"Exhibition" Pictures for Discussion and Questions Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee, Guest Artist Photographers

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Michael,

To me, composition is important, but then some subjects dictate a different aspect ratio than what my camera happens to offer. I'll adjust my crop to improve the composition if needed. What's more, I largely compose without a camera by choosing my vantage point. The image/composition is in my vison, before I set up the camera. In that scenario I enjoy the freedom of stitching which allows to add enough of the scene to improve the composition within it's 'natural frame', not my camera's frame. Sometimes it's more square, sometimes it's narrower and high, or wide.

[/QUOTE]


Hi Bart and Michael,

I have thought about Bart's framing of the picture in his mind. I do the same. Then the camera transports that vision home either in one piece with nothing to cut away or as closely as possible with one or more overlapping frames. The composition is always in my brain. I just want to get the right things in and the wrong things excluded.

So what about getting everything right on the glass? Well, to me it follows a noble tradition in photography. One loves one's camera and the chosen lens like a son or daughter one brought into the world. It's a special relationship, an extension of oneself, yet totally separate. If one were to look for a partner for one's child, (hardly achievable today), then the nature of that person has to decide the who might match and yield a lifetime of mutual happiness and building together.

That, I think is what is going on with the fixed formats used in these two great LF film cameras. The scenes are sought out that will lovingly fit the ground glass of the respective camera.

That choice, of matching what one finds with what one has that one loves, requires insight and great skill to be successful.

I, OTOH, make the digital camera subservient to the framing my brain wants to make. Still, I respect and sometimes envy working restricted to one lens and format. That will yield fabulous results as one becomes a dedicated specialist, rapidly excluding other possibilities and more intuitively selecting what's perfect for that opportunity. That, Michael is what you and Paula have done so well.

Asher

 

[Michael A. Smith]

We do not consider it cropping if the subject does not fit the frame and the final print is a different aspect ratio than that of the camera. What we do consider to be cropping is when the first print is made in the darkroom that one realizes that one "missed it: and that the photograph would be better if part of it were removed.

Limiting oneself to a particular format, however, leads one to be more creative, rather than less.

Also, our "image/composition," to use your words, is never fixed before we set up the camera. We use the camera as a tool for discovery and growth. If one sees the photograph completely before setting up the camera one is confirming what one already knows, and no growth is taking place. For us, to quote one of my favorite poets, e.e.cummings, "An artist, whose every agony is to grow." Making good photographs is easy. Paula and I could make a dozen a day, every day, but that is useless unless we are challenged and forced to grow.

Michael A. Smith

 

[Mark Hampton]

Also, our "image/composition," to use your words, is never fixed before we set up the camera. We use the camera as a tool for discovery and growth. If one sees the photograph completely before setting up the camera one is confirming what one already knows, and no growth is taking place. For us, to quote one of my favorite poets, e.e.cummings, "An artist, whose every agony is to grow." Making good photographs is easy. Paula and I could make a dozen a day, every day, but that is useless unless we are challenged and forced to grow.

Michael A. Smith

Michael,

interesting idea - if I am constrained by a dogma I will be truly free and able to grow. A few people have run experiments on this. I wonder if their findings mirror your intuitive approach ?

just an thought...

nothing to read here people... move on...

it was just a thought ... you cant see it.... thats it just move on...

 

[Asher Kelman]

In fact, it has been demonstrated to be effective for a few folks like Henri Bresson who used his Leica rangefinder, and just one lens, a 50mm. That was the lens for most of his work! Even today, some folks swear by this restrictive approach. Mike Johnston for one! I have the theory that it makes the camera an extension of the body, totally integrated with one's mind. Read Steve Huffington's use of the 35 mm focal length. Just one lens!

I learned for years on a 35mm focal length too and then switched to 50mm for more intimacy and stayed that way for over 10 years! Just one lens! So while counterintuitive, using a format and lens one is committed to, has been the key to some folks remarkable success.

Of course, if you want to photograph an manic brown bear mother who's cubs are lost, or a tiny tit in a tall tree, at least 600 mm is recommended!

