Jan, can you give me an example of where I concentrated on the minutiae of your images, or anyone else's in particular? The listserver archives are available, I believe. You have mistaken me for someone else before, and I believe you are doing it again. On the other hand, it is the criticisms of small distractions, uneven horizons, unbalanced compositions, blown highlights, improper focusing, etc. that actually can improve people's awareness of these things when they are taking the picture. Your photographs (and Randy's) normally don't show many of these flaws, so I'm interested in your claim that I have "concentrate[d] on ... minutiae". I certainly have commented on your images' balance and negative space; I hope you do not lump that in to "minutiae". Andrew On Tue, January 7, 2014 11:02 am, Jan Faul wrote: > > 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 > > > On Jan 7, 2014, at 12:51 PM, asharpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > >> 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/fron >>>>>> t_qt .htm >>>>>> ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > > > 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/ > > > . > > > > > > >
