Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/06/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]danny, i beg to differ. many great artists, especially those who've been working since the 1860s, have portrayed fairly "ordinary" scenes in a way that transforms the actual view into a great vision and transports the observer of the result (see manet, monet, pissaro, cezanne, etc etc etc). i suggest that ansel adams managed the same (and others, etc etc). millions of people a year visit yosemite, trampling all over that beautiful landscape. yet few, if any, manage to transform that landscape into a truly great image with the skill and anticipation of the result that adams achieved. i believe, perhaps incorrectly, that at any point in time and space a truly great artist can look about themselves and "see" art. the decision whether to capture and offer that vision to others becomes the critical event. in other words, we are surrounded by the potential for "great art" *constantly*. if a decision is taken to portray that vision, the effort made, and the result is a failure, then so be it, there is a learning process that can be fed back and capitalized upon for the next attempt. the failure is in the portrayal, not the original perception. mark ps. i'll be away for a week and any follow ups on my part may be sporadic. pps. thank god for "also rans", without them here would be no race, no event, no such thing as the "photo-finish".... dannyg1@idt.net wrote: > > Mark, > > > i think the truly great artist can transform *any* "ordinary" image > > into an extraordinary vision. *that* is their greatest asset..... > > Isn't that a bit too harsh a standard? I can't say that the world has seen anyone whom > could produce great art on demand and the standard you've proposed would, it seems > to me at least, discount/relegate every 'great artist' I can think of to lucky 'also-rans'.