Asher

 

[Mark Hampton]

In fact, it has been demonstrated to be effective for a few folks like Henri Bresson who used his Leica rangefinder, and just one lens, a 50mm. That was the lens for most of his work! Even today, some folks swear by this restrictive approach. Mike Johnston for one! I have the theory that it makes the camera an extension of the body, totally integrated with one's mind. Read Steve Huffington's use of the 35 mm focal length. Just one lens!

I learned for years on a 35mm focal length too and then switched to 50mm for more intimacy and stayed that way for over 10 years! Just one lens! So while counterintuitive, using a format and lens one is committed to, has been the key to some folks remarkable success.

Of course, if you want to photograph an manic brown bear mother who's cubs are lost, or a tiny tit in a tall tree, at least 600 mm is recommended!

Asher

Asher,

the best way to make work is to make it.

cheers

 

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

Restrictions allow to concentrate and get the best out of a given setup. Constant ogling for the new and better "stuff" tends to dilute. At least this is what I have experienced.

 

[Mark Hampton]

Restrictions allow to concentrate and get the best out of a given setup. Constant ogling for the new and better "stuff" tends to dilute. At least this is what I have experienced.

Klaus,

that's as mabye - but wasn't the point I was making - A dogmatic approach to making work doesn't just depend on equipment - it is the whole of the making process I was talking about.

cheers

 

[Jerome Marot]

I can see that, even if having complete freedom and unlimited technical resources does not automatically make one's pictures better, constraining oneself to a limited approach may not be the solution either.

Or, as people say, "washing your car to make it rain does not work".

 

[Asher Kelman]

I can see that, even if having complete freedom and unlimited technical resources does not automatically make one's pictures better, constraining oneself to a limited approach may not be the solution either.

Or, as people say, "washing your car to make it rain does not work".

Jerome and Mark,

I think what might be worth considering is the advantage of narrowing one's way of looking at the world and then seeing more.

Asher

 

[Mark Hampton]

Jerome and Mark,

I think what might be worth considering is the advantage of narrowing one's way of looking at the world and then seeing more.

Asher

Asher,


I think what might be worth considering, is the advantage of opening one's way of looking at the world to try to see more. Then decide how to represent what you have experienced if that is what you intend to do.

cheers

 

[Asher Kelman]

]Paula’s photograph, made in Iceland, is an excellent example of the tones creating energetic eye movement throughout the entire picture space.

Paul Chamlee: Grindivík, Iceland, 2004​

What is the subject here? It is not any one thing, but the relationship of all of the black marks to each other. That is the hallmark of a coherent, unified photograph. There are no “dead” areas and if any of the marks are removed the photograph falls apart. Cover with your finger, for example, the dark mark in the upper right-hand corner. See how the entire upper right side of the photograph dies—meaning, you eye doesn’t want to go there.

The movement of the eyes is inherently a pleasurable thing. If, in our photographs we can impel the eyes of the viewer to move we are giving visual pleasure. Visual pleasure must be something very deep and meaningful. Otherwise, why would art museums and their contents be such an important part of our culture? They exist for one reason only—to give visual pleasure.


Michael's Photograph: Washington, DC, 1984: I never talk about the act of making any of my photographs except for this one. I do so in the hope that the story will lead others to consider the making of their photographs just as carefully.

Michael A. Smith: Washington, DC, 1984​

I was driving along the Potomac River in Washington, DC, and this scene caught my eye. I could not park my truck until I had driven another quarter mile. I walked back, without my 35-pound camera, lenses, holders, and tripod and asked the couple in the foreground if they planned to stay there for a while. When they said, “Yes,” I went back to get my equipment.

I made a couple of photographs and then I saw the figure at the right edge put his hand on his hip. I immediately saw the relationship of triangles created by his arm, the knee of the man in the foreground, and the arm of the woman lying down on the left side of the photograph. I quickly swung the camera around (I had been pointing it in a different direction) and focused. I was using a 24” lens, and as you know, the longer the lens the harder they are to focus, so focusing quickly was a challenge. I was more anxious while making this exposure than I have ever been before or since. Would the figure on the right keep his hand on his hip? If he moved his arm, I had no photograph. I focused the image on the ground glass and then I realized that the figures standing up, and the boats, were not in the right place. After a few very anxious moments I felt that the standing figures and the boats were in the right place and I made the exposure.

