I don’t recall attaching the article to the reviews section of this forum. IT came to me as an article which means it had been read by thousands before I saw it. Since you’re one of those expressing contentious opinions about one thing or another frequently involving me, I’m not sure what your point is. I try to remember to submit something every week, and not because I want kudos or praise, but more because I think it is important for other photographers in the community at large to be exposed to work which is not made in an iPhone or other digital camera. Let’s honest here. Ranting about how one on my shots entered in the gallery looks like a contact sheet (which is what it was) rather than a digital piece of humdrum is not germane to the discussion. Fortunately, all work is not made digitally, so seeing art the way divergent tastes see the world is important if one is going to grow. Or don’t you agree? Jan On Mar 28, 2014, at 6:05 PM, Emily L. Ferguson wrote:
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 . |
