".....and the beat goes on....more 15mm portraits of Al Kaplan by......."

<i>Any comments or suggestions about the series is welcome. Thanks -Al</i>

<BR><BR>

I don't know Al or Ray or Brad or Salome or anyone else. I've been looking at PN for a

couple years and decided to get more involved, signing up, posting a few pics, rating pics,

making comments, etc. <BR><BR>

 

"Any comments...welcome" wrote Al so I made a comment. Now, I personally don't care

what tools are used when books get written, dances get choreographed, films-paintings-

sculptures-photos-etc get made; I only care if the content and presentation touch me.

These self-portraits bore me. I've looked at dozens poorly exposed/composed pics of Al

doing, well, doing nothing and he asked for comments, so I said something. Big deal. Ya

don wanna know, don ask. Ya only want praise and compliments, say so.

<BR><BR>

I've gotten scores of emails thanking me for my comment above and dozens of requests

for prints of pics in my portfolio. Please, fans, keep the RMB's coming cuz electrons ain't

free.

Man, I gotta get me one of those fifteens for my Bessa R.

Al -- Your 15mm shots are tremendously enjoyable. Keep up the good work. Bob

<i>Look at Robert Crumb, and you might see the photos of Al fall into place, and the big picture emerging.</i>

<p>

Ms. Deux,<br>

<p>

Word on the street has it that even Mr. Crumb no longer partakes in expanding his vision through the use of pharmaceuticals. After reading what you had penned I might propose that you ponder the same. One has to look no further than Maxon too see where that path may lead.

<p>

Your analogy of associating Mr. Crumb to Mr. Kaplan is entirely absurd and outlandish. A more accurate correlation could be illustrated as a creative genius and the village... well I presume that you know what I mean.

<p>

If Mr. Kaplan's self portraits are genuinely imaginative and creative then we must identify any drunken frat boy to ever point a disposable camera in his own direction as such also.

<p>

Sincerely,<br>

WTF

the first one is superb! keep shooting AL!

The first one's good, the rest are, in someone else's words, shyte.

<I>Look at Robert Crumb, and you might see the photos of Al fall into place, and the big

picture emerging.</I><P>

 

Robert Crumb no. <a href= "http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/

Narcissus.html"><B>Narcissus</b></a>, yes.

First and last ones do it for me.

 

Edit, edit, edit.

I really like the first one, too. It's the best, by far, of these 15mm self shots I've seen.

"I think Al is not the Hieronymus Bosch of the self portrait,"

 

I don't think Hieronymus Bosch was the Hieronymus Bosch of self portraits either. It's guessed he produced one in his life time. Were you thinking of someone else, or is this just more BS?

Is it really so hard to see Al's sense of humor in putting himself in every frame? These aren't pictures of Al; these are pictures of scenes from everyday life, in which Al's omnipresent, omniscient yet distorted head is both part of the scene and a commentary on it.

 

Sure, some shots in the series are better than others. The first shot in the present set -- Al the Spider -- may be the most interesting as an individual image, but it comes dangerously close to making Al himself the subject, and that is not what this series is really about.

 

Huw, I think, hit the nail on the head: the least successful image is the one in which Al's Lincolnesque visage appears almost undistorted. Al is, of course, literally part of each picture, but on another level he is there to offer the viewer a vicarious second perspective into the scene, like the Notre Dame gargoyle in Cartier-Bresson's classic shot.

 

Al, don't let the naysayers faze you. Geniuses have always been misunderstood. When your show opens at MoMA, I'll be there.

Al, can I have a large print of the first shot?

Travis, check your Email. I'm running a few days behind in the darkroom thanks to the storm but sure, I can make up a print for you.

<i>Try the Crumb Spoon. See what you come up with.</i><p>

No, you haven't sufficiently looked at Crumb then. Take another

lesson. I know you're given to flowery language, Belle, but

please do try to keep the hyberbole in check. Taking nothing

away from Al's project, I can't begin to tell you how much your

making this comparison disturbs me. So wrong. Just dead

wrong. Obscene.

"I've gotten scores of emails thanking me for my comment above and dozens of requests for prints of pics in my portfolio. Please, fans, keep the RMB's coming cuz electrons ain't free."

 

Sorry to say, but the old adage that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. In all honesty your portraits are pretty pedestrian and boring.

 

Glad to hear that business is booming and your prints are in such demand.

 

Warmest regards,

Jay

That quote in Jay's post above was from a post by Corre Foc, a new member who joined August 16th of this year, not something that I said. I'm happy that he's making so much money on his photos.

Yes Al, I was referring to Corre.

The first shot is the most "artistically" interesting, but in some ways does not fit into the series, which grows stronger as it increases in longevity. It's *too* artistic. But in it Al has made an image that should have pleased some of his critics.

 

Why is it OK for Lee Friedlander to include himself in pix but not Al Kaplan, who has a more interesting face?

 

As this series progresses it becomes more interesting to me. Also I think you are getting more comfortable with it.

 

I thought Peter A's post above was a perfect dissection of the controversy.