cyanatic

February 7, 2015

One more try...

heck with it...

February 7, 2015

Hmmm...bad gateway time out? Try again later...

February 7, 2015

Lex -- I think I already mentioned on FB that I really like this series of old pics of yours, and I'm also enjoying looking the other ones that people have posted in this thread. Somewhere, there are some black and white photos I took with a Brownie in 1963, just before my parents moved from Morton Grove/Chicago to Los Angeles. Alas, I can't find them. Nothing like yours, though Lex. I think I have a pic of my dad in the driveway of our house, my bike in the backyard, and plane that flew overhead. Still, I wish I could find them.

I'm attaching a pic I took in 2004 when we were visiting family in Chicago (we lived in San Diego). My daughter in a lion mask inside the Field Museum. I had an Olympus C4000. My first digital camera. When I took this, I was still in "family snaps" mode. I had not considered getting more serious about photography yet. It wasn't until somewhere around 2005 or 2006 that I got interested in photography as, yep I'm going to say it, an "art form". I went through an HDR phase in 2005 or 2006, but I started reading up and looking into the likes of Arbus, Frank, Winogrand, et al. I went back to this photo at some point in 2006 and liked the slight Arbus/Meatyard vibe, converted to B&W and square cropped. A whole lot of my early street attempts from 2005-2006 bit the dust when an external HD tipped over and the spindle sheared off. But as for real "Wayback" photos? I'm like Marie H., I can only wish that I had taken photos of LA in the 1960's and 1970's.

January 26, 2015

All righty then.

January 26, 2015

Fred -- I feel like we're sailing on a sea of confusion here! Sorry for the mix-up -- My use of irritation was actually in reference to how I sometimes feel about certain dogmatic opinions about what the "rules" are for what street photography should be, or for the social media popularity of certain types of shallow and mediocre work (not just SP), etc. I was trying to explain that I agree that it is sometimes important and beneficial to explore the things with which we disagree so we can understand why we disagree with them. Yet at the same time, I think that we need to go our own way, in the direction that we really feel is right for each one of us, without allowing popularity of prevailing attitudes in certain circles to adversely affect our movement in that direction. That's a more accurate way to state what I meant by my use of the word "worry".

January 25, 2015

If I am not mistaken, and in the light of the direction of recent discussion (however interesting), the question of the OP is more directed at questions of the "rapport" or shared equivalences between the reader (Photo.Net photographer) and other photographers (known or not, distant or local) and not just who influences you.

</blockquote>

Arthur -- Thanks for the clarification. In the spirit of what you have said then, I probably feel a rapport (not influence) with the work and approach of Maier and Winogrand, notwithstanding the biographical differences my own life has with each of them. That rapport, friendship, or kinship, indeed provides a kind of "extra insight and empowerment owing to common values and objectives" that encourages and reinforces me and the work I do (which itself is still evolving -- I am nowhere near where I want to be, but feel like I can get there...)

Fred -- "Worry" was probably the wrong word to use. "Irritated by", or a simple "disagree with" is probably nearer the mark. But I do agree that it is interesting to discuss and expand upon why any of us might disagree, or even find irritation with, a certain photographic style, approach, or aesthetic theory. I can only speak for myself, but sometimes I can help myself find where I stand, and where I am coming from, by putting into words my objections or disagreements with other approaches. Provided I guard against simple envy or being stubbornly closed of mind, it is one way to achieve growth and self-understanding.

Brad -- Thanks. I think we are of a similar mind about some of those things and the importance of a photographer going their own way.

Lex -- My imaginary younger self once had an imaginary conversation with the imaginary younger Helen Levitt (a bit of a cutie back in the day when Walker Evans took this photo <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xCykdpQhXe8/TQdcwo3DPxI/AAAAAAAAQc4/jZmk6hqIJkQ/s1600/Subway%2BPassenger%252C%2BNew%2BYork%2BWoman%2Bin%2BHat%2Band%2BFur%2BCollar%2BBeneath%2BCity%2BHall%2BSign%2B1941%2Bevans.jpg">http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xCykdpQhXe8/TQdcwo3DPxI/AAAAAAAAQc4/jZmk6hqIJkQ/s1600/Subway%2BPassenger%252C%2BNew%2BYork%2BWoman%2Bin%2BHat%2Band%2BFur%2BCollar%2BBeneath%2BCity%2BHall%2BSign%2B1941%2Bevans.jpg</a>) of her. And she put an imaginary restraining order on me.

