beeman458

"I see beauty, solitude, the cool and quiet of (is it?) morning, and simplicity."

 

Evening as seen from the top of Mt Hamilton above Silicon Valley.

 

"Thank you for posting this - enabling me to find it."

 

Thank-you for your comments. You'd be surprised the number of people that don't like the image. Why? Believe it or not, they don't like it for the same reasons which you like it.

Diane Nemerov was Diane Arbus's maiden name. To me, her special place in photographic history is that she was the first of the Postmodern photographic artists who made a complete photographic philosophical split from the old photographic world which came before her.

 

This allegorical image, representational of her passing from the living to the dead, is in homage to her as there's nothing "Postmodern", in the photographic sense, about the image.

The shot was capture with a 550EX providing the flash. Yes, you're correct, the image was overexposed by two stops on a white painted field. I was in the shadows so the white field overexposed with the flash reflection and the yellow jackets were properly exposed and didn't burn out. Then to bring the yellow jackets out, I individually masked and selectively leveled each insect.

At times, life has a certain quality to it where one is part of a scene but at the same time, isn't; detachment? Are you an onlooker, a participant or a doppleganger in the mirror of someone else's spiritual world?

What do I think? I have little to no pain in my life, just a continuum, so I feel sorry for those who feel they're walking on glass and their soul is only happy when it's being shredded.

 

Not a condemnation, just a comment as you share wonderful efforts.

 

As to the lighting and the blown highlights, that's a reflective quality of the flat mirror like surfaces. The cure is to expose for the highlight but then you'll load up your shadows and end up having to develop and print for the shadows.

 

Now you're into choosing film with the widest latitude for the most dynamic range. High contrast lighting has it's foibles. Darn:)

 

 

Thank you for your comments, it's nice to read that an image works for somebody other then the person who created it:)

Thanks for the thoughtful suggestion. I'll look the book up. But, I've read and studied fairly extensively the subject and actually understand the deconstructive nature of photographic Postmodernism.

There are photographers like Eggleston who I have come to appreciate,"

And I don't wish to stop anybody from liking him but when you learn more about Eggleston, by reading interviews he's given, one might come to appreciate the immaturity of both his efforts and his thinking.

On the other hand, the Bill Viola exhibit at the SF moma I thought was fantastic; does this qualify as PoMo? I don't know yet really how to define the movement entirely. (don't know if anyone does).

There are two distinctly different movements, one feeds off the other but the two are totally different. Postmodern and Postmodern photographic art. Postmodern photographic art has elements of Postmodernism think in it but that's where the similarities, to me, ends. The executive version; photographic Postmodern art is about deconstructing the sacred, what ever one might find sacred.

Next post.

One of the reasons that I'm having a hard time responding to the Eggleston critique is that I'm having a hard time understanding your specific objection to him.

I have several objections. First, a bit of background. Being a student of photographic art, working on a ProPhotography degree in the late seventies, we at community college were doing the sort of photography that Eggleston is so noted for. Second, we were working with 2 1/4 twin lense reflexes, in color, so he's not the father of zip as he's being heroically projected as. Nobody was the father of anything other than Eastman Kodak, as color was very prevelent in this here neck of the twenty acre woods at that time in photographic history. It's as if Stalin's writers were doing the writing and making him into something he wasn't.

Third, his images are not that thoughtful. Cropped for effect, yes but not avant garde. Images of the banal? Cool, but not avant garde. And when an artist ducks the reveiling answer to a question as to what you're about, photographically speaking and the artist answers back; "I'm at war with the obvious."; you can bet your bottom dollar that you're being flim flamed by a con man. Eggleston, just answer the stupid question like a man, not a child.

Most of your comment seemed directed at the heavy handed culture of curators holding forth on what is to be considered art and what is not, as well as a healthy distrust of critics and their often obfuscating prose. (I'm just trying to paraphrase your position, let me know if I've got it or not).

For simplicity, I'll agree with your above cause you're in the ballpark.

The main point is, cause they're the gatekeepers, we're stuck with what they want to show and we have little to say in the matter as what they show, becomes the living icon of what to achieve because; "See, it's being shown at the MOMA, so it must be great." Art's going down the toilet cause these curators are all in bed with each other and they're hell bent on being the first to drag art to a new bottom. And making a new bottom seems to be what contemporary avant garde has become all about.

Since the opposite has been done, Romanticism, Realism and Modernism, then one must reach for the other side of the equation to be avant garde; enters Postmodern photographic art. Today, it's all about getting shown at the MOMA, it's not about art. It's also become about overt commercialism and PopCulture; at least Warhol was honest about this point:)

Issues that I do certainly agree with: the public needs to certainly get thinking and questioning of the experts when we disagree with them. However, your specific reason for disliking Eggleston? I know you expresed frustration with even discussing the issue, but I am genuinely interested.

It's good to read that challenging the curators and critics isn't seen as an act of heresy in the hedgemonic world that's been created by museum curators in the contemporary art world and hopefully I've given you some insight as to my frustration with the touting of Eggleston's art as it's not personal:)

I expect better of my fellow artists, not worse.

