I totally agree with john on that. If I just dont like something then I dont say anything if I cant saya why then I figure its just my taste. then you have all the zillions of things the people want art to be or not be. Just like politics and even more passionate about. I look for a crazy high expectation but still defined by my and mine alone expectation. Then if its a composition human psychological expectation thing I say this bothers because. Its molded by experience and background and everyone is differnt there. I feel like this is the third time we have said these things recently.
On Apr 2, 2014 1:56 PM, "John Palcewski" <palcewski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Don, my view of your image is, of course, highly subjective and more a matter of my personal taste. And often it's difficult to actually justify that taste in a review. I've always believed that given there's no such thing as an aesthetic absolute by which to judge works of art, criticism can never be more than an _expression_ of personal preference. Consider Van Gogh. His contemporaries saw nothing of value in his work. And now?On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Don Roberts <don.roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I must ask, John, is a single point of interest a necessity for a good photo? Or artwork? I worked at the University of Iowa which is home to the Jackson Pollock Mural which has no single point of interest but is regarded as a masterpiece. My photo sort of reminds of me of looking at the Pollock.
Don
On 3/31/14, 1:00 PM, John Palcewski wrote:
Don Roberts, Riding out the storm. There's no single point of interest here, and overall a rather scattered effect, an abstraction. The pair of birds in the lower left might be seen as riding out the storm, but at the same time the individual slowflakes seem more like a placid scene rather than a storm.