Wouter -- Quite right and I think recognition and sharing of passion is one element of feeling kinship with someone else's work. I feel a similar kinship with many of the people who have contributed to this thread. There's a reason all of us are in here, talking about these kinds of things and part of that is a certain overall like-mindedness despite our differences and occasional quibbles and misunderstandings.

January 25, 2015

Having thought a bit more about it, I wanted to go back to Vivian Maier. I still don't think this qualifies as "friendship", but I think I have a better way of explaining what she means to me.

First is the Chicago connection and age. Although she was an adult when I was a child, in many ways I passed through the same world, country, city... the same eras, the same historical events, that she did.

Second, her apparent fascination and drive to use a camera to record life, people and places around her, particularly in Chicago. And this seemingly without any hope or expectation of recognition or monetary reward for doing so. I sometimes ask myself why I persist in taking the types of photographs I do, in the style that I do, when so many before me, and currently around me, have done, and continue to do, the same thing? Shouldn't I move on, or explore the avenues of some slightly different types of photographs that I sometimes take? Shouldn't I make the attempt to do something photographically different that might gain me more recognition, popularity, or money? The answer to now has always been a resounding "No!". It is not even conscious. I am driven to photograph what I photograph and I love doing so*. I have no idea what motivated Maier to do what she did for so many years but I think that I feel a kinship with the kind of drive, demon, or obsession, that caused her to do so. I could be wrong, but I suspect that it is the same for many of us here, even if we do not all work in precisely the same way, or even within the same genre.

[*Even within the genre in which I work, I feel a bit alienated from what might be considered the "mainstream" or populist view of what street photography is, or should be. Marc touched upon this when he mentioned HCB and the populist SP obsession with "The Decisive Moment" on some SP websites. Off topic, but I often feel that the Decisive Moment has been completely misinterpreted over the years and that, even if it is not, it is terribly outdated and only leads to a "one trick pony" style of photography --- In a similar vein, I think there is too much love and fascination with both visual puns and shots that include slices of bright late afternoon sunlight reflected off skyscraper windows into darker urban canyons. Good heavens, get over it already and move on! So many street photography memes as Lex would call them. But that is my prejudice showing, and to paraphrase what Brad and other photographers have said, "Why worry about it? Just do what pleases and seems right to you."]

January 25, 2015

I might have said Chuckles the Clown, but Brad beat me to it. ;-)

Arthur: What he or she writes reverberates with our own thoughts, values, perceptions or ideals to the point that we feel almost as if we know the person very well, despite the fact that he or she may have lived in a past period and/or presently in a country far from our own. We embody his or her world and experience and feel a sort of friendship with the author.

</blockquote>

I have had this experience with authors, sometimes going so far as to have had imaginary conversations with them. Ernest Hemingway, William Blake, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and Joshua Chamberlain (the latter of Civil War fame) come to mind. Not that my life mirrors any of these men, but more that certain aspects of portions of their writing, or my impression of certain aspects of their outlook on life as expressed through that writing resonated very strongly at some point and created a sense of kinship and understanding. But this discussion is not about that sort of "friendship" with authors, so as adolescent as it may sound to lay claim to a feeling of kinship with Hemingway or Coleridge, I will just have to let that go without qualification or more detailed explanation.

What about photographers? I'd have to divide this up to different aspects -- photographic outlook as expressed through writings or spoken word; approach or viewpoint as expressed through photographs; biographical similarities.

Limited only to documentary/street photography, the written and allegedly spoken words of John Szarkowski and Garry Winogrand resonate with me. Specifically in relation to the paradox of a photograph being both a fiction and a self-contained reality or fact. But this hardly resonates to the point of feeling a "friendship" with them.

Certain photographs by Vivian Maier, William Klein, Yasuhiro Ishimoto, Helen Levitt, Louis Faurer, and Josef Koudelka have struck strong chords of recognition within me -- as if I had taken them myself. I don't intend this in a deluded or egotistical way and I'm not even sure if I can explain precisely what I mean. But I am willing to bet that almost everyone who has contributed to this thread can say the same thing about certain photographs by well known photographers, so really what value lies in me even mentioning it? I am not special in that regard, and it still does not quite approach the level of "friendship" that I think Arthur intends. As for a life or "biographical" connection with any photographer, forget it. I don't know enough about any of them to approach friendship on that basis alone.

