Andrew, the issue I have with your “critiques” is that they concentrate on what I alluded to in an earlier statement about minutiae, and in case you have forgotten, here it is again:
"What seems to have happened to photography is that now we see and/or work with the smallest of details, reviewers pick apart the most minute unimportant points of an image rather than looking at the overall effect, general tone, or ‘feel’. Plus most of us are filled with a sense of impending fame which comes from everybody believing they are on the cusp of becoming widely known for their efforts in photography while nothing could be further from the truth.”
I must have gotten it right, as none of you said anything about this paragraph. Am I the leading prognosticator on this list? I am unsure as to why, but it may be that you are wrapped up in the itty bitty parts of images. I never lose a sale due to a bit of dodging missing from the side of a face or from an errant ripple in water so why worry about them? People do not buy art because of finely tuned dodging or burning. They buy art because of the overall feeling of a piece or because it is in a color they like. People buy art which (for lack of a better term) resonates with them.
Speaking of art sales, I had a customer show up here on Saturday to pick up a print which was still drying when he arrived. For the hell of it, I showed him the PF gallery for the week and he silently went through the images. Then we went through them again and he noted that with no exceptions, every shot could have benefitted from the photographer not being in a hurry. Harry correctly noticed that Dan Mitchell’s Androids were humorous, reasonably well composed, and had the most promise. But the shot could have benefitted from Dan waiting until the various folks walked by. The folks on the right assist with judging scale, but the woman on the left looks like she is about to depart and that would have been good. So why didn’t Dan wait 60 seconds? It’s called Amazon, UPS, Fedex, the web, internet, and drivers going 110mph on the M1 heading out of Edinburgh. Do y’all know that going fast is not going to give you more time in your life and in fact may shorten it?
Jan
Right. So, if you and Jan are such Professionals, you would think that such Professionals would have to have very thick skins to survive the horrible, nasty, unfair world of COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY. Gasp! So, then, why are both of you so defensive when someone critiques *your* work? Andrew On Tue, January 7, 2014 8:03 am, Randy Little wrote: Thats right Don and in actuality I hold back A LOT. I would love to
see Howard levant critique the photo forum gallery the same way he
critiqued his classes. Howard was know for getting kids to drop out of
the program because he gave honest critiques of students work. And just
like in School and in the world on commercial art THIS ISNT A GAME.
This list
was started as a resource for institutional photo education for those
seeking to be professional artist and teachers at other like
institutions. No one improves from their work from the getting a BJ
review. I'm not every going to kowtow to comments from people who
aren't in this for more then just to get a BJ from their little click of
faux inteligincia buddies. People so blind they can't even see the vile
the spill makes a Jan review SUPER SUPER SUPER KITTY KITTEN TAME. Its
not what this list (of which I have been on since one of the founders had
use sign up on day one or maybe day 10) was started as.
here are some reviews of art from the art world. Do you think what Jan
said is on par with these which I still find tame to what I hear
regularly in the commercial world. These are all about establistshed
very famous artist from major news paper art critiques.
Rules for critique from a photography class at CUNY Albany first.
*I need you to be willing to say what you think about others' work and to
hear potentially harsh criticism about the work you've done.* In order to
become better artists, we must be willing to speak openly about the
issues at hand and to dispense with qualifying opening remarks such as
"this is
just my opinion" and the like."
"What is without doubt is that Cindy Sherman’s work adds up to the
biggest artistic ego trip of our time."
"The last time I saw paintings as deluded as Damien Hirst's latest works,
the artist's name was Saif al-Islam Gaddafi... Seriously -- Mr Hirst --
I
am talking to you. It seems you have no one around you to say this: stop,
now. Shut up the shed."
"The Hirst à Gogo is a blatant promotion of both the Hirst and Gagosian
brands, and a sitting-duck symbol of the end-time,
we’re-doing-this-because-we-can decadence that has subsumed so much of
the art world — yet another instance of money celebrating itself."
"The [Warhol] show defangs everything. A Bruce Nauman neon work flashing
the word DEATH, included because Andy also dealt with death, comes off as
a bauble. A Basquiat skull-head is on hand, because skulls equal death,
too. A Matthew Barney setup photo of someone with a gun? Yup, death
again."
"Beyond the coincidental temporal associations, I could discern little
connection among the clips. It’s just a gimmick. .. I just can’t conceive
of watching it for longer than I did, let alone nineteen fucking hours."
"Pound for pound, ton for ton, it is the most witless and wasteful
production in modern operatic history."
"There are no redeeming qualities to this show. Nothing happens in the
Phillips videos screening in two of the four galleries... And collectors
clearly don’t always have the ability to distinguish the avant garde from
the hacks."
"These images are so passé they feel like a provocation. I don’t get it."
Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Don Roberts <droberts@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just for the record, Randy, you and Jan don't seem to realize that this
list is not just for hard working commercial photographers. All of
your criticisms seem to be from that view point. We have many people
who are students, art photographers and journeymen who just want to make
a living. I made a living shooting for a university for 35 years and
have shot thousands of photos just like you. I couldn't specialize but
shot passports, portraits, check presentations, groups, banquets and
lots of sports and scientific photos. I realize I am still one of those
journeymen who gain little from your advice from the "big leagues".
Let's try to
proceed from that perspective and maybe a little civility and fewer
whizzing contests will prevail. Don
On 1/7/14 8:41 AM, Randy Little wrote:
You thought that what he said about Tina's work was harsh? Wow you
really don't deal with the real art world do you. Curious jack how
many permanent collections besides your walls that your work is in?
