james_parkin

<p><strong>A reply for john kelly</strong> <br /> the world is awash with images, the internet isn't the right place, i believe, to look at the images i like to make... or photographs in general...even when we like them, we go next! next! next!...perhaps this is similar when you say? "I rarely buy photo books if I've not seen actual photographs". Maybe its a matter of how we believe our work(our others)is best received? i believe a little time spent with one image or group of them can go a long way.with the internet it becomes all about quantity.... i perfer a slow simmer when looking at photographs. i'm not sure this is possible with the internet, i might change my mind though.</p>

<p>to be frank...your tone comes accross as arrogant. this seems a shame because you have interesting things to say...so if you'd like to see some of my pics (depending on where you live of course!) i have two small exhibitions coming up in london(both start end of may) and a book of my photographs will be published in about 18 months...so if you live near london, and would like to see some of my work, please get in touch and i can give you the details<br /> all the best</p>

<p>"if you want to be a good photographer"...the best advice i've ever received was this</p>

<p>(1)make pictures</p>

<p>(2)look at other photographers work(and edit them, what are the 5 most essential images in franks americans for example and why!)</p>

<p>(3)edit your own work, and keep editing</p>

<p>i really don't think that there is any technique as such for evaluating pictures. you just keep doing it and you build up an ability....everthing we do and are somehow affects us and our relationship to images. the books we read,friends we dicuss pics with, music, life's experience etc etc.....i always found this bresson comment intriguing, show me the photographs that someone takes and i'll tell you what kind of person they are....</p>

<p>as for bashing szarkowski and photography books. i'm at a loss...by all means we should question any source of 'authority' but we should also listen...open up a dialogue between their perspective and our world view....his introduction to egglestions guide for example...that worth a visit from time to time...and you get to see a great photography book as well...time spent digesting quality photography books is time well spent!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>a very interesting topic arthur<br /> <br /> for me the important word from the quote is the word promise. this seems to suggest a moment before fullfillment...an expectation if you like, something that can't be fully realised...at least not yet.i promise you this but will that promise be delivered?<br /> <br /> something that that can't be named. and when i think about things that i would define as beautiful they all have this quality.they can't be fully explained with words, part of their promise is their ability to escape...and thats probably why philosphers are still thinking about it. and why art galleries are packed...etc etc<br>

<br /> and i don't think beauty necessarily isolates us as individuals in the moment of its appreciation! if anything it does the opposite, it reminds of what it is to be human....the promise of humanity if you will. the possibility<br /> <br /> that most beautiful of books <em>the god of small things</em> ...begins with a john berger quote...never again will a single story be told as though its the only one....i find beauty in this idea</p>

<p>in the book 'what good are the arts?" john carey begins his discussion by trying to answer the question,what is art? his conclusion after much dialogue is, art is anything where at least one person considers 'it' to be art. only one person is necessary to hold this view for that 'something' to be art. perhaps this is the individual that duchamp alludes to?<br>

<br /> the utility/ubiquity of photography i think, helps blur the boundaries between art and this 'other' state of limbo where we situate much of our everyday encounters/existences. or should that be the other way around? the life(or should that be work?) of allan kaprow attests poetically to this.<br>

<br /> art is food and photography is sausages is keith arnatts response to the question, is photography art?<br>

<br /> this idea of pointing really interests me....it seems to suggest a distance. a distance from something that we can't possess, can't hold in our very hands...it is away from us so we make the gesture of pointing at it.when we look at certain photographs this notion of distance becomes very apparant.<br>

<br /> is art dead?<br>

<br /> i guess the question comes back to, what is 'good' art?<br /> for art to be 'good' for me there has to be some form of beauty...and by beauty i don't necessarliy mean a particular visual schema that is universally appreciated...beauty can exist in anything for any particular individual. the question of 'taste' is important here...<br>

<br /> 'beauty is the promise of happiness...' alex duttman<br /> 'i have nothing to say and i am saying it' john cage</p>