My Homage to the Postmodern Photographic Art World

Sarcasm or irony are an art unto themselves, for that a 3, alas...

 

 

And for your lacking, in ability, to appreciate really, really good humor or sarcasm, you get a two:)

Thank-you for taking the time to stop by, look and leave comment.

If you say so..... [sigh]

Oh! But I do:)

As an outsider looking in, as is the image, I see the plastic nature of contemporary Postmodern photographic think. And yes, I am taking time to educate myself to the photographic Postmodern think by reading and understanding what the noteables have to say on the subject so as to make my critique a valid critique.

As a conservative, I see the immorality and the eschewing of decent values on the part of Postmodern photographic think. I see the damage the eschewing of these values have caused society as a whole, as those who lead the charge pretend the damage has not occured. And part of the critique process is the act of making a value judgement; otherwise there's no critique process.

So it stands to reason that, as an ousider to the culture, the process of critiquing the insiders, my critique, via my imaging, is going to be made profane by those who are in disagreement with my value system or POV.

Shall we both act surprised?

Mr Gardner, I really dislike post-modernism. I believe its values are nonsense and are a ridiculous pseudo-language for the in-crowd.

 

However, as far as critiques go, your photos appear ham-fisted.

 

And no, I do not know how to critique PM through a photograph simply because I have no idea what a PM photograph is.

Based upon your above, I guess your "ham-fisted" comment has no merit then:) But, you're always very welcome to see any and all of my images in any manner, shape or form you so choose.

I do not believe there is such a thing as a postmodern photographic style. People who claim there is are trying to put a 'cool' and ill-defined label on something ordinary. Therefore your attempt to satirise one is peculiar. Hence my comment. By satirising something that (in my opinion) is not worth satirising (a) lends credence to the original concept and (b) make you appear as a bilious reactionary!

 

:)

I understand your above as a little bit of research might help open you up as to what's going on.

Although this is far removed from what I normally look at and appreciate, and I do not consider myself well versed in photographic labels, this image says something to me beyond a mere record shot of someone else's storefront display.

 

For context, I live in the DC suburbs and am used to seeing slick expensive set ups designed to attract the well heeled. This looks awful by comparison . . a parody of promotion. It could be a Salvation Army store. The props could have been pulled from a recycling center.

 

But there are some wonderful symbols that are so obvious. The white gloves and glasses, the intent gaze of two 'women' towards another one that has no head. . . . . . . across a fence, no less.

 

All illuminated by a bare bulb. . . .

Thank you for stopping by and leaving comment.

 

An image isn't complete until a viewer stops by and completes the artistic process; their personal reaction to the image.

 

Now the image is complete:)

. . and how would you complete this image?

Not being flip in my answer; by sharing the image with you is how I complete the process. The viewer completes the process, not the artist.

Not wanting to be flip in my answer either, but I expected that response, yet I'm disappointed. You had a reason for shooting it. An explanation won't, or shouldn't, restrict others.

As to my why of the creation of the image, it's a reflection of what I think of much of the photographic effort by Postmodern photographic notables.

 

As I read, learn and better understand what their think is, I'm very disappointed in that they're quite capable of much better in their efforts to portray their photographic thoughts.

 

Much of what they do is for shock value, the grotesque as an example, as opposed to "real" stir the pot social protest value.

I recall reading some of your comments on the subject, but I'm still not sure what aspects of this picture speak to you in that context. Is it just that you think the content is a bit silly and pointless? . . because I don't agree. I'd hate to think I read far more into it than you intended.

As I wrote, the image is completed by the viewer as you can read into the image anything you wish and that's perfectly fine. You and everybody else are welcome to get any interpretation out of the image that you wish.