Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/09/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Sep 28, 2006, at 3:53 PM, B. D. Colen wrote: > Some fantastic stuff - but it's too bad that he had to reach so > with some of > it. Also, forgive me, but other than the fact that the church woman > is black > and the white supremacist is, well, white - what's the point. Same > with the > minister and the klansmen. But they're all visually pretty incredible. The photographer produced a gorgeous set of portraits; and like a deck of cards one could almost take any two and find an interesting juxtaposition. His particular choices, in some cases, may be "reaches." However, I find the whole collection, as presented, work together and allow me an opportunity to consider how we decorate ourselves, think about stereotypes, choices, the bodies beneath the wrappings, etc. On Sep 28, 2006, at 4:02 PM, Steve Barbour wrote: so what is the point? Looking. Considering. Expressing. On Sep 28, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Lawrence Zeitlin wrote: I disagree. While the portraits are strong, except for subject matter relationships and contrasts, most did not work as diptychs. Diptychs should have some form of connecting artistic unity and should enhance each other, mirroring shape and composition. Meaningful content contrasts are not enough. The diptych should stand as a coherent work of art independent of meaning. Huh? On Sep 28, 2006, at 4:43 PM, Steve Barbour wrote: I'm not so sure about that...we have plenty of photos that tell us about the human condition, do we really need nice posed studio advertising type images to tell us of the human condition...they look more like models dressed to the part... IMHO I think they tell us more about what is in the photographers mind and the fact that he wants to make money out of this project.... We certainly don't "need" images of this type. But we have them here before us. Do we need images of folks with their guns? or images of flowers in our gardens? or images of where we went on our vacations? or images of english landscapes with clouds? Most art tell us a lot about what's in the artist's mind. Most professional artists want to make money with their art so that they can continue to make art. On Sep 28, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Nick Roberts wrote: I agree. They're too facile - beautifully constructed, but far too bleeding obvious. Kyle would do a much better job, for one! Interesting. Because I find many of Kyle's images (especially the goth and gun work) have a "facile" quality. On Sep 29, 2006, at 7:58 AM, David Rodgers wrote: I'm far more impressed by photos posted by LUG members than I am by any of the diptychs being discussed. They struck me as clich?. But grouping people in threes is solid composition. That's about the only thing that I took from them. "grouping people in threes is solid composition" qualifies as one of the most clich?d group of words I've heard in quite some time. Regards, George Lottermoser george@imagist.com