Peter: The most important thing is to do what you like. I'm not against showing abstracts of nature on gallery walls. My opinion of your work is mostly a matter of personal taste and should be taken as such. In your defense you mentioned the term "generalizative power". I'm not familiar with the term could you explain? Respectfully, Dean -----Original Message----- From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peeter Vissak Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 6:43 AM To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students Subject: Re: comments (Dean) > >Vissak: If you are shooting this as an ecologist to document what >happened I think it is an excellent illustration. However for anything >else it just seems to be a tangle of wood. For this I think the audience >is key for its value. I wouldn't hang it on a wall but for environmental >studies it may be very valuable. > Dean, Perhaps this is true when we are speaking about this particular picture, possibly too casual or clumsy. More generally speaking Your statement does not hold or at elast I do not agree with it. Nature (doesn't matter if it is ruined or not) offers myriads of abstracts and myriads of them can possess enough generalizative power to be used as pieces of art. Moreover -- I have had quite some tangles of wood on my wall and I have seen them elsewhere. I love shooting wood and looking at it. Ecologically speaking this shot is too close. We cannot see neither the environment, nor the landscape formation, practically anything. For ecological/environmental overview shots I'd prefer panorama format (either real panorama or the stitched version). But -- there cannot be any rigid rules. I shoot what I like and who can tell this is not art!? ;) Regards, Peeter
