Velocity Reviews - Re: birds

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87vd8ppl4s.fld@apaflo.com...
> "Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:8hob36l4a6pfmhpoppsj4gk3s4jtpn7bju@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:31:18 -0700 (PDT), in
>>> <6c81b637-16dd-4a90-9a66-13563acefea6@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, Val
>>> Hallah <michaelnewport@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...-new-book.html
>>>
>>> Amazing images, but a bit garish for my taste, more science than art.
>>>
>>
>>I am trying to craft my comment, artfully.
>>
>>Science is certainly on of the uses of photography. While there may very
>>well be art in a science shot, the lack of art does not make it an
>>uninteresting shot.
>>
>>I think the shots were excellent if considered as an accurate
>>representation
>>of the birds involved.
>

Perhaps it's my hangup. I like to see some blurring to indicate motion.

> I was talking with a young lady a few days ago about
> photography and art, and when I suggested to her that
> the concept (which she very clearly understood) of an
> image as a medium to communicate a message to a viewer
> was something many photographers did not understand, and
> that I was pleased to see that she did understand it...
>
> She responded by sayng, "But I'm not a photographer! I'm
> an artist who uses photography."

Sounds like the typical comments of some of the fine art photographers I
know. INterestingly, females and gay photographers have made similar
statements. The straight photo artists I consider themselves to be
artist-photographers, as opposed to artists who use photography as a medium.
I wonder if its simply a different way each views themselves. Indeed several
very successful fashion photographer friends of mine, who are definitely
straight, simply consider themselves as good photographers, not artists.
Yet, I consider them to be excellent artists.

The above is said simply as my observation. It is not intended to disparage.
Perhaps the observations of others differ.

>
> One of her most recent shows, which is now on tour, was
> 15 images of herself, all distinctly different, all with
> a white background, and very similar in many ways to the
> bird images cited above. (Incidentally, the 15 images
> were very carefully planned, and shot using 4x5 sheet
> film.)
>
> <http://ericalord.com/section/22658_Un_Defined_Self_Portrait_series.html>
>
> For a very different view (my art, as opposed to her's) of
> just who she is,
>
> <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson/gallery2/d3s_5221.s.jpg>
> <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson/gallery2/d3s_5504.s.jpg>
>
> I would suggest that anyone who does not see art in the
> bird pictures of Andrew-Zuckermans is not an artist, but
> just a photographer. His work is not "standard"
> photography, but is art at a level well beyond what most
> photography represents.
>
> (The "young lady", Erica Lord, teaches Art at the
> University of Alaska Fairbank, has a Masters degree in
> Art from Chicago's School of Art Institute, and has
> exhibited her work at the Smithsonian's National Museum
> of the American Indian.)
>

Fascinating that she views herself so completely different from the way you
have portrayed her.
But then, I am not a psychologist.

--
Peter