Jump to content

eugene_scherba

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,555

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by eugene_scherba

    Street photography and fine arts, I need to find some spot in between.

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    <p><i>if the art market was real...I could short the fecka...</i></p>

     

    <p>Peter, whether the art market is real or virtual is not important, because whatever its size

    is, it is still larger than the market for cliched, poorly exposed street shots.</p>

     

    <p>Just a week ago I spoke with a collector of Eggleston's prints. He owns a number of

    them, and he worked with Eggleston on his 2 1/4 project. People like that exist, and there is

    more of them then it seems... You just have to look.</p>

    Street photography and fine arts, I need to find some spot in between.

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    <p><i>Art is nothing but fashion. Your buddy Warhol taught us that...</i></p>

     

    <p>This statement only shows that someone is sorely lacking in art appreciation around

    here.</p>

     

    <p><i>Jeff Wall??? - there's nothing unique or special about Jeff Wall except the scale he

    works on... I know several fine photographers that I think of as artists, and their work has

    a lot more gravitas than Jeff Wall.</i></p>

     

    <p>See, now <i>you</i> are talking in absolute statements and not for yourself. No, but

    this is complete and utter BS. You, sir, are being delusional. Jeff Wall is one of the most

    important photographic artists of late 20th century. He's also a damn good art

    critic/writer. This isn't something I'm pulling out some hole in the back; this is a well-

    known fact and not knowing it only makes you look bad and lacking in education.

    "Nothing unique and special about Jeff Wall" -- hahahahahaha.</p>

     

    <p><i>He's just Chuck Close inverted and many years later.</i></p>

     

    <p>Oh yeah? "Just Chuck Close?" Just like that? It is very sad that major contributors to

    20th century art and photography get dismissed like that on this forum by uneducated and

    self-important folks who incessantly compliment one another on some stupid W/NW

    threads.</p>

     

    <p>> <i>But there is no one single path to that, and these techniques you eschew are

    part of it, they are craft not gimick unless your work is nothing but your tool kit. Don't

    throw the baby out with the bath water.</i></p>

     

    <p>Yet another absolute statement from you. You know, if you're speeding in your car,

    that's okay with me, but don't blame the car in front of you.</p>

    Street photography and fine arts, I need to find some spot in between.

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    <p>> <i>never said price your prints on-line, virtually every "established"

    artist/photographer either their own website, or a dedicated site for them by their reps.

    All of them have a link for "enquiry", that means sale. they all sell online. Couple of

    examples: Gibson(hah, he even sells cameras on his site and its priced), Eggleston, just the

    first two I looked at contact for enquiries (read by a book or print or folio).</i></p>

     

    <p>We're close to understanding one another, but some thorns remain. (1) Ralph Gibson,

    although a big figure in photography, has zero reputation in the art world, especially in its

    more snobbish sphere. Eggleston -- yes, this one has a strong reputation in the art world,

    but he is one of the very few star-level photographers with a website (and it seems it was

    more like his trust forced him to have a website rather than the other way around). (2) I

    meant to ask: where is the website of Jeff Wall? Rodney Graham? Rineke Dijkstra? Andreas

    Gursky? Thomas Struth? Thomas Ruff? Wolfgang Tillmans? All of these are huge names in

    the art world. Alec Soth (one of the few stars who does have a site -- and used to have a

    blog) <a

    href="http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/2006/11/another_conversation_with_alec.html"

    >once said regarding his blog</a>:</p>

    <blockquote><p>The one caveat is that blogging is probably bad for one's reputation in

    the art world. The art world is built on exclusivity. Blogs are built on availability. Most art

    stars don't even have websites for fear of appearing pedestrian. But photography, for me,

    is a pedestrian art. It is democratic and accessible. So I participate in the blogosphere

    knowing full well that it probably hurts my art-world reputation.</p></blockquote>

     

    <p>He no longer has a blog...</p>

     

    <p>> <i>From what youv'e seen here or anywhere, what makes you think any one doing

    this got into this type of photography to get "serious recognition"</i></p>

     

