robert lee Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 <blockquote> <p>And who would that be?</p> </blockquote> <p>I thought that would have been rather self-evident: a piece has demonstratable value if a dollar price can be attached to it. Those who matter are the ones whose opinion, by either station or pocket book, are material.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_wang6 Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 <p>I thought the work was interesting. Certainly I would prefer to see it in person, as I assume they are on a larger scale than what can be shown on a computer monitor.</p> <p>The work leaves questions about the nature of the process and the intent of the artist that I have not yet decided upon. It appears to be a kind of mosaic-style photography, similar to David Hockney's work but more architectonic, and certainly with a deliberate desire to make the seams line up where possible. As to the photographer's goal it seems that his work achieves a vague, painterly quality, so I can only speculate that his purpose was to deconstruct real-world, mundane spaces into their abstract geometric components in a sort of expressionist manner. The vantage point, chosen almost universally from above, serves to flatten the subject and therefore de-emphasize the photographic nature of the process.</p> <p>Overall, though, I am left with a feeling that either I haven't caught on to some insight or subtlety underlying the work, or that there is not much actually there. I think it doesn't really ascend to a state of notability as fine art that I have seen in other photographic work (e.g., the aforementioned works by Hockney). Indeed, I've seen images from other photo.net photographers that I consider to be artistically superior and conceptually more cohesive. And no, I'm not talking about stereotypical landscapes or portraiture or "pretty pictures."</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_moseley1 Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 <p>Judging work properly is simply not possible on crappy PC monitors. Often art needs to be seen in the flesh and in it's proper scale.</p> <p>At least this person is trying to do their own thing and not simply following the crowd like the majority.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 <p>I have a friend who owns an art gallery. I asked her what the difference was between art and fine art. She said "about 70%"</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now