grant_lupton1

I looked at Simon's work. His writing is pitiful, cliched, "pseudo" drivel. The pictures are technically superb but aesthetically/artistically barren. The only immediate, superficial attraction were the alien (to me) environments of the shots - Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

His "wry smile" in Robert's quotation I would suggest is more self-doubt than irony.

Grant.

Dick, "makes me happy...to share the joy I feel in discovering beauty".

In today's climate that would be truly radical (and welcome). Unfortunately, some will be totally disoriented by simplicity and fundamental truths. Stick with it.

Grant.

Pico, Inciting structuralism is irresponsible.

Grant.

Rose-Marie, The problem is we have to read/look through so much garbage if only to eliminate the garbage. And as everyone knows, the bad far outweighs the good.

Yesterday I wasted much time reading about Marshal Zhukov. It was only when I visited the home page that I discovered it was a Revisionist, anti-zionist history site. Today, I was searching for Soviet art. I found a site that still mourned the loss of Czar Nicholas by the evil Bolsheviks.

Later, I found an art criticism site condemning all abstract art and painters - Picasso, Kandinsky, Mondrian, etc. The site owner couldn't keep his right arm down. From Al-Jazeera I went to 9/11 conspiracy theories to JFK conspiracy theories.

Maybe I should get out more. Or read the stack of books that remain unread.

Grant.

Jeff, Your absolutely right: "most great paintings have a certain amount of rework".

What I need to reconcile now is why I'm generally against manipulation in PS, but not "exactly what painters and other artists have historically always been able to do".

Similarly, as a film user, why is it OK to for me to use a polariser to darken a sky, but to enhance elements via PS is questionable? Or, as noted elsewhere on PN, dark-room manipulation?

Perhaps it's the old chestnut, "Why should you have it easy (while I struggle with the old ways)"? A form of old-school snobbishness - "old" represents some kind of purity or craftsmanship. While this may be the case, it is also the case that the new makes much of the old redundant, ie correct exposure, b&w or colour, perspective control, colour saturation and contrast.

Therefore, it could be argued the new enables concentration on the image alone, or the artistic aspect. And isn't this the result we all strive for? We can all make perfectly composed and exposed shots, but only a small percentage of these actually achieve something approaching aesthetic or artistic satisfaction (to ourselves - if presented to a wide audience, the percentage may be less).

Despite what I've said above, and regardless of relevance, most people will acknowledge skill and craftsmanship. When I'm looking at old buildings here in the UK, I know many of the skills required to build a country mansion or church, up to as late as the early twentieth century, have almost - if not completely - disappeared. However, it stills inspires admiration and respect. Will non-digital photography become an anachronism or episode for nostalgia? Realistically, I think it's inevitable.

These questions and contradictions are addressed to myself as well as others. My position can change from my last post to this. My decisions are based on my knowledge and opinions. If someone provides an alternative viewpoint, which I hadn't considered, but with which I agree, I'll refine (and reinforce) my position. That's not indecision (says he, defensively), it's progress; the epitome of philosophical enquiry.

Grant.

Matt, Re Gordin's work. My initial reaction was, "magnificent". However, as you point out, the majority of his work appears to be a variation on theme.

This seems to be symptomatic of the majority of contemporary and aspiring artists/photographers. It's a question of either "playing safe" or lack of imagination/artistic ability. Either way, longevity can not be assumed. Which can't be a bad thing - only the best (fittest) survive.

But why is it that photography arouses cynicism, even from other photographers? Is it because, in Gordin's example, the results owe more to PS than artistic skill? By this, I mean producing an original image and poncing about with it ad infinitum until "something" emerges.

Like you, I get bored with looking at the same photographs, but this is not the case with my favourite paintings, sculptures, architecture. Again, why? As an amateur photographer, I consider the ability to paint, sculpt or sketch superior to any photographic skill. An artist can be a good photographer, but the opposite isn't necessarily true.

A recurring theme on PN is the proliferation of "photographers" and their works as digital becomes cheaper, more sophisticated and commonplace. Is there a comparative increase in fine art - oils, water colours, acrylics, etc are readily available (and considerably cheaper)?. Is it because digital produces instantaneous art and gratification, and any shortcomings or errors can be rectified post-shot?

Grant.

Neil, I'm curious as to what your clueless schoolteacher friend does that is invaluable, especially for art for the young and what she understands by it.

Carrie 2 is quite magnificent by the way.

Grant.

John, A very succinct exposition of Plato.

Re your question, "Why has mimesis become inseparable from art?". I would suggest a general inability to think in, and portray, the abstract.

Of course, there are numerous examples which try to go beyond the superficial with accompanying, contrived explanations from the photographer, with which we may disagree profoundly. Conversely, we may appreciate a work despite the underlying intentions.

It is simpler for us to respond to the immediate; that which is in front of our eyes. Indeed, how can it be otherwise? Who can portray (photographically) anything other than the physical?

The original question, "When does mimesis become art?" is perhaps a tautology. Art, generally, has always been mimetic.

Plato was expressing what art wasn't; the reality is not "spectacularly opposite". With the possible exception of Stalin's Soviet Union and The Third Reich, art was never prescriptive.