This photograph is an example of using a 35-pound camera like a 35-millimeter camera. It is never the camera that limits one’s choice of subject matter.

This post is once of the most definite describing the highly successful work of Michael and Paula. Two statements stand out as especially important. The first is rather unique and the second seems so obvious that one might let it pass without any comment.


"Cover with your finger, for example, the dark mark in the upper right-hand corner. See how the entire upper right side of the photograph dies—meaning, you eye doesn’t want to go there."

"It is never the camera that limits one’s choice of subject matter"


Let's just address the second seemingly obvious statement, "It is never the camera that limits one’s choice of subject matter" Well, it does seem right but let's look further. Camera technical form and capability does limit one's work! So, if one wishes to take a picture of a subject, like a fox on the hills side and just have the eyes in focus, then first one needs a long lens, then a wide aperture. No other camera system will work! Getting this fox with my Crown Graphic with a 135mm lens would not be possible under most all circumstances. The two, subject and camera, are then related. Change the subject to a mother bear, (with her cubs at a river fishing), then for sure that wonderful wide LF camera, won't work, Michael. Of course you might build a concrete "blind" close to the water, but then that is really "part" of your camera. So camera and subject do need to be dealt with as an interrelated duo.

So finding the subject depends on what particular lens-equipped camera/s one has, as that fact alone already limits the visually impressive compositions that can be entertained.


I'll attempt to address the first assertion shortly.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Necessary Marks!

]Paula’s photograph, made in Iceland, is an excellent example of the tones creating energetic eye movement throughout the entire picture space.

Paul Chamlee: Grindivík, Iceland, 2004​

What is the subject here? It is not any one thing, but the relationship of all of the black marks to each other. That is the hallmark of a coherent, unified photograph. There are no “dead” areas and if any of the marks are removed the photograph falls apart. Cover with your finger, for example, the dark mark in the upper right-hand corner. See how the entire upper right side of the photograph dies—meaning, you eye doesn’t want to go there.

The movement of the eyes is inherently a pleasurable thing. If, in our photographs we can impel the eyes of the viewer to move we are giving visual pleasure. Visual pleasure must be something very deep and meaningful. Otherwise, why would art museums and their contents be such an important part of our culture? They exist for one reason only—to give visual pleasure.


Michael's Photograph: Washington, DC, 1984: I never talk about the act of making any of my photographs except for this one. I do so in the hope that the story will lead others to consider the making of their photographs just as carefully.

Michael A. Smith: Washington, DC, 1984​

I was driving along the Potomac River in Washington, DC, and this scene caught my eye. I could not park my truck until I had driven another quarter mile. I walked back, without my 35-pound camera, lenses, holders, and tripod and asked the couple in the foreground if they planned to stay there for a while. When they said, “Yes,” I went back to get my equipment.

I made a couple of photographs and then I saw the figure at the right edge put his hand on his hip. I immediately saw the relationship of triangles created by his arm, the knee of the man in the foreground, and the arm of the woman lying down on the left side of the photograph. I quickly swung the camera around (I had been pointing it in a different direction) and focused. I was using a 24” lens, and as you know, the longer the lens the harder they are to focus, so focusing quickly was a challenge. I was more anxious while making this exposure than I have ever been before or since. Would the figure on the right keep his hand on his hip? If he moved his arm, I had no photograph. I focused the image on the ground glass and then I realized that the figures standing up, and the boats, were not in the right place. After a few very anxious moments I felt that the standing figures and the boats were in the right place and I made the exposure.

This photograph is an example of using a 35-pound camera like a 35-millimeter camera. It is never the camera that limits one’s choice of subject matter.

Thus set of two pictures I'm so fond of provide a really excellent insight into good photograph making. The need for investment in time and thought to what constitutes a composition that actually works beyond the moment of immediate interest.

