Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Path II  (Read 1895 times)

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Path II
« on: January 11, 2013, 09:58:36 am »

Next week I'll contact Christie's and see if they're interested. I can make the print wall-sized if they think that'll help to sell it. Should sell for more than Rhine II since it has a more interesting background.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Path II
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2013, 10:06:44 am »

Sorry, Russ, even with your D800, a.k.a. The Detail Enhancer, I can not discern what's that in the background: dinosaur droppings, perhaps?

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Path II
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2013, 10:21:25 am »

Those are hay bales, modern style!

So far this ain't doing much for me..
Logged

RobbieV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 281
    • My work.
Re: Path II
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2013, 11:24:58 am »

For a minimalist inspired piece, I find the oranges distracting. It's probably because I don't understand the conventions though.

I'll start the bidding at $300,000.
Logged

Bruce Cox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1077
    • flickr
Re: Path II
« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2013, 12:15:30 pm »

The shadows of the central trees bother me. I fancy they would do better more nearly parallel with the fence or, failing that, completely parallel with the path.  Don't pick the oranges though; I like-um.

Bruce
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Path II
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2013, 12:41:10 pm »

Sorrry, Russ. There's too much going on on the other bank side of the path.
Simplify, simplify, simplify. And then make it huge.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Path II
« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2013, 01:42:19 pm »

You're right Eric. Here's the final product -- cropped.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Path II
« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2013, 02:20:12 pm »

Now THAT is some excellent commentary there. It's much more clearly a direct reference to Rhine II, and a refutation of it.

That sounds all art-world bulls*tty, but I think it's actually a pretty reasonable way to look at it. Just because it's not in words doesn't mean it can't be pretty direct about peeing in someone else's corn flakes.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Path II
« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2013, 02:42:07 pm »

Better peeing in those cereals that snap, crackle and pop; cornflakes have no drama. Even with semi-skimmed milk. I know: I test them every morning!

Rob C

Dave (Isle of Skye)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2514
  • I've even written a book about it
    • SkyePhotoGuide.com
Re: Path II
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2013, 02:50:43 pm »

Now THAT is some excellent commentary there. It's much more clearly a direct reference to Rhine II, and a refutation of it.

That sounds all art-world bulls*tty, but I think it's actually a pretty reasonable way to look at it. Just because it's not in words doesn't mean it can't be pretty direct about peeing in someone else's corn flakes.


I thought the actual terminological usage of this type of phraseology was when trying to disuade someone from doing somthing stupid - I don't wish to p*ss on your chips (that's French fries for our American friends), or fart on your cornflakes, but...!

Had to remove the following, as it was putting me off my cornflakes..  Thanks Rob  :-[

I must say I was shocked   ::)
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 06:09:27 am by Dave (Isle of Skye) »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Path II
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2013, 04:14:48 pm »

I thought the actual terminological usage of this type of phraseology was when trying to disuade someone from doing somthing stupid - I don't wish to p*ss on your chips (that's French fries for our American friends), or fart on your cornflakes, but...!

Another even less salubrious quote I once heard said to a young lady shop assistant who was not being very helpful to a gentleman customer of some advancing years, as he turned to walk out of the shop in digust - I wouldn't deal with her young'un, she wouldn't even p*ss in your mouth if your teeth were on fire...

I must say I was shocked   ::)



There are photographers who sell books etc. shooting exactly that, if without the fire.

Sick world indeed.

Rob C
Pages: [1]   Go Up