How many
commissions have you done? It's not anyone's problem that people don't
like hearing the truth from people who day in a day out review working
art and produce working art. Not just being rich hobbyist who can't
handle the reality of the quality of their work. It's funny Tina
probably gives a shit what Jan said other then to have the brief
conversation. If you can't handle people as mild as Jan maybe being an
artist isn't for you. Stick to collecting. Even my wife who disagrees
with me regularly on things like this or loves to point out its OK to
have a differing point of view thinks you three should stfu. Yeah think
about that the VERY TRADITIONAL Japanese woman thinks the 3 of you don't
have a clue. The woman that thinks I'm a temperamental artist know
wants to have lunch with Jan because he makes her laugh and thinks you 3
are jealous and angry and have no clue about working in the world of
art. The person who told me to my face. You aren't really going to
make me use this image right? For the first card I shot for my reps Xmas
card thinks you 3 would last 5 minutes in her office. On Jan 7, 2014
8:13 AM, "John Palcewski" <palcewski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here's Jan Faul's *modus operandi, as if by now it needs to be laid
out* *.*
First he spews forth a barrage of dismissive, contemptuous, and
insulting comments on an image in the gallery, or a comment from
another list-member, who invariably in Art Faul's view is "clueless."
Then he cites how
long he has been a photographer, a photographer vastly superior to
anyone on the list past, present or future, and hints, just hints, he
might well be superior to, say, Ansel Adams, who back in the day
promised him a box of paper, but never delivered.
Well, in passing, one should note that Ansel Adams's word count in
his Wikipedia entry is 8,000. Jan Faul's is 1,000. And if you're
wondering, Randy Little has zero. Zip.
Anyway, having delivered his cutting insults and disparagements, Art
Faul
moves on to the next object of his derision and contempt. Meanwhile,
the list-member Art Faul attacked earlier finally gets around to
sending in an objection, a complaint, a response.
Ah, this is precisely what Art Faul was hoping for.
Ignoring HIS OWN incivility and contempt in the first place, he
condemns the listmember for his complaint. Look! Look, everybody!
See how
abrasive that person is who is criticizing me? Doesn't that person
realize what I know so far exceeds what HE knows that it's laughable?
Doesn't
he realize that I've been taking tens of thousands of images before he
was even born?
Art Faul likely will NEVER acknowledge the legitimacy of the
complaints repeatedly directed at him here, going back at least ten
years. But it seems to me that we ought not just tolerate his
incessant incivility in silence. When he crosses the line, we ought
to SAY so.
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Klaus Knuth <klausknuth@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Did anyone ever notice that Jan's panorama shots were taken with a
"Noblex" camera?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 00:49:18 -0500
From: ygelmanphoto@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Rules
To: photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Finally, Jan Faul has proven the "case" against him regarding his
malicious behavior in this forum.
I'll start with his parting comment. He says "Noblex Oblige".
Ignoring his misspelling, the French phrase Noblesse Oblige
literally means "nobility obliges". It is the concept that nobility
extends beyond mere entitlements and requires the person with such
status to fulfil social responsibilities, particularly in leadership
roles.
I understand the concept, but apparently Jan Faul does not.
Perhaps
he thinks it implies that nobility deserves obligations from others.
At
least, his report of his many accomplishments that he continues to
display implies that others are obliged to pay homage to him and to
never criticize his work.
So simply, the "case" is closed. He has the motivation and the
misunderstood concept to back him up, so he behaves accordingly.
The more
compassionate among us might wonder from where this behavior
derives, but that might be studied by others. For me, my advice,
when such outbursts occur, is to ignore the outbursts. Let him
throw insults at the slightest whim. What does it really mean? --
what damage does it cause? With a slight shift of the words of
Ronald Reagan, "There he goes again."
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have not understood what my detractors on this list are trying to
accomplish in photography if it is not just enjoying the ability
to make photographs. This is essentially why I shoot pictures. I
really love making images and the negativity I get from some here is
troubling. The very people who have accused me of bringing misery to
their lives are bullying me for being different. What I have noted
about my life and imagery has fallen on deaf ears so here it is
again:
I have been a professional photographer since July 27, 1970. I have
made tens of thousands of exposures on film. If you were born after
that date, you should not try to catch up as life is not a
competition. I have been making a living with my wits for almost 44
years. I didn’t draw a paycheck, get W-2’s, sit in an office, drive
a cab, wait tables, or push papers around for a living. I only made
photographs, and curators refer to me as “prolific.” I have 26+k
contact sheets in my mostly complete scanned rolls folder. I’m
neither bragging nor apologizing for making this quantity of work,
but rather simply stating the facts. Most if not all of you have not
followed the same difficult path, and have not sought to have a
varied professional photographer’s life. It feels like all of my
detractors here have day jobs and my advice is to not give them up.
Being a free-lance professional photographer means that you’re
always ‘on’, you don’t tell clients you don’t feel like working,
that they should come back another time, or that your favorite
camera body is in the shop, so they should wait. In addition to all
that, you also have to create good to great images day in and day
out, but sick days are allowed. Although I have recently taken 1065
sick days in a row, few of you have shown any compassion. It’s like
“So what?”
My wish for the Gorams, Trevors and Andrews of this list is that
they grow up. We all make our own paths and some do it by following
rules and others do it by breaking them and purposefully not
following instructions. Noblex Oblige
Art Faul
The Artist Formerly Known as Prints
------
Art for Cars: art4carz.com
Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com
Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com
Camera Works - The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt
.htm
ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/
.
Art Faul
The Artist Formerly Known as Prints ------ Camera Works - The Washington Post
.
|