"Cover with your finger, for example, the dark mark in the upper right-hand corner. See how the entire upper right side of the photograph dies—meaning, you eye doesn’t want to go there."

This statement was crafted, not simply a blurted out "unprocessed thought". Michael really means this! The reduction of components of a picture to "black marks" reveals how serious a matter this is. The balance of the picture can be destroyed by removing a mark. no reference is made, in this to the subject matter! This is a very fundamental clarity that has been proposed for a guide.

My feeling is that the statement, while having obvious merit, overreaches.

Thanks Michael and Paula for this eye-opening and thought challenging series.

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

Let's just address the second seemingly obvious statement, "It is never the camera that limits one’s choice of subject matter" Well, it does seem right but let's look further. Camera technical form and capability does limit one's work.

Even more so than one would realize. Looking at pictures from the masters of last century it dawned on me that some pictures came to be because of the way the viewfinder of the cameras of the times was constructed. For example, pictures taken with a twin lens reflex (e.g. a Rolleiflex) are typically taken from a point of view about 1m above the ground (versus 1,5m above the ground for, e.g. a SLR or a rangefinder) and when people are involved, the contact between them looks visually quite different than when the camera obstruct direct communication between the photographer and the subject.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Even more so than one would realize. Looking at pictures from the masters of last century it dawned on me that some pictures came to be because of the way the viewfinder of the cameras of the times was constructed. For example, pictures taken with a twin lens reflex (e.g. a Rolleiflex) are typically taken from a point of view about 1m above the ground (versus 1,5m above the ground for, e.g. a SLR or a rangefinder) and when people are involved, the contact between them looks visually quite different than when the camera obstruct direct communication between the photographer and the subject.

Jerome,

That's a great point. With LF, generally the camera would also be set up at a height convenient to working the camera.

Theres' more to the effect of camera type on picture outcome. Let's continue that idea and consider the Leica and other classic rangefinder cameras. The viewfinder is often a portion of the wide view seen through the eye-piece. When one focusses and keeps the other eye open or else looks at the frame within the frame, one is seeing a scene set in a larger context. So there's a greater tendency perhaps to adjust composition based not only on what already is in the scene, but also what is evidently about to enter the scene. This is not so obvious with viewfinders that only show what is framed as in an SLR or LF camera.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Meanwhile, I just heard from Michael and Paula,

"We are now in Iceland, as part of a one-month trip in Europe: ten countries in twenty-seven days. We will be going to Art Basel ...................."

Still we have the next two pictures imminent!

Asher

 

[Michael A. Smith]

These photographs were made at the same place at the same time. Wherever one happens to be at any moment the number of possible fine photographs to be made is virtually infinite. One point we want to make here is that unlike many other photographers, we never wait for the light to be “right.” For us

"the light is always right or we would not see “it,” whatever that “it” may be."​

If one has an assignment, say, to photograph a particular building then, yes, there will be times when the light is better than at other times, and if we had such an assignment we would wait for those times. But when we are photographing we are not looking for anything in particular; we are just looking. Were the light not right we would not “see” whatever it is we are looking at.

We have never seen something we would like to make a photograph of and said to ourselves, “We will wait until the afternoon or evening or come back on a different day, when the light is “better.” It is enough just to have seen whatever we saw. The visual experience will always be with us, whether we make an exposure or not. We think of making an exposure as the icing on the cake. The visual experience, with or without a camera and film, is the cake.

And, as in these two photographs, we most often photograph in the middle of the day. For one thing, one is not rushed at those times, as the light is not changing quickly. This allows for a leisurely, yet extremely intense, experience. Perhaps the experience is more intense because in the middle of the day when the light is not changing rapidly we can take our time and let the subject speak to us more deeply. We are reminded here of something the great American painter John Marin wrote, “How to paint the landscape. First you make your bow to the landscape. When and if the landscape bows back to you, then you may paint the landscape.”

Also, in the middle of the day the light is more even. And as we are interested in having the subject of the photograph be everything in the frame, our vision is “democratic”—giving equal importance to everything—everything as subject, not just a particular thing that is part of the scene. Illustration is about things; Art is about space.

