"Alienjones" <Alienjones@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fv9ckc$aqj$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Helen wrote:
> | On Apr 29, 8:24 pm, Alienjones <Alienjo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> | I've long been fascinated with the set construction skills and the
> | backdrop paintings of the people who created the scenes for films like
> | "Gone with the wind" and other famous productions.
> |
> Snipped
>
> | I just don't feel that special emotion here. The bride looks like
> | she's about to laugh right in the groom's face. I don't feel the
> | passion, the love, the emotion. The facial expression should tell it
> | all, and her face lacks the emotion of kissing the man she is deeply
> | in love with. It looks too staged on the bride's part.
> | Helen
>
> Maybe that's the case?
>
> Maybe she doesn't feel the same emotion the groom has for kissing? Some
> people don't "feel" anything in a kiss. Who can say? And that is the
> point of the photo. To hold a viewer's interest, to ask a question...
> Create an illusion. The fact you see in the picture what no one else has
> (yet) is an im****tant part of the art in my photography.
>
> Another aspect of your opinion is that this is a "masculine" photo. I
> have some taken on the same day which are feminine and many which are
> gender neutral. You may well respond entirely differently to a feminine
> version of the scene.
>
> My intent with this picture was to raise the expectation of romance in a
> steamy hot scene in as close to a theme of "Gone with the wind" as I
> could make it. The twist is what you picked... Not the groom who
> "frankly doesn't give a damn" but maybe the bride?
>
> Those who see only a photograph with less than 1% not technically to
> their liking are the real losers. If they are photographers themselves,
> then they are destined never to discover how the medium can be used for
> art as well as recording events and static scenes. I blame digital
> cameras for that.
Yes, that's it, the digital camera made you take a ****y photo!
>
> When you think about it, photography is not a very realistic method of
> recording events. A writer can create an illusion with a story, why not
> a photographer take the illusion of a photograph and ask a question or
> tell a story with it?
Why not take a real photograph and let it tell the story ?
>
> Embrace that concept and you can also handle that monochrome photos are
> even less realistic so why not forget all about faithful recording and
> take the approach that art should harness the image and take over the
> photograph?
It could, if the photograph wasn't of such poor quality.
>
> It's all too easy to take technically perfect photos of mundane objects.
> What has always eluded many, many people who take up a camera and set
> about taking photos of birds and ducks and golfers is the art of the
> medium. If I didn't have a camera I would still sketch or paint my
> pictures...
And the pictures you painted would be just as bad !
>
>
> - --
>
> from Douglas,
> If my PGP key is missing, the
> post is a forgery. Ignore it.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
>
> iD8DBQFIGDZyhuxzk5D6V14RAtHoAKCixBJUg1SoL9ghCOrD5IqkalkkSwCdEIxQ
> +Ifkt43mREXD+XwG3EPEKYM=
> =JEYB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