The closest I can come to even approximating what I think Arthur is getting at is what I might call "the Chicago connection". I think particularly of Ishimoto and Maier in this regard. Ray Metzker and Harry Callahan (among others, including even a few not so well known photos by Winogrand) did work on the streets of the Windy City, but something about certain photos by Maier and Ishimoto seem...I don't know, familiar? Approaching, but not quite equaling the sensation of "I took that photo!" or maybe it's more like, "Yes! I know and feel this moment and this point of view captured here even though I was not there at that moment." Again, any of us can say this, but in this case, and for me, it is specifically related to the provenance of the Chicagoland area. I have very little in common with Maier, yet she haunts me sometimes, or maybe she haunts the streets of Chicago and its suburbs. As a child, I walked the same areas and streets that she did and wonder, now as an adult, if I might ever have been within a few feet or blocks of her. And she lived here in this area when I moved back to the Chicago area in 2008. But...so what? Mere wistful adolescent romanticism? I don't even know what I'm trying to say anymore.

I tried, Arthur. And I think it is an interesting discussion, but in the end, for me, I don't think what few scraps of kinship I may feel can quite meet the level of what I think you mean by "friendship".

January 24, 2015

I am not a big follower of -- and certainly no predictor of -- future technology (not that Google Glass is "future", having been around for a few years). I found the article interesting primarily because of the two photographers interviewed, the photographs they took with GG, and the galleries of their older photographs. Google Glass, or similar offerings from other companies, may well have applications but it is not at all my cup of tea for taking photographs of any kind.

January 23, 2015

A sign of the times, bad for some, possibly good for others...?

Wayne Melia -- I don't know if it's the paper you are referring to, but here in Chicago the Sun-Times got rid of its entire photography staff, including, IIRC, a Pulitzer Prize winner. One of the expectations was that the remaining print journalists would use their cell phones in certain situations.

January 23, 2015

<blockquote>Sure. Many times there's something odd in the distance that I think could make a nice WTF moment when captured and processed. When I captured this photo I don't remember giving any thought to potential released narratives.</blockquote>

Brad, yes! And the photo you displayed has a lovely ambiguity to it (to say nothing of it's geometric elements)...that very "wtf!?"" to which you refer. My point was that I think there IS something in mind. I can relate to seeing something, saying "wtf!?", and photographing it. I very rarely take a photograph with the thought of releasing a narrative unless I am working on a specific documentary project (some of the Balkan dance and culture projects I worked on were like that) and even then I can't fully control what a given viewer will ultimately make of it. But when shooting in the street, maybe all I have in mind is an attempt to photograph something interesting.

Marc -- I think you have a point that every photograph has a certain ambiguity to it. But I think there are degrees. A tack sharp image of a bird with a fish in its talons can be said to have ambiguity, but the ambiguity is more along the lines of "where was this taken?", "where did the bird go?", etc. The point of the photo, however, is pretty much wrapped up in the tack sharp portrayal of the moment with the fish in its talons. I think Fred is talking about a different type of ambiguity, but then that's silly to say because I know you already know that, and I don't want to put words in Fred's mouth.

Fred -- I only mentioned the link between thought and ambiguity because I think it's a valid consideration, not as something that had to be defended. Nor did I think you intended it as a criticism, even in a general way. I was just thinking on my feet as I was writing, trying to figure out what, if any, thought attaches itself to my own process of capturing an unfolding moment on the street. What I did not do, is follow through on the notion that someone could justify any random group of photographs they take as being brilliant on the basis of their ambiguity -- and in that process fool themselves. Sometimes the thought comes in the editing. And there are situations where I have very specific thoughts in mind -- as in attending a rehearsal of a Balkan folk troupe and intentionally placing myself in a certain position to catch a close up of legs and feet performing a particular step that I think could be interesting. But this starts to wander into intention, rather than ambiguity and I fear I am getting a bit lost here!!

January 23, 2015

It's challenging to come into this discussion after it has been going on for so long, and after so many different aspects and side avenues have been commented upon.

My first thoughts upon reading Fred's post were essentially the same as Brad's comments below:

Photos that are complete and appear to "answer" all questions are not very interesting to me. And… Not only do I appreciate viewing photos where ambiguity is a major element, I usually strive to make photos with that in mind, to help suggest a narrative for a viewer. That can be any narrative, not necessarily one I may have had in mind (sometimes I'll have nothing in mind).

