From: Nick Makris (nick@mcn.org)
Date: 09/27/00-10:52:27 AM Z
I received a confusing reply on this thread yesterday - it was a message
from Bob Schramm to the list and was being rejected by the mail server. Why
I received it I have no idea, however, I managed to produce the text of the
message just in case some did not see it - as follows:
>>> I watched the discussion of nudes with some interest but never
commented
because I had nothing new to add. However, I think I'll
jump in with both feet on this one.
First, while a photograph can be a work of art, that does not mean
that all photographs are works of art. Also I do not agree with the
idea that art is what artists do no matter what it is. Furthermore,
I do not agree that the subject itself defines the image as a work
of art (a sly reference to the nude discusssion).
Here is what I consider a work of art.
1. It must evoke some emotional response on the part of the person
experiencing it.
2. It must be the kind of thing that you would want to return to again
and again.
3. Large numbers of people must experience (1.) and (2.) for it
to become great art.
Think about it. This works for paintings, prints, sculpture, music
literature, drama, film and, of course, photography.
Anything more specific gets one into personal opinions which could
be debated endlessly (another sly reference to the nude discussion).
In fact, this is exactly what art critics do, and then they tell us
what to like and what not to like. What nonsense.
Bob Schramm <<<<<
The following is an excerpt from the draft intro (developed prior to this
thread and probably is the basis for this thread) for the main page on my
web site:
"The images found herein are those which represent the photographer's
heart - those which have evoked some feeling beyond the mundane. They have
passed the tests of time........."
I recently reflected on a comment I have made several times over the years.
As we all know, taking a "GOOD" photograph requires some planning, skill and
a little luck. We are all guilty of having snapped that shutter under
circumstances that would dictate a lack of success or without an idea of
what the final image will appear to be. More recently, I have found that my
success rate is much higher than it was earlier in my career. Perhaps
because I don't rely on my photos for a living any longer. That comment I
reflected on goes something like this:
"I never point my camera at any subject that isn't part of a perceived final
image and I never perceive an image that wouldn't be widly accepted." Even
then, failures persist.
After sifting through the replies to this thread, it appears to boil down to
just a few meaningful words.
Wide acceptance of and continued emotional response to the image.
Wide acceptance is the byproduct of a continued emotional response to the
image.
Did I get that right???
Many thanks for your inputs,
Nick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:09:00 PM Z CDT