    <p>Sorry, but this question is dumb. First, I never do anything if I'm not going to get

    recognized in some way. Nobody does -- and if someone tells you something else,

    he/she is a liar. Recognition is healthy, and it is also healthy to say you want it, otherwise

    you're being insincere with yourself. I do not plan to become the next Andy Warhol. All I

    wish for is a couple of solo shows of my work. Not the work I have now -- but the one I

    plan to make in the future. I'm sure many people on this forum feel the same way, and if

    I'm not correct -- let's stop this discussion right now. Now, you don't even know how hard

    it is to get accepted into a show by a respectable gallery. Just to get that <i>one</i>

    show you want, you have to go for the gold right away, and not fool around with W/NW

    threads on a site like this.</p>

     

    <p>> <i>And then the conclusion that an aesthetic" = pretty = downfall. Why is that?

    How so. Is it possible that what you really mean is that gritty photographs have become

    derivative and thus trivialized?</i></p>

     

    <p>Why downfall? Because a photo has to be intelligent in some way to qualify as art.

    This includes aesthetic intelligence. Yet aesthetic intelligence is only a small part of the

    overall "charge" a photo carries. Art photography is similar to sculpture: you only leave the

    absolutely necessary parts, and throw away the gimmicks, which may include dodges,

    burns, added grain, blah blah.</p>

     

    <p>> <i>In other words, when as Andy discussed or rather mentioned, Moriyama and

    others, influenced by Klein and others (including HCB and Atget ) developed his "anti-

    photographs" or "anti-asthtic" as it were, they were important because he looked at things

    differently and altered peoples perception about beauty or rather recreated an idea in

    some people of what was beauty.</i></p>

     

    <p>Stop right here. Art is not fashion. Art is not about changing people's perception

    about beauty. Art is about changing people's perception about everything. It is easy to

    fixate on the idea of "making ugly things beautiful," or "making ordinary things beautiful,"

    but in the end all you're doing is you're decorating a Christmas tree, not making art. All

    you need to make ordinary things look good is a designer's eye, not an artist's eye.</p>

     

    <p>> <i>what makes you think that is what so called and much over used and in my

    opinion fading in usefulness term, "street photographers" are doing?</i></p>

     

    <p>Sorry, don't understand your question.</p>

    dcraw compared to ACR (old version 2.4 just what is it doing in there?)

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    Hey Chris, Bernie's answer is correct. When ACR is zeroed out, it gives a pseudo-linear file (no curve adjustments except gamma), while dcraw gives a true linear file. Which one you get doesn't really matter unless you're profiling your camera and need to obtain raw sensor output. If you would like your highlights not to be blown out in ACR, just lower the exposure...

    Demographics 20 Questions fun!

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    <ol>

    <li>Male</li>

     

    <li>Straight</li>

     

    <li>15-29</li>

     

    <li>Single</li>

     

    <li>Boston, U.S.</li>

     

    <li>20D</li>

     

    <li>18-50 f2.8</li>

     

    <li>Dental X-Rays</li>

     

    <li>Once a year</li>

     

    <li>Art Fag City</li>

     

    <li>The Man Who Sold The World</li>

     

    <li>3-6</li>

     

    <li>Cooking</li>

     

    <li>NYC</li>

     

    <li>42 mm</li>

     

    <li>RAW Developer (Mac) // Polaroid peel-apart film</li>

     

    <li>Under my couch</li>

     

    <li>La Petite Voleuse</li>

     

    <li>Once some *sshole asked me to delete the picture I took.</li>

     

    <li>Gin + tonic</li>

    </ol>

    Street photography and fine arts, I need to find some spot in between.

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    <p>I had a really nice rest of the weekend, and had to do my day job the entire Monday...