Michael A. Smith: Kleifarvatn, Iceland​

I recall that "I would never have made this photograph had the cloud in the sky not been, more or less, exactly in the middle of the picture. "

The function of the cloud is to move the sky forward, somewhat nullifying the illusion of deep space, bringing the background forward, keeping the “integrity of the picture plane,” as the abstract expressionist painters would have described it. Or, as in a Cezanne painting, we want to have both a deep space and the flattening of that space—both at the same time.

Paula Chamlee: Kleifarvatn, Iceland​

In the photographs Paula and I were both standing in almost the very same spot. However, Paula was looking down at the beach and made a photograph that appears to be more “abstract” than the one I made, which shows a deeper space.

 

[Antonio Correia]

Asher, what happened to yesterday's posts by Mark Hampton ?

I would like to comment on them and on these last images but it was too late at night and I went zzzzzzzzzz
-
I found myself smiling when I read and I quote Michael's "I would never have made this photograph had the cloud in the sky not been, more or less, exactly in the middle of the picture. "

I just wonder who believes this ! Well, I don't anyway. Sorry Michael Perhaps I am just a stupid Portuguese in the late age crisis. Who knows ?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher, what happened to yesterday's posts by Mark Hampton ?

I would like to comment on them and on these last images but it was too late at night and I went zzzzzzzzzz

Mark and I are figuring that out. New daughter topics get to become new threads. Mark may incorporate his ideas in "Reading the Reading". That is a fascinating even dangerous journey to the limits of out ability to read pictures.
-

I found myself smiling when I read and I quote Michael's "I would never have made this photograph had the cloud in the sky not been, more or less, exactly in the middle of the picture. "

I just wonder who believes this ! Well, I don't anyway. Sorry Michael Perhaps I am just a stupid Portuguese in the late age crisis. Who knows ?

Well, Antonio,

Michael is really adamant and to me convincing about this habit of his. I've spent enough time with both of them. His stated scheme of working is really finely tuned like a sniper in the police crisis teams. They do not fire unless the have exact identity, confirmation and confirmed order to squeeze the trigger. They don't just take a few shots for fun! Michael and Paula are that serious about their compositions and the restraint works for them too!

If you would study under Robert Lipsett the master violin pedagogue at the Colburn School of Music, likely as not, you'd have to go through many strict procedures that make up his proven discipline of turning out prize winning concert violinists who project the finest music. He's that good that any disagreements are really irrelevant. However, if one would fly to Moscow and get a different teacher, the collections of imperatives, while overlapping, might include elements that are different but somehow "needed" and unalterable.

Again, I go back to Bart Van Der wolf's wonderful quote,

"If you do what you did, you'll get what you got!"

Ask the Pope how he conducts Mass. He has rules too and those rules work. If you follow them, you will conduct a Mass successfully and all the faithful will likely be happy and tithe well. It has worked thus, for thousands of years!

Michael and Paula are sharing the rules by which they work day in day out and end up selling pictures and getting them to collectors. I am impressed by Michael's picture of the folk relaxing by the river with bicycles on the grass. Every element does indeed appear essential. So I can see how M&P attention to structure, does indeed give them admirable results. I'd love to have made that one picture. If following his advice would get me closer to that quality, I'd be more than satisfied.

However, I'm not trying to produce Michael's pictures, just enjoy and learn from his work. That way, I can see what new tools I might use in some of my own journeys.

I could sum up my take home message, after being attracted to a place, get to the right observing position and then have enough patience to have whatever you need in the picture and what's wrong leave. If it doesn't meet your standards for all the investment in time and effort in the darkroom, don't bother to take the picture! For film, this is necessary.

Asher

 

[Antonio Correia]

... Ask the Pope how he conducts Mass. He has rules too and those rules work. If you follow them, you will conduct a Mass successfully and all the faithful will likely be happy and tithe well. It has worked thus, for thousands of years!..Asher

Asher do you really believe this ? I mean really ?

Thank you for the explanations about the photos.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher do you really believe this ? I mean really ?