I have Eggleston's "Los Alamos" photo album and I actually hope this November to make a pilgrimage to SFMOMA and see the images in person.

 

From what I've read there's a world of difference between the book and the actual prints.

 

There's much that I'm in conflict with in regard to photographic PoMo but I haven't given up on it as I see the benefit; although I don't like the output as I expect better of these fine minds.

Thanks for your most thoughtful and encouraging comments.

In time, I may, as you commented, warm up to Eggleston. But until then, I think we're all being deceived and played for stupid by museum curators as many willingly go along with what critics and curators have to say with little to no outsider critique of the current "pop-culture" photographic art which exists in art galleries and museums today.

One should wonder about the validity of what's happening today in the contemporary Postmodern photographic art world as critics seem to go unchallenged in their one way pronouncements, from on high, of approval and admiration as the minions seem to go along, without challenging what's being said by the guru curators. The viewers seem more like learned droids then independent, think for themselves, individuals. "It is said and so in the said light it shall be admired."

If one were to read the histories and bio's of most Postmodern photographic artists, there's a well connected thread among them, just like presidential politics. Eggleston even went so far as to became connected in NYC just so he could become socially acceptable. I shake in the negative at the thought of going to a lecture about Eggleston because I'm so turned off by his images because of how Eggleston and his images are being disingenuously projected by critics, galleries and curators. Are these people really that deluded, sick or dead in the brain that they believe the stuff they spew forth? And these feelings after much research. The art and Eggleston are not hard to comprehend but the art babble behind the art and the artists is extremely difficult to buy into.

My question to Eggleston would be: "You're so much BS." "Does it ever bother you that so many have bought into it?"

Eggleston-San Fransisco MOMA

The descriptions of Eggleston and his images by others is such artistic crap that the mear thought of trying to have a rational conversation with any supporter would be beyond my ability to contain myself in person because I see the descriptions and art as so patently rediculous. And these are the feelings I have just sitting here at the computer keyboard:)

In my case, the only way I can make valid, what's being said is to realize these people are distubed or crazy and in need of serious counseling to help them reconnect with reality. And if I see Eggleston's work and the curator's/critic's comments of his work in this light, his work and their comments make perfect sense.

By the by, how did Eggleston get short changed over at the SFMOMA? I just checked and his show's good to go until 04Jan05.

Thanks for stopping by and leaving comment. I'll look forward to any additional comments.

 

Part of the problem seems to be that people think I'm too stupid or undereducated to understand Eggleston. I see the problem in the light of my critics expecting less of themselves and not expecting more of their icons.

In Silicon Valley, money still flows in large amounts, everywhere. A family of four is considered broke if the household income is below $71k US.

 

For ding-a-ling reasoning, was worried my back was going to go out on me, I blew a small fortune on lighting gear last winter. Everything from several Pocket Wizards, stands, booms, bags, multiple Brownline pwr packs and accompanying hoo-ha to complete the nuttyness. I even went so far as to map out expenditures for a full compliment of Chimera softboxes and umbrellas (7' if necessary) as well as created a full featured self-contained power supply system (part of which is displayed) which comprises of multiple deep cycle batteries and seperate inverters. All I need are the softboxes at this time and point. Oh! And a lot of experience:)

 

I'm greatful as the back has seen itself to last out another season. This is a good thing considering there's not a lighting mentor, such as yourself, insight:)

 

Maybe in retirement I'll be able to take you up on your most excellent idea of doing vanity shots of pilots and their planes/jets:) With the Pocket Wizards, Speedtron gear, portable power supplies, softboxes, stands and Canon 550's for cockpit lighting, with an assistant, it should be a relative piece of cake:)

No. Unfortunately the day job, being seasonal, is getting in the way. I'm wanting to try and drag it, this winter, into the hills and do some night photography with trees and fields.

 

But at this time and point, it's just expensive equipment filling the shelves:(

Fragile it is; hence the need to make comment such as you did.

 

The humor I see in your comment; I am a "prole" (proletarian), or worker if you will.

Higher then you want to know.

 

I've noticed a propensity over the months and years for folks such as yourself, to make negative comments about that which they haven't a clue. It's very telling about the personalities who ply these forums. It's also doubtful one could expect to find an intelligent critique on Photo.net; your critique included.

 

I guess you'd expect one should be able to stop by your portfolio and make similar comment about your images; but that would be just as childish and unintelligent as your comment was here, now wouldn't it?

 

Thank you for your comment.

Actually I'm quite good at this, but maybe, if I dumbed the images down about 60 points or so, you might be able to understand what I'm doing.

Gee! I don't know quite what to say other than thanks for the positive comment:)

Eggleston wasn't in my mind at the time this image was created and it will be a cold day in hell before I create any images as empty headed as Eggleston.

Just an aside, anyone who finds the contents of a freezer nice or nicer to look at, should consider professional help. Why? It's a stupid freezer man, get a grip:)

Thank-you for stopping by and leaving comment.

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.

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.

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.

And it's your decision what to do:)

 

Thank you for stopping by and leaving comment as your reaction to the artistic effort completes the image.

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:)

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

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.

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?