    Now I'm back, for better or worse.</p>

     

    <p>@SP:</p>

     

    <p>I certainly have been to the Public House in Brookline. I will see about March 14-16 in

    Philly -- thanks!</p>

     

    <p>@Barry:</p>

     

    <p>> <i>Actually, I've never talked about [self-exploration] here ever except this one

    time...</i></p>

     

    <p>Alright, I take that back. On your part, please stay close to content and reduce the

    amount of bitching and meta-commenting -- this thread is long enough already.</p>

     

    <p>> <i>And your HDR photos are not about self-exploration at all. They were you

    trying to learn a technique, which is good, but don't confuse the two.</i></p>

     

    <p>How in the world do you know what my photos were about? And why are you rushing

    to separate technique from self all of a sudden? What is self? </p>

     

    <p>> <i>Why not...self-exploration doesn't happen or live in a vacuum. If you were

    serious about yours, you would understand that.</i></p>

     

    <p>I concur, but my question was rhetorical, and you seem unwilling to get that...</p>

     

    <p>> <i>I don't do regular portfolio view, but I have seen photographer friends

    portfolios when looking to get into various photography schools and a couple of fashion

    photographers and commercial guys looking for gigs.</i></p>

     

    <p>These don't count. Read below why.</p>

     

    <p>> <i>A website is not a portfolio generally.</i></p>

     

    <p>It depends.</p>

     

    <p>> <i>an establish artist/photographer, does not sell out of a portfolio, but every

    "established" professional sells their work, these days usually off a website. I'm surprised

    you didn't know that.</i></p>

     

    <p>Why did the word "professional" appear in your comment all of a sudden? Nobody was

    talking about commercial photographers. We were talking about artists and art business,

    remember? Established artists. NOT established professionals. Professionals are hard-

    working people struggling to make a living and critiquing them has very little impact

    culturally. Artists are either filthy-rich and don't have to work or unemployed and

    starved.</p>

     

    <p>So, here's lesson number one in art business. NEVER price your works on your site,

    especially when it comes to photographic prints. All photographic prints that artists sell

    are limited editions. You can't make more than 20, or you can't make more than 50, or

    whatever. Better yet, don't have a website -- have your dealers manage it. I am not joking

    here. None of the big guns in today's art photography have a website. Why? Because not

    having a website brings about an air of exclusivity. Collectors like to be pampered and they

    get very unhappy seeing that any dork can buy a copy of a print they own for whatever

    price is indicated on some puny shyite in interwebs.</p>

    Street photography and fine arts, I need to find some spot in between.

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    <p>> <i>Eugene I like your HD nite shots, though for you the medium is the message.

    They exhibit no more or less interest or context or purpose than any other common street

    photograph. </i></p>

     

    <p>You're exactly right, which is why I'm not going to bring them in a portfolio to any

    gallery or show. These are personal shots and they were about self-exploration you love to

    talk about. However, they're not serious photography, and I do not plan to continue that

    series.</p>

     

    <p>> <i>Personally I believe, and I think several would, that its not really about a genre

    of photography, its really about self-exploration.</i></p>

     

    <p>Yadda yadda. If your photography is about self-exploration, why do you show it to

    other people?</p>

     

    <p>> <i>I don't get why that you think less of artist that put their work up for sale and

    then tout the credentials of some guy who's site is totally bout selling product.</i></p>

     

    <p>Because I have a certain experience which comes from viewing established artists'

    portfolios. You don't, apparently.</p>

     

     

    <p>> <i>And then Orville's sux because of the buttons?</i></p>

     

    <p>Yes, and it is amazing to me that people here just "don't see it." Must be a sad bunch

    of folks.</p>

    Street photography and fine arts, I need to find some spot in between.

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    <p><i>Stop messing around with the 600 Eugene. Get the SX70 film or buy a LAND and

    shoot the peel off type films ala Warhol since you like him so much...</i></p>

     

    <p>All the pictures I posted in this thread except the diner/pool diptych were taken on a

    Land camera with peel-apart film. The diner/pool diptych was shot on Polaroid Spectra film,

    which is the best integral film Polaroid ever made or will make.</p>

×
×
  • Create New...