</blockquote>

I can't speak for Brad, but for me, the “sometimes I'll have nothing in mind” aspect comes into play primarily because the large majority of my photographs are taken in the streets of Chicago and its older collar suburbs. But is there truly “nothing in mind”? I think Fred touched upon this later in the discussion, not speaking specifically about Brad's comment, but questioning in general the value of ambiguity which arises out of no thought, aim, or intention. I have a very specific intention when I walk down the street with my camera but it is difficult to put into words (verbalization: another aspect of ambiguity that has been touched upon in this thread). The best way I could explain it would be to point to the one or two photos out of 50, or 100, or 300 that I might take and point to it and say, “Here, out of all these photographs, this one displays the kind of ambiguity and – (style, tone, atmosphere, light, feeling) – that I set out to find.”

And, of course, the reaction to that one photograph that I point to could vary widely depending upon the viewer. “I don't get it.” “Nothing is happening, it's a random snap.” “Ah...contemporary alienation and social vacuity is expressed here in the way that bla, bla, bla, bla bla...” “Nice tones/light/atmosphere.” “This makes me sad/amused/curious.” “When I saw the thumbnail I knew it was your photograph.” And so on and so forth....

But I don't want to limit my comments only to photographs taken in the street. Ambiguity, of a good sort (and I'm sorry, but I cannot define that, it is too subjective and contingent upon personal taste, experience, and the work to which a given individual has been exposed), can and does exist in almost all photographic genres.

Alas, I must go off to work. I had wanted to explore some of the other aspects that came up: ambiguity and its relationship to interpretation; ambiguity and myth (I like that one, Albert...”Myth” deserves its own thread).

January 22, 2015

Allons enfants de la révolution digitale? Je pense que nous sommes déjà bien dans la Troisième République maintenant.

Now I'm being pretentious... ;-)

January 22, 2015

Thanks, Daniel. I was not familiar with Tom Bianchi. Although his work probably still won't appeal to some people, it's as if Bianchi captured a lost world and time before the storm of AIDS hit. Very cool that you got a signed copy of his book.

January 19, 2015

I appreciate that slide show of Turnley's photographs. I also think the "iconic" photo that Anders linked to will most likely become a historical iconic photograph of this tragedy and the demonstrations which followed in its wake.

Beyond that, there is not much else I can say without venturing into waters deemed off limits on Photo.net...which is fine. There are other venues where one can discuss such things. Without stating specifics, there are, of course, a variety of different viewpoints and considerations regarding Charlie Hebdo, the satirical cartoons, the murders, and the demonstrations (both in Paris, around the world, and on social media websites).

Thank you, Anders, for bringing Turnley's slide show to my attention. I have read various articles, and viewed individual photographs, but not a group of images from one photographer in a slide show. And Turnley's is certainly a worthwhile grouping of photographs to view and ponder.

January 6, 2015

I plan to git jiggy wit the top of Sanford Edlestein's stove and his basement ceiling. Gittin all William Egglestony, yo.

December 31, 2014

Wouter Willemse: I find it a pity how it is assumed that talking about one's own photography (in terms of approach and hopes-in-results) is pretentious and intellectualising, while talking about others is all fine. It happens often in threads such as these, and I genuinely feel it is a pity.

</blockquote>

I think there is a tendency to be reticent about talking about one's own work. Arthur also mentioned something similar above in regard to people sometimes feeling sheepish. For certain contests or galleries I have written artistic statements that might have seemed a bit overblown to some people. I take sort of a dual approach to describing my work or style -- talking about it (as in an introduction to a book I just published) in a fairly serious manner and yet, like Marc Todd, trying not to take myself too seriously at the same time. It can be a fine line. A PN friend who saw an early version of my introduction noted that I should not put in self-deprecating comments (advice I took to heart for the final published version). But I could see someone reading it and thinking "Who the hell does this guy think he is talking about himself like he's Garry Winogrand or John Szarkowski?". But if you don't believe in your work, and you do not take it somewhat seriously, why would you expect anyone else to?

On the matter of "audience" -- Marc made an interesting comment about not seeing Garry Winogrand calendars next to the Ansel Adams calendar. Very true. But I don't think street photography is only appreciated by other street photographers. (As an aside, I don't really like the term "street photography", it seems too limiting and doesn't encompass the kind of work which, to me, falls stylistically, atmospherically, or tonally, within the same ballpark: the so-called "New Topographers" like Stephen Shore for one example, or the work of Francesca Woodman or Diane Arbus for some other examples.) I think people can appreciate ambiguous black and white photos of the human condition and see them as intriguing and possibly as a form of art. There's just not a huge market for it.

