need ur comments on this shot...

surya wrote: ya I understand Matthew...and I guess there is nobody's fault here everybody is right in their point of views...

I won't agree that all points of view posted here are "right". But, they all have a chance to be heard.

Otherwise, who gets to decide what ART is? All points of view must be allowed.

Your work got my art nemesis and I discussing what constitutes a valid POV. That's how we learn to respect each other.

surya wrote: ya I understand Matthew...and I guess there is nobody's fault here everybody is right in their point of views...

If we're talking subjective things yes, but there's plenty of objective realities too.

The reality of the deluded isn't actually changing he just imagines it so.

MLKstudios wrote:

surya wrote: ya I understand Matthew...and I guess there is nobody's fault here everybody is right in their point of views...

I won't agree that all points of view posted here are "right". But, they all have a chance to be heard.

Otherwise, who gets to decide what ART is? All points of view must be allowed.

So you admit you're wrong?!

That's the thing about art. It's so full of subjective wishy washy horse manure it's not funny.

I like the ol' saying: "I might not know much 'bout art, but I knows what I likes"

Someone I know went to art school and she was a brilliant artist (IMHO) really nice pictures and sculptures. But she kept getting really bad marks... then she worked it out. She hung some plastic from a green house roof and draped it down (deliberately not putting too much effort into it). She took photos of it and came up with some amazingly convoluted BS about some deep personal meaning.

She got an A.

That's "ART" for ya.

That's what that "100 artists" speech was about. The hick from the backwoods (who ate squirrels for breakfast) pointed out the shallowness of much of it, and was better at it than they were.

And I wholeheartedly agree. Many art teachers are unaware. I gots the degrees.

The trick is to figure out what is valid and what isn't. What has real meaning compared to what is wool over the eyes of the unwashed masses.

The valid ones are a part of the art train. The rest are pretenders.

I see ya point actually.... but here's mine (nothing against you personally here Matt):

Dismissing talented artists just because they don't have some deep emotional story behind what they do is just stupid and is why I think "ART" is dumb.

Sure there's some genuine "Artists" who do "Art" as an expression of some deep emotional stuff (which I guess some call "genuine art")? But why can't people just do "Art" because "hey I thought it looks good". Those people are classed as what? Hacks? Not "on the art train" ? Why?

By the way, I use "quotes" a lot because I think it's funny and to make a "point".

Good question, SN. And am glad to see Photo Talk venture into something other than what gear to buy -- and a constant duel.

The question is ancient. Is beauty an absolute, shared by all? Or is it as you say, it exists solely in the eye of the beholder. There is no right answer. But this helps explain the question...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Beauty

Deep, huh?

In my philosophy, truth is beauty, even when it is ugly, it's an absolute. And it is knowledge which leads us to the truth.

Socrates suggests, our goal on earth is to become our true selves (Dali put it this way -- his greatest joy was to become more Dali), and art is a pathway to take us there. If we find our own truth, we can return to the eternal.

So, ART has to reach (not simply attempt to reach) the truth within ourselves (the personal part). That's why some pictures speak to the universal in all of us. We are already connected, and we seek visions of that connectedness. It's more than just a pretty picture (and can even be something ugly, like war). As long as the piece shows us who we really are, our own essence, it is ART.

Some here call it the THING.

They're looking for the THING that has some truth in it to photograph. Many writers on art and photography also talk about how important the thing is. For Weston, the thing was found in a pepper and also in sea shells. He showed us the inner beauty in them (their essence).

That's the deep end. And is why I jokingly say to the macro shooters, you need to get closer. You haven't quite gotten to the essence of the subject yet. It's a bit deeper than what you've photographed.

Now lets have fun, and take pictures of what we like to look at.

Matthew

BTW surya's horse picture shows us the essence of a horse. By taking away the clarity on the surface that confuses us, we can see horse (as the subject) a bit deeper.

Cool story Matt.

MLKstudios wrote: BTW surya's horse picture shows us the essence of a horse. By taking away the clarity on the surface that confuses us, we can see horse (as the subject) a bit deeper.

LOL Thanks for proving my point for me.

SN, your response offends me and my "philosophy", which is fine. I'm old and I can take it.

BUT, you also managed to include surya in your remark, which is NOT fine.

En Garde

Its ok matthew, it doesnt matter...afterall im jus a beginner..

That's was part of my point, surya. I'm an old pro and have experienced all sorts of attacks coming from all sides. I've got my armor on.

As a beginner, who doesn't come across as a "know it all" to begin with, you shouldn't have your toes stepped on like that.

Others opinons of your work is often good to hear, but they also need to be phrased well. And not given underhandedly. That's why our battle continues.

Namaste

Saying art is dumb, lumping all art together in one category and making that generalization, because a friend had a bad experience (w/presumably not so good an art teacher) and for whatever other reasons, seems to be a limited view of art to say the least. If you want to go after Matthew move it to the Lounge or something, it disrupts the conversation and doesn't provide respectful feedback to someone posting their photos for critique.

Back to the photo, I'd like it better w/the horse's face in focus, I think it would make for a better 'portrait', although purposeful out of focus images can be interesting. I do like the overall warm glow in this photo, the caramel color of the horse and the golden foliage. You have some other interesting photos on your page - I particularly like the B&W shot of the lantern, I think it's effective in its simplicity.

icepics wrote: Saying art is dumb, lumping all art together in one category and making that generalization, because a friend had a bad experience (w/presumably not so good an art teacher) and for whatever other reasons, seems to be a limited view of art to say the least. If you want to go after Matthew move it to the Lounge or something, it disrupts the conversation and doesn't provide respectful feedback to someone posting their photos for critique.

Back to the photo, I'd like it better w/the horse's face in focus, I think it would make for a better 'portrait', although purposeful out of focus images can be interesting. I do like the overall warm glow in this photo, the caramel color of the horse and the golden foliage. You have some other interesting photos on your page - I particularly like the B&W shot of the lantern, I think it's effective in its simplicity.

Beautifully said icepics, thankyou...

by the way here is that shot...