Thank you for the explanations about the photos.

Ever bit of it! What works, works and in that context must be viewed as successful. However, you are free to change where you are standing. A gun to work, only has to be internally consistent with it's design and externally fit some matrix that allows its function. Same with art.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

"the light is always right or we would not see “it,” whatever that “it” may be."​

I agree, but one can still decide what time is best to get the best deals at a store sale or to rob a bank, LOL!

Michael A. Smith: Kleifarvatn, Iceland​

To get the dimensions, longer shadows would make getting the depth one wants.


However, Paula's work would change remarkably and be longer flat.

Paula Chamlee: Kleifarvatn, Iceland​

Asher

 

[Mark Hampton]

Michael A. Smith: Washington, DC, 1984​

So I was thinking.... i kent this image.... its crops up from time to time in history.. a kind of Arcadian fantasy..

The Bathers at Asnieres - Georges Seurat​

of course the Michael's image is not the same as this, but they do explore the same territory.

it would all be fine until one day 2 planes flew into a couple of towers ..... much later the Arcadian fantasy is played out to its fulfilment in the image below.

Thomas Hoepker​

this is a thought experiment.

 

[Jerome Marot]

And, as in these two photographs, we most often photograph in the middle of the day.

I wondered why you would write this when I first read it, because most books on the subject of landscape photography advise is to take photograph at the beginning or the end of the day. Maybe the reason is that your photographs are taken in black and white, so that you do not risk washed-out colors and, on the contrary, benefit from a more even distribution of grays with a flatter light.

Michael A. Smith: Kleifarvatn, Iceland​

I recall that "I would never have made this photograph had the cloud in the sky not been, more or less, exactly in the middle of the picture. "

I tried to erase the cloud with photoshop to better grasp the effect. Indeed the sky needs something to give it presence.

This is a very complex picture. The composition is quite extraordinary. There is a bow in the right bottom rocks and a circular shape formed by the road, front rocks, shore line and horizon. Here again, I find that the composition makes my eyes move around. Interestingly, many lines lead the eye to the corners of the picture but each corner has a device to send the eye back and all four devices are different. I am particularly impressed by the little expanse of white rock on the bottom left corner. Without it, my eye stays blocked at that corner. Also: the cloud seems to be part of the device which sends my eye out of the top right corner.

Paula Chamlee: Kleifarvatn, Iceland​

I'll write more about Paula's picture at a later time, but I would like to point out that here again each corner has an element which is essential to send the viewer's eye back to the picture.

It is quite unusual to have essential elements right at the corner of the frame in photography or in classical paintings. For example, I could not find a painting from John Marin or Paul Cézanne with this kind of composition and I wonder why you gave these two names as examples.

 

[Alain Briot]

Michael,

Nice work and very thoughtful answers to questions.

 

[Mark Hampton]

So I was thinking.... i kent this image.... its crops up from time to time in history.. a kind of Arcadian fantasy..

The Bathers at Asnieres - Georges Seurat​

of course the Michael's image is not the same as this, but they do explore the same territory.

it would all be fine until one day 2 planes flew into a couple of towers ..... much later the Arcadian fantasy is played out to its fulfilment in the image below.

Thomas Hoepker​

this is a thought experiment.

How did the experiment turn out for people .... the parallels in the works apparent i am guessing - we only have Michael to ask as the others never visit here - is placing the work in this historical context helpful to anyone reading this?

history is a funny thing - as Michael was making his image the cold war was being fought - AIDS was being fought - its strange to think at this time German reunification was 6 years away ... Arcadian fantasies of the west ...

opps - this all is off topic !

 

[Asher Kelman]

How did the experiment turn out for people .... the parallels in the works apparent i am guessing - we only have Michael to ask as the others never visit here - is placing the work in this historical context helpful to anyone reading this?

