Recently, I asked an art director friend if he had viewed my recent work online.
He replied,yes,but that he didn't get the pictures of barren landscapes.
He knew about the extended project I have been working on, the images just didn't
Float his boat.
I did not have a negative feeling. I just realized that some people will love my
Work and other, not so much. I can't make art to please other people.
I can only rely on my own creative drive.
As for Jan's comment, I agree, pictures of poor village people in afganistan reek
Of elitism. Don't get me wrong, there are great images out there.
I believe that it's more important to focus the camera on our own citizens.
Sure I can have empathy for the afgani villager, yet the message is more serious when
The hungry little girl live just a couple miles away.
I'm not sure this is a yuppie thing. I think it might be the seductive nature of cliche.
Immersed in mass media, many shooters are recapturing archetypal images embedded
In mass media over exposure.
In fairness villager grab shots have been part of the American travel slide show since the first camera went on safari.
Allan
One of my objections to photographers shooting the locals while traveling is that there is a preponderance of smiling faces aimed at the camera while we as viewers do not know if they are smiling because the photographer has just given them $50, promised them a trip to Disneyland, or other inducement to smile. I dislike portfolios of brown-skinned foreigners smiling at the cameras it reeks of everything bad about Yuppies.
Jan
On Mar 21, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Emily L. Ferguson wrote:
Art Faul
The Artist Formerly Known as Prints
------
Camera Works - The Washington Post
.