The photographs that I put in my PN portfolio, or on my website, or in a book, are ones I find value in, that move me in some way that I cannot easily describe. I know that not everyone gets it, and that's okay. If I had to describe what I do as a photographer, I would say that I try to photograph in a way that matches the same type of work that I like to view. Not to imitate any particular photographer, but certainly to capture that hard to describe ambiguous atmosphere or tone that one finds in a number of different photographers. I derive certain feelings from work by Shore, or Klein, or Arbus, or Friedlander, or Eggleston -- each different, some even in color, but all possessed of a certain something that grabs me, that makes me revel in life, even while there is a certain muted sadness, or surreality, or ambiguity that some may describe as a bit "dark". I embrace that kind of ambiguity and darkness because it somehow transmutes into an appreciation for the commonplace in life as being a kind of marvelous adventure. And it always involves human beings, or the implied presence (as in Shore or others) of human beings. I don't turn up my nose or sneer at photographs that are unambiguously uplifting, but I get my uplift from exactly the kinds of photos that I have attempted to describe here. And that is how, most of the time, I choose to photograph.

Now Arthur, I feel, has done a brave thing by putting up his series of images. I think, Arthur, that I have seen you mention on a number of occasions recently that you are moving toward trying to break out and try different things. I applaud that. I am not at a point where I can do that yet (I take a more organic and haphazard approach and wait to be surprised by something I find in my own work which may lead me in a slightly altered direction -- as opposed to making a conscious effort of will). I would like to comment on your photos but I need to digest them a bit more (and I'm not entirely confident that I could come up with anything very helpful or intelligent to say).

The darkness of which I spoke above (a darkness from ambiguity, uncertainty, and the grittiness of the street) is a bit different from the type of darkness that Fred refers to above. At a venue like Plowshare, I too would be reticent about showing the clearly dark in fear that it would smack of the exploitive and the sensationalistic.

December 27, 2014

Fred G: I have a sense of humanity from Hopper's pictures. His people seem real, soft and malleable. Crewdson, on the other hand, seems to use them as mannequins, stiffly. They catch the light but don't really interact with it or live within it as Hopper's do. It's provocative staging but I'm not sure where it goes beyond that staging and so it quickly does start to feel formulaic rather than having a purpose I want to keep relating or digging in to. If there's silence and angst in some of Hopper's work, it comes in the almost palpably-felt absence of human beings in a lot of his scenes, where the absence, like his light, is so present and even turned into a character.

</blockquote>

Fred, Marc, & Allen -- Thanks for all of your observations on Hopper. I just want to make very clear that I do not equate Crewdson with Hopper by any means. By Hopperesque I meant that Crewdson reminds me of Hopper and that his work suggested some of that same angst and loneliness that Fred outlined so nicely in the quote above. I love Hopper's work and would not want anyone to think I feel that Crewdson's is on the same level. Again, this is not to bash Crewdson, I do enjoy some of his work, but I cannot put him in the same league with Hopper.

December 26, 2014

Wow. Never heard of her before. Wonderful work. Clean, honest, no gimmickry. Very refreshing given the popularity of Vanity Fair style portrait extravaganzas.

December 26, 2014

Fred G: ...At the same time, I tend to prefer bodies of work that attempt an array of styles, especially where technique seems tied to content and seems to vary based on the nature of the content and expressive output. So, help me answer this question, which I'm grappling with. For you, when does consistency work and when does it become formulaic and less effective? Seems like authenticity would be a key here.

</blockquote>

It's a difficult question to grapple with, Fred. I agree that authenticity seems key to preventing consistency from seeming formulaic or like a cheap parlor trick. Aye, but there's the rub. Without deconstructing specific examples, I don't think I could lay out a catch-all guideline that would separate the authentic from the formulaic. I only know it when I see it. And that, of course, is subjective and a matter of my taste and experience.

You use "style" and "voice" in your thread title as well. I think consistency is a hallmark of style (and voice an aspect of -- or even a synonym for? -- style). But style and voice seem to go beyond consistency alone. A given photographer may be consistent in her subject matter, but also, or alternatively, consistent in the manner in which she portrays different subjects (i.e., a certain post-processing "look" or treatment). One could call this a "style", but it seems to me that there is a deeper, more significant style that reaches beyond just the subject matter or "look". Perhaps this is what might be called "voice".