Grant.

Dan, I have a page ripped from a magazine with a picture of a Patek Phillipe stuck next to my desk - a "Gondolo" apparently. Possibly the most beautiful watch I've seen. Don't know the price; let it remain a fetish object.

If I did buy one, I think I'd feel very un-real. Maybe one day.

Grant.

Andrew, Religious intolerance is only supported and promoted by the fanatical, and justifiably condemned by the vast majority. My point, expressed in the post above, was the absence of "nastiness" from those who hold beliefs or have a faith on this forum, hence my defensive position and reproach to Ping.

Sure, let him have his say. Condemned by his own words.

The only thing I hate, is hate. I think I echo Bernd's sentiments.

Grant.

Peter and Nels, A push for greater exclusivity can have the opposite effect. In the UK, the only people now wearing the Rolex are gangsters, career criminals and scrap-metal merchants. Shaved heads and tattoos all round.

Kevin, Why didn't send your valet?

Grant.

As an atheist, I have no interest in defending religious views. To reiterate, the problem is not religion but its practitioners (I would like to revise this to "some" practitioners).

Views expressed from those of a Christian persuasion here on the forum do not suggest - implicitly or explicitly - bigotry, narrow-mindedness, dogma or intolerance, ie the undesirable aspects of religion.

Theological apologetics (if that's the correct term) utilises philosophy, and by extension, it is relevant to this forum insofar as it motivates, guides or inspires. Some views may be somewhat over-the-top or incredible for my tastes but religion does not a have a monopoly here - look anywhere on PN. The only "nastiness" is your remark. It's unnecessary.

Grant.

Joseph, Thank you for the clarification.

I considered the possibility that the lens moved only in the vertical, attached to the camera (on the horizontal/landscape format).

If this was the case, coupled with my ignorance of optics, I could not perceive corrected verticals; possibly only corrected horizontals (without corrected verticals?).

The unrestrained imagination runs wild.

Thanks, once agin.

Grant.

Re 75mm Shift lens, will converging verticals still be corrected when

when the camera is in a vertical/portrait position?

Grant.

Cienwen, "masculinist ownership and possession...imperialist". Broaden your reading to include more traditional critiques of art rather than standard, left-wing reactionary, ideologically derived texts. They're old hat, tedious and stifling.

"Is it enough to represent something in such a way that people respond to it?" What more do you want? However, you need to respond first.

Grant (an ex left-wing reactionary. Yes, they are as bad as reformed smokers).

Sandeep, Thank you for the useful comments.

Grant.

Binyuan, You make a valid point. I was indecisive, now I'm not so sure.

Grant.

Sandeep, Thank you for the info; this has to be a serious contender.

In the UK, the cost is 110 pounds plus; in Hong Kong, half this.

Did you buy from Hong Kong? For an extra c $30, the KJ-1 has the same specs but only one adjustment knob, presumably replicating but simplifying the KB-2's three knobs. Any views on this?

Thanks, once again.

Grant.

And thank you, Stuart. The RRS option could be the one - I've e-mailed them re options.

Grant.

Gentlemen, Thank you for all the valuable suggestions. Much appreciated. Sorry, R Scott, should have been more specific: Pentax 6x7.

Edward, that is always a problem for me - keeping the camera centred. On my set-up in vertical/portrait format, the configuration is also inadequate in that there is insufficient rigity. I suspect this is also the case when shooting straight down (to the ground) in both formats.

I'll look at all the options. Looks like it will be expensive but that's the price one has to pay, so to speak.

Grant.

I use a Manfrotto 058 with 029 head for my 6x7. Horizontal shots are

fine but vertical shots , especially long exposures in a wind can be

problematic, ie prone to shake.

Indeed, it possible to move the camera/head in the vertical with

little pressure - seems to be too much give even with everything

tightened.

Any suggestions, please.

Grant.

SP, Dead right. This sad work was bought to my attention via a PN forum posting a couple of weeks ago. In the same post reference was also made to a woman photographer who similarly dressed babies and toddlers in the costumes of lambs and ladybirds, or such-like. How could I be exposed to the most revolting examples simultaneously? Pass the sick bag.

A photograph works if it causes a reaction. I'll say - post-traumatic stress.

Grant.

John, I think we'll beg to differ re the cop-out point.

I am totally au fait re Scottish culture; I've seen Braveheart a few times, and listen intently to Sir Sean Connery's profound political expositions. I'm also English (and a Gentleman) so you don't need to point out your jokes.

I'll avoid all reference to James I/IV or his inclinations everywhere.

Grant.

John, You've illustrated my point well (although I don't understand where my cop-out is).

The Sunday ferry item I heard on radio; the member of the church giving the explanation was a remnant of 17th century religious bigotry. I bet they still read the Malleus Maleficarum up there (although probably too liberal for them).

Children are used for Satanic ritual on Sundays, hence the restriction.

Some day, I will visit the Highlands and Islands for the stunning scenery (especially the beaches) and history. Re pubs - does everyone fall silent when a stranger enters?

Grant.

"Glory, faith, worship, the divine.....hmmmm. Too many things done in the name of religion are none of these".

John, religions aren't the problem; it's the practioners.

Grant.