in that light though. If I were smarter, more worldly, I might think it is magnificent. Is life and nature like this in SE Asia?


The compositions almost without exception are beautiful and very supportive of the subject.

The execution is above reproach. Even as jpgs it is impossible to miss the fact that this person has mastered his craft

The content of the work is very good. It might be cliché or it may be pure cultural documentation -- I would not know because I have never been to these places.

There isn't any irony that I can discern nor some other cue that is specific to my life. In other words, beyond the beauty of the compositions and my appreciation for the craft I am not emotionally moved. The beauty and craft are significant and any deeper intent might be lost on me because of my ignorance of the subject not something lacking in the work.

The first time you read Shakespeare I doubt you got it, but then I wouldn’t know if this is WS or not. I do know that it sure as hell isn't Thomas Kinkade.

 

[Ian Grant]

To a degree I can understand what jjs is saying, his choice of words are lamentable.

If I were smarter, more worldly, I might think it is magnificent. Is life and nature like this in SE Asia?

No is the initial anwser to your last question.

The way we look at any art depends on our own cultural and artistic influences and knowledge.

Perhap's the importance of Don Hong Aoi's work is the way he's used photography to expand on chinese traditional painting, it's exremely subtle and initially easy to overlook.

It's also important to look at the dates some of the earlier images were made, they show he wasn't influenced by later american photographers and was producing unique contemporary work on the other side of the world.

Ian

 

[Flotsam]

A week after hanging a bunch of my prints for public viewing, it has been interesting looking at the guestbook. A few people have mentioned in their entries, the prints that they particularly liked.
There was one print that barely made the cut. I thought that I must have a better print to fill that frame but in the end, I decided that it worked with the body of the show and there were elements that I thought were unique in it, so it squeaked in.
One visitor took the trouble to mention that _that_ print, out of twenty nine others that I preferred, was their favorite. I'm sure that their preference has nothing to do with the esoteric technical elements that I liked about it but there was something about the subject or tone or balance or texture in that image that they responded to.

I think that it is important to remember that our work reaches others on an emotional level that incorporates their personal experiences and feelings that we can not hope to anticipate or comprehend. Jorge and others, including myself, respond strongly positively to the Don Hong Oai prints. I'll bet that my reasons are different than Jorges. Others respond negatively or neutrally and offer an analytical dismissal of his work because they are emotionally untouched by it. It isn't worth argueing about and certainly nothing to get personal about.

 

[jd callow]

In case my point is missed.

I was moved by the beauty of the compositions, the style of the artist and the excellent craft. For me, the only ingredient missing was a psychological connection. If i had crossed the bridge many times, if in the course of my daily chores I had pushed a boat across that lake or if the fog was a daily affair for me, etc. But these things are not part of my make-up, nor sadly am I at all versed in Asian art outside of pottery. For these reasons the work is only wonderful not magnificent

 

[Jorge]

Jorge and others, including myself, respond strongly positively to the Don Hong Oai prints. I'll bet that my reasons are different than Jorges. Others respond negatively or neutrally and offer an analytical dismissal of his work because they are emotionally untouched by it. It isn't worth argueing about and certainly nothing to get personal about.

I agree Neal, I have no problem with someone saying they find them vacuos pretty pictures. To each his/her own. But to dismiss someone's life work as "unimportant" just because they dont like them I find it the height of arrogance. There are many photographer's work I dont like, mostly the fauxtography luminaries like Gursky, Eggelston, etc, etc....but I dont dismiss their work as "unimportant."

 

[jjstafford]

I agree Neal, I have no problem with someone saying they find them vacuos pretty pictures. To each his/her own. But to dismiss someone's life work as "unimportant" [...] but I dont dismiss their work as "unimportant."

Who used the word "unimportant"? Not me. I said his contribution was worthless, which is stronger. What's going on here, Jorge? Are you feeling guilty or anticipating criticism, therefore making pre-emptive strikes? What's going on?

 

[Jorge]

hmmm...I thought I was on your ignore list...what happened?.....yep, you said worthless like your work....that about sums it up....

 

[donbga]

Who used the word "unimportant"? Not me. I said his contribution was worthless, which is stronger. What's going on here, Jorge? Are you feeling guilty or anticipating criticism, therefore making pre-emptive strikes? What's going on?

Okay, I really don't have a dog in this fight but why do you think that his contribution is worthless?

Is that different than writing that his work is worthless?