How to explain what I mean? Look at the work of Gregory Crewdson or Loretta Lux. Each has a discernible "style" that is primarily derived from the look and atmosphere of their work. (Damn! I can't get the link button to work.)

Crewdson: http://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/gregory-crewdson-untitled-brief-encounter-beneath-the-roses-2006.jpg

Lux: http://framednetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Marbles-300.jpg

Recognizable, distinctive, and work that I do like and can appreciate. However, each seems to be a matter of their processing and set up. Crewdson the presenter of selectively lighted and highly staged ambiguous angst, very Hopperesque in feel and atmosphere. Lux the presenter of muted pastels with children possessed of oversized heads and placed in spare surreal settings. But as much as I do enjoy their work, too much of it seems a bit contrived and leaves me saying, "okay, now what?" or "nice, but is that all there is?".

Which takes us to that higher level of style of which I spoke. If Crewdson and Lux do not quite reach that level (I feel that they do not, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise), who does? Off the top of my head, Eggleston, Arbus, Friedlander, and perhaps Winogrand, Erwitt, and Francesca Woodman among a number of others that I could name. Their styles seem to come not from a trick of set up or processing but from a deeper place that could be defined as their "voice". And each displays, in their own way, a definite quality of authenticity. (This is not to imply that a staged work cannot have authenticity. Again, I cannot definitively state that I think Crewdson or Lux lack authenticity, but I do not think that their "style" is quite of the same caliber as the photographers previously mentioned.)

I haven't really answered your question(s), Fred, but they have caused me to give deeper consideration to the manner in which I determine style and voice.

December 17, 2014

Fred -- I don't have a whole lot to add to what has already been said, but this was a nice "palate cleanser" and segue out of the Lik-mania. I am only passingly familiar with Salgado, seeing his work here and there on the internet or in magazines, but never viewing it in depth. My impression was that he was a fairly socially conscious photographer. I've seen a number of his photos, but the one that always came to mind when I'd hear his name was this rather odd and poignant one of the toddlers and infants:

http://lounge.obviousmag.org/cafe_nao_te_deixa_mais_cult/2014/04/26/Sebasti%C3%A3o-Salgado-11.jpg

It's interesting, but I am much more struck by the photo that you first linked to. I have never seen it before and it definitely grabbed me.

December 12, 2014

In looking up the Jones article, I came across a response by Sean O'Hagan (link below). This interests me more than the fact that Peter Lik received 6.5 mil for his photograph. When that kind of money gets spent on something like Lik's photo...it's a whole other realm and bears little relation to the real world. Who knows what the rationale is behind it? I strongly suspect promotional shenanigans (to borrow a word from Lex) or a high degree of gullibility or bad taste on the part of someone who has millions to burn. I know nothing personal about Lik other than having seen some of his images online and an occasional trailer for a tv show he was on ("Love the sound o' that shuttuh!"). In terms of what moves me, I far prefer some of the images that O'Hagan displays in his article.

And the reactions here are also interesting. Some sneer at him, then others congratulate Lik and sneer at those who sneered and accuse them of envy. Bollocks! Not that anyone gives a damn (least of all Lik), but if I had to sum up much of what I've seen of his work I'd call it overpriced kitsch. The kind of stuff I'd expect to see posted on the wall of a college dormitory, not framed in the living room of a serious collector of photography. But creating work like that and getting well paid for it doesn't make him a bad person any more than my opinion of his work makes me a bad person.

Now...if the day ever comes that there is a Lik retrospective at MOMA or the Chicago Art Institute, then I'll take to the streets with rage and indignation. ;-)

<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/dec/11/photography-is-art-sean-ohagan-jonathan-jones">http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/dec/11/photography-is-art-sean-ohagan-jonathan-jones</a>

November 30, 2014

West Loop Ephemera...<div>

00cz1E-552871084.jpg.59ce3c0f5f415b8ba49d1be6a15c8c47.jpg

</div>

November 28, 2014

Nicely said, Robert! I too have learned a lot on photo.net though I've never said it quite the way that you did.

November 18, 2014

Thanks for the cautionary tale, William. Sorry you had to go through this so we could be more cautious about our own health. Here's to a speedy recovery!

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by cyanatic