shadetree407

Hello,

I am unable to log into my old account (email is hidey_coyote@yahoo.com) and have forgotten the password.

The old username was (per my memory) lostcoyote or lost coyote.

The contents were mostly nature pictures.

Anyway, If you can help me, I would greatly appreciate it.

For reference, one of the pictures was of the image below.

Thanks for your help,

-PW

awww foooey, the image didn't upload....

 

www.photo.net/photo/3358643

cubism, surrealism,modern,postmodern.... so many categories we like compartmentalize things in - is it all really necessary? well, maybe it is for the art historian or critic but i dunno. what category might this one fall into, gravitism?

Mr. Gardner is busy on the sidelines examining his own work

:))

you all ought to read his biography, by mary alinder. tho he was a great photographic artist, his family sure did suffer. i guess there is a peice for everything - choosing to sacrifice his families emotional well being for his personal ambitions. he was not the complete hero we photographers make him out to be when one looks at a larger picture of how his family (especially his son) suffered from his neglect.

Tom Meyer states off topically:

 

>> Off topic, I'm sure global warming hasn't increased in the last 100 years, despite the addition of several billion more people, several thousands of coal burning power plants, several billion internal combustion engines..... etc...etc...etc.... <<

 

what about all these photographers that consume printing paper that collectively adds to deforestation? or all that cotton rag board used to mount prints that collectively depletes soil nutrients?

Peter A. states:

 

>> A pic accompanied by words can be more misleading because more senses are involved. It is a universal truth that the more of the five senses one can involve in putting out a message the more readilly it will be recieved. <<

 

i think this is very true.

 

here is an example:

http://foolmoon.com/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/287952/page/0/vc/1

 

would someone here like to take a stab at interpreting the words above the picture in the link above.

<div></div>

some art is inspiration...

 

 

some art is luck...

 

 

some art is being in the right place at the right time...

 

 

(do those 3 sentences work? why or why not?)

art is a gift?

 

explain....

 

we all have aptitudes, genetic blueprints, dispositions, or whatever you want to call them.... and we either develop them or we do not. if this what you mean by gift or do you mean the more conventional (something the system [an authority] has taught you) "handed down to me through the chimney by god?"

so then perhaps it is best to delete the word, genius, from our vocabulary?

> Look through all of photographic history of the last hundred years going back to Stieglitz and you'll see the majority of noted's are very well connected. Look at Atget's bio-history of becoming noted and who did the noting. Personally, I can't recall one, that doesn't have some sort of linage of notoriety at their foundation.

 

>> The point of my above is not to cast aspersions on any one of particularity but to point out that notoriety, in the case of the "art world" is not as much about genius as it is about your ability to sell yourself and maintain yourself in this saleable state by the power brokers, long enough in order to be noticed for what some "might" consider your genius...

 

 

======

 

* ka-chingo-dingo*

 

 

N E T W O R K I N G is K E Y moreso than Q U A L I T Y and/or Q U A N T I T Y

[but it all still takes work (effort)]

> If, however, you mean that works of fine art, by photographers widely aclaimed to be geniuses, are actually products of the excessive hard work and prodigious output of their creators, then I would disagree with you yet again.

 

 

heh heh heh.... so can you offer more than what you find fault in here? that is to say, what do you believe could be said to capture the essense of it takes to produce "works of art"

 

would it be a whole list of things connected with and's and or's?

 

 

 

your drink is on the counter

(lowering leg)

 

:)))))

> I very much doubt this ever happened.

 

you should consult Ted Orland before making conjecture like this.

 

 

>> This is that naval-gazing, mantra-chanting, clove-cigarette-smoking hoo-hah I used to hear out of the pimpled mouths of black beret-wearing wannabes back in the day. It's fine to make yourself appear deep if you're trying to shag the birds, but it doesn't actually make any sense, as the dames eventually grok.

 

 

grovel-grovel.... i bow to your greatness sir wiggy from land o' miss piggy :)

there once was this fella named wiggey

he had read a good book 'bout miss piggy

he thought he found art

he said 'by golly i'm smart'

then went out and took picture of twiggy

 

 

 

art is work

work is energy expended

it takes energy for an artist to create art

therefore, art is work.

for some it is easy

for others it is not

in both cases, work (mental energy and physical energy too) is still required to produce art

 

way to go wiggy!

> I think you might have missed the sarcasm of the comment. :)

 

 

is this a conjecture and if so, rejected as an axiom? :))

<div></div>

<div></div>

>>> Garry was very serious about photography and that he loved to "see what things look like when photographed." <<<

 

 

that is such an INCREDIBLE motivation to photograph.... to see what things look like when projected onto a piece of photographic paper or film.

ehhh?

well, as for my initial post, the question said "substantial amount of good quality work"

 

the reason i used those words was that if a person (anyone) has a substabntial amount of work, chances are that they think it's also pretty good quality.... and more importantly, there was a SUBSTANTIAL investment in tim,e and energy to make it all....

 

so having done all that work.... what to do with it all at the end of career or of life.

 

for me, i'm thinking of recycling my stuff in the recycle dumpster that hasn't been given away. i'm not so sure i wish to make many more photos cuz it really does tax our resource base - but i have mixed feelings on that one. i think i have a few more darkroom sessions in me down the road.

> Artist do not produce art. They just work as anyone else and producing as anyone else. Whatever they do is nothing special to them. If they wonder about anything it is why other are so sloppy.

 

 

it was going fine up to that point. then this bible thumper stepped in from the christian chat room. can all that dogma be summed up in a materpiece photograph titled "humanities greatest folly" (now that would be worth preserving for as long as we're still here)... yes, what you have to say is open to debate... but this isn't a religion thread... but there are some personal morals involved in deciding what to do with your work... much of which resides in the land of the ego. maybe it's a good idea just to recycle all that archival matting board and create some fine compost and plant a few trees before ya go. that way, we can sorta pay back for all the resource depletion we collectively have contributed to. wait, this isn't an environmental thread either. ooops. <submit> as is.

art education and creating art are not correlated. you do not need education in art education to create art. go tell your friends this: well if you say so, then it must be true, to you.

so rafal,

 

what will YOU do with your negatives when you die?

eventually, you will have to let go.

why not just leave it at a particular form of energy.

 

consider the wave or the particle to be simply an expression (in which we relate to) of that energy form