Mark,

The visitors here are plenty. Few dare to speak. That's very common when the work is i the top tier. We don't want to make fools of ourselves by saying something that exposes our naivitée.

history is a funny thing - as Michael was making his image the cold war was being fought - AIDS was being fought - its strange to think at this time German reunification was 6 years away ... Arcadian fantasies of the west ...
opps - this all is off topic !

not really off topic if Michael's picture evoked these thoughts. Look hoew powerful his work has been for you in this instance. Look at the chutzpa needed to express what you do and do you think a lot of folk can delver that? Mo most are too inhibited. You know that! However, they all read every word and take in the pictures.

As for history, there always has been an "AIDS" of the generation, an epidemic de jour, so to speak, be it black death, syphilis, typhus or tuberculosis. There always has been some microbe pooping out and massacring the folk. Look at the flu virus in World War I. 20 million killed. Makes AIDS a 3 day cold! Also there has always been an Afghanistan and a reunification happening somewhere on the planet. It just recycles.

The pictures, however, as you den instate, are very human, evocative and timeless.

Asher

 

[Antonio Correia]

... The visitors here are plenty. Few dare to speak. That's very common when the work is at the top tier. We don't want to make fools of ourselves by saying something that exposes our naiveté... Asher

Let me drop a few words about this Asher. Just my point of view and what I have seen to happen over the years in the Art area.
I pretty much agree with you.

Imagine a piece of Art - whatever it is - which is at our eyes and regardless of the author, a very common one. One of those about which we can say: "Anyone can do this" or "Even I could do this"

Let us suppose now that the author is a well known one, recognized in the area (area of activity or/and physical area which may be your city our the World). The work immediately stands behind the society as a good one and no one dares to comment negatively. On the contrary. Curious phenomena. !

If people do not comment it is perhaps that they - we - are afraid )) of showing a not so solid artist knowledge. So, the best thing to do is stay with the mouth shut. This is after all what you were referring to when writing about exposition to naiveté.

How can a piece of Art become famous ?
By the signature inserted ! Plain and simple.

How do you become famous ? Oh well... that is another "business"

 

[Asher Kelman]

Let me drop a few words about this Asher. Just my point of view and what I have seen to happen over the years in the Art area.
I pretty much agree with you....................

If people do not comment it is perhaps that they - we - are afraid )) of showing a not so solid artist knowledge. So, the best thing to do is stay with the mouth shut. This is after all what you were referring to when writing about exposition to naiveté.

Antonio,

Inviting our guest artists is based on my own judgement that the collections are worthy. So already, it's very biased. However, the work also represents well a segment of photography that is accepted as significant in classical photography. My own assertion is that such art can inform us as to good design and craft. So that adds to the weight of importance for me, but still the works are not in the Metropolitan Museum! Maybe one day! We intend to add guests to broaden the spectrum to include other sectors of artistic expression. However, much of the instinct will likely carry over. Then, perhaps, folk will be freer to comment as the works might get into their comfort zone.

For now here's the deal. Michael and Paula want to teach. They are devoted to that and very good at it. The late Per Volquartz, a brilliant photographer, teacher, (and almost holy person), went to Michael for training at one time. Neither Paula nor Michael would be bothered or insulted if one said, "I don't like this" or "This doesn't move me", especially if they might express what left them cold or distracted. That's how we get a back and forth discussion. That dynamic is valuable. Still, of course, those of us who like the work, can simply say that. One does not need an "academic" critique. Rather just a discussion on what impresses you, what you notice in the picture that seems remarkable or not so. What seems to make it work or not. That's how one learns.

So take a risk!

It will do you good and won't hurt! We can discuss with full freedom and when we have a question for the artists pose it to them.

Asher

 

[Antonio Correia]

I didn't mean I am not liking some images from the couple.
What I wrote is/was just a note.

And Asher I have already taken the risk haven't I ?
(I hope I am understanding what you mean Asher)
-
I know Per Volquartz's work which I have seen somewhere in the past. Gorgeous, absolutely gorgeous work !

 

[Mark Hampton]

Mark,

The visitors here are plenty. Few dare to speak. That's very common when the work is i the top tier. We don't want to make fools of ourselves by saying something that exposes our naivitée.

Asher - was taking about Seurat and Hoepker never commenting on this forum !

Seurat said he was going to join - but I couldn't get through to Hoepker.

cheers