Reading your post twice, it does have an argumenative and confrontational tone to it; to put it another way, an "in your face" remark.

Never the less I'm curious to hear why you consider his "contribution" is or was worthless.

Don Bryant

 

[Flotsam]

A number of people have said they admire and enjoy and respond to the work for different reasons.
So much for worthless.

 

[phfitz]

Good morning people,

Thanks for the links, lovely photos. How are they worthless?

The artist was born in China 1929, how many times was his whole world ripped away and run thru the blender? He seems to have adjusted well.

The photos in Vietman were during the height of hostilities and plainly show how worthless, pointless, meaningless to the point of nonexistent war is. How much more in your face irony do you want?

Multiple negative printing is the oldest form of making photos, how is that a bother?

The man's passion shines thru in each photo, he accepts nothing less than his vision and style. How are they worthless???

Did I miss something?

 

[mark]

I've been trying to figure out how they are worthless as well. COuld it be that the photogs this was guy was compared too copied him?

You made the statement JJ back it up.

 

[jjstafford]

I've been trying to figure out how they are worthless as well. COuld it be that the photogs this was guy was compared too copied him?

You made the statement JJ back it up.

What I should have said (were I in less pain) was that I was disappointed that the images were composites, and as composites which copied a hackneyed (read:traditional and culturally safe) oriental formula, then IMHO it added nothing to the art of photography and less than nothing to the art world (thus worthless).

Of course I find the pictures emotionally soothing, but so is warm tea at high noon. As for the monetary value, well that's the market. Elvis-on-velvet paintings, pictures of sunsets, nudes, and desert doorways still sell too for the same reasons.

 

[mark]

That makes more sense. I don't see them that way but that is the nature of taste. There are few images I keep going back too that continue to have an impact on me emotionally. each for different reasons. While this guy's work did not impact me on that emotional level they did have an impact on me compositionally. I can learn from them. In fact I can learn alot from them as I feel they break down traditional oriental composition very well. For that reason, to me the images are very worthwhile. I am sure it boils down to one man's trash is another's treasure.

Now, to compare them with a velvet Elvis is a bit reaching.

 

[blansky]

Believe it or not but there are still people out there that cannot appreciate the genius of "Dogs playing Poker".


It's a crazy world.



Michael

 

[jjstafford]

Believe it or not but there are still people out there that cannot appreciate the genius of "Dogs playing Poker".

It's a crazy world.

Michael

Being relevant for a moment, the painting below is terribly popular in our rural areas. It was copied from a Minnesota photographer's work. He's still alive, or was last time I checked. Wouldn't it look kuel on black velvet?

 

[jjstafford]

Forgot one. The picture below was also from a Minnesota photograher and made into an oil painting, unauthorized by the photog, but not reproduced further. Purely worthless picture anyway. Enough trivia.

 

[gr82bart]

Reading your post twice, it does have an argumenative and confrontational tone to it; to put it another way, an "in your face" remark.

Don has a good point here.

There is a way to express "I don't like this" without coming off as negative. I read JJs post and it does make me wonder "Who the heck is this guy?"

So, as for the photos in question. I like them. I think art critique is so Eurocentric to begin with, that it's refreshing to see artistic impressions from other parts of the world. For example:

He's a conservative Uelsmann marinated in an Oriental esthetic which loosely translated means "safe" or "cliche to work on any wall".

To me, this a boderline rascist comment. Why is it that he (an Asian) is the conservative Uelsmann (a Westerner)? Why could not be the other way around? They are both of the same era, I think. Further what is so safe and cliche about an Oriental esthetic? Is it because in European/Western eyes, Oriental art has been devalued to one of trinket status?

Too often, I see African and Asian art reduced in value through Western/European eyes. Now, don't misunderstand me. Just because it's Asian doesn't automatically maen it does have value, but often I see an immediate dismissal, usually quickly compared to a Western/European 'superior' work.

I just like the mood these photos convey. I actually feel like I'm in the presence of the photos. But that just how these photos affect me. I don't know whether they are important or not, I don't care how much they are worth, and certainly, if I didn't like them, I wouldn't be qualified or pretend to be qualified to say they contribute or are worthless to the photographic whole. That's just being too serious and pretentious.

Art.

 

[Ian Grant]

Well Blansky some certainly wouldn't appreciate the great image (of I think Fay) "Dressed for ball"

But I'd better say no more or it might give Jorge ideas. . . .

Ian