Emily Ferguson asked a relevant question about the image and about the extraneous material. I agree that sometimes the process details add to the interest of the image, but there is no place for the ridicule about "spaghetti" -- especially while also carrying a bagful of it.
Why is the woman in the photo? Why are the highlights so badly blown? What is the point of including the image manipulation instructions?
Seeing process does not make the image work better than not-seeing it. Rather it drags attention away from the image and onto the processor.
The part about "show people something shocking" may be a legitimate response to the question regarding the extraneous material, but I argue that "attention if only for a moment" is not a worthy goal. Many artists produced great works which were, unfortunately, woefully undervalued at the time; but if doing something "shocking" is necessary to achieve some person's perceived goal, my feeling is that's too bad.
If it takes more (and better, and different) art to attract attention, that's the way it goes. No need to offer, say, a burlesque show alongside.
-yoram
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All this spaghetti will not sell your work. Those days are over. You have to show people something shocking to get their attention if only for a moment. Thanks for helping.
What part of “More photographs are taken every day than in the first 100 years of photography." do you not understand?
On Mar 7, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Emily L. Ferguson wrote:
Art Faul - Spencer's Bedroom, Yaddo Mansion, 1993
Why is the woman in the photo? Why are the highlights so badly blown? What is the point of including the image manipulation instructions?
Seeing process does not make the image work better than not-seeing it. Rather it drags attention away from the image and onto the processor.
