Um exactly. Definitive statements are unwise because Nothing is definitive in an esthetic. So making definitive statements, said on matters of opinion seems to me to disregard intent. If the intent is truly met then the declarative statement denies the stated meaning. Unless you can show that his intent isn't being full filled then it's pure opinion. You can think the artist statement is bs but there is no factual proof it's bs. I want more room at the top. Emily wants more room at the top Greg likes the the viewer is Un settled by that space. He may have or have not extended that in his composition but he makes the valid claim that the disconsonent response is acceptable in the viewer. To make declarative statements at that point invalidates the views factual response. As it implies that the image has failed the artist intent. I don't think we can prove that and are left to either trust the statement or accept it and state our opinions as such.
On Jan 12, 2014 11:20 PM, "YGelmanPhoto" <ygelmanphoto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Huh? As if "professional" criteria never change?On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Randy Little <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I love when people use factual definitive to describe subjective interpretations.Randy S. LittleOn Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Emily L. Ferguson <elf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
At 12:04 AM -0800 1/12/14, Gregory wrote:Claustrophobia, sorry. Not particularly interested in scholarly definitions, or the latest fad. Just how the image makes me feel. Not enough data on the top. Doesn't need much more, but, sorry. It's too close.
My problem is when a critique echoes another. The tightness at the top was intentional. One doesn't need any more information in that respect.
Hmmm. I can't tell if you're serious. This flow of words regarding artistic critique strikes me either as an example of a Sokol Hoax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair) or something that Sokol sought to discredit. To me, the positions by Gregory and Emily were simple, well stated, and 'nuff said.
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Randy Little <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
---
