I'm fessin' up-
Coming out of the closet of enlightenment to finally admit that
I am a card-holding, fully paid up and certified member of the
clueless. Our Credo: "I don't know much about art but I know
what I like so don't try 'n fool me with that arty-farty stuff,
mate"
Yes. And I'm glad I had the chance to say that... So on behalf
of my bruvviz and I, I'd like, at this juncture, to say that
there's no sense in making art wot don't include us in.
Fanksalot
Herschel (Still not fully revived from last night's festivities)
On 12/26/2013 11:40 AM, Jan Faul wrote:
On Dec 26, 2013, at 12:50 PM, Gregory wrote:
Quoting Jan's remarks. Focus is critical unless there is
a distinct even definable reason to blur an image. Logos,
brand names, signs are generally held to be readable....if
they play a central role to composition. Or, the specific
entity does not want there logo or sine to be seen.
A huge amount of viewers to anyone's image, likes to
understand. Bike enthusiasts as an example, love to see the
bike's brand name.
"there logo" should read “their logo" and “sine” should read
“sign.” Such is the problem with letting a piece of software do
your thinking for you.
Bike enthusiasts will already know that the motorcycle is a
1980’s model Kawasaki just by looking at it.
Ansel and others (myself among them) have always found it
difficult to explain photographic styles and methods to the
clueless, so none us try. If it has taken you this long to
figure out that my images make no effort to ensure that the
clueless get clued in, you have been looking at the wrong thing.
Art Faul
The
Artist Formerly Known as Prints
------
Camera
Works - The Washington Post
.
|
