grant_lupton1

"let it be visual". Let it be only visual. I react when it tries to go beyond this, via the artist or critic.

Regards,

Grant.

Dear Alan,

I do go along with most of what you say but there is self-obsession, here. This has got to be counter-productive. The talent is acknowledged, but it needs to be expanded. If strictly portraiture, why not of others?

I would suggest Sue?s work has been praised sufficiently (including myself) to counter any negative remarks. Personally, it is not the work which is questionable but the motives, and the why?s and wherefore?s. If this was absent, I would have no problems with this or any other work. I have problems with artists - or commentators - imposing additional layers of meaning on their work over and above that which is apparent. For what purpose? To give artistic/ intellectual legitimacy? Why? To compensate for an inadequacy; where is it?

Are professional photographers asked for their motives when commissioned (maybe on the West Coast of the US)? A school of method-photographers, perhaps

A good shot is a good shot. It shouldn?t need expanding.

Could I survive being picked apart for a week? This is par for criticism. There?s a choice to submit work or not.

Regards,

Grant.

Dear Alan,

What I am I waiting for? I'd really like to know. Do I lack profound insight? Are you familiar with the parable of the Cave and its criminals and shadows?

I've looked at other works by the photographer on this site and deviantart, and some are excellent, if not brilliant.

If I may venture criticism:

Repetition/monotony of a theme.

Seemingly indiscriminate selection the photographer has to be the first judge of his/her work (its not a question of, I dont like this, but others may).

If one shot is excellent, it doesn't follow variations will be.

Too much self-indulgence to reiterate my point of the artist as victim, this is blatant in the majority of works;

A final thought: how much of the self-portrait is actually that? Composition, clarity (or sharpness) of image, depth-of-field, is too precise; theres too much control and fine-tuning for one to flit back and forth from behind to the front of the camera. Is Sue the actual photographer and subject?

Thank you for the support, Jamie.

Regards,

Grant.

Why "Illicit Sanctuary"? Some try to load their work with additional layers of meaning by the use of ambiguous titles, unleashing second-rate, sub-academic critiques. ?Bad? becomes ?Good? because some post-structuralist attaches intellectual legitimacy to that which is intellectually barren. What would be the reaction of a simple title, "Girl with Mask"? Does a shot rise or fall by virtue of its title.? Does it hell. Better no titles at all.

To quote David Fuller (above):

?I think the discussion generated is proof of the photo's artistic merit. It's more than just a picture whose technical merits can be dissected?.

I?m sorry, David I don?t agree. Discussion was generated (and then degenerated) by virtue of being selected as Photo of the Week by the Elves. These diverse flights of fancy add nothing to the understanding of the shot

I think we are sub-consciously repressing the sub-text and the meta-sublimation, here at the expense of the irony of over-statement. But is this involuntary, or compulsory, as per Aristotle?s Eudemian and Nichomachean Ethics? definitions? Is it, that which is, or, that which is to be? Indeed, are these incommensurable? The extended metaphors of the prosopoeia , and the opening of Lycidas , complement and parallel faint implications of the artist. Does the mask and the artist?s face represent a dichotomy of identity; an ethical/societal conumdrum (cf Michelangelo?s Last Judgement in its original depiction with the present); in transitory states of consciousness?

Regards,

Grant.