John Mason writes --- >>>Originality is exceedingly rare, a point that you help me to make.<<< Glad I could be of service in your argument against John P., albeit unwittingly, but....how to put this delicately.... you have apparently overlooked the fact that the word "originality" does not appear in my post. Nor do I think the people I cited are "originals". You've made a case around something you have mentally transposed from John Palcewski's post and imported into mine. For the record, I said nothing about "originality". Only you and John have. >>>Awfully high standards, Luis.<<<< You missed the point, John, though if one is going to aim at all, one should aim high. It is just as easy to fill your eyes and mind up with mediocre/hack work as it is with the best. Why lay down neural pathways/patterns in one's own brain strewn with low-quality work ? >>> These are artists with, in my terms, original vision. <<<< The point Gregory made, which was what I was addressing, was that there were cliche' subjects. The people I cited made world-famous photographs out of every day subjects, proving Gregory's idea untrue. Had you read carefully, what I did call for was a PERSONAL approach. Unlike you, I see the people whose work I cited not as originals but as artists with a well-developed personal approach. Photography is not about exposing film to light, but your heart and soul to life, and not about developing it, but yourself, which is manifested in the print (or web image). This is within everyone's reach and is the wellspring of growth. >>>Isn't it the case that most artists, the overwhelming majority of artists (the overwhelming majority in any field), aren't particularly original? Isn't it also true that quite a few do marvelous work anyway?<<<< I did not, and am not, addressing originality, you are. I was addressing a personal approach. One can only do the best they can, but few people push themselves to their own limits. --- Luis
