Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Street Showcase => Topic started by: Rob C on July 26, 2019, 11:50:26 am
-
Sorry, Oscar...
:-)
-
Good stuff, Rob. Real street. A rarity.
-
A rarity?
This is version 1,200,000 of the ‘man sitting on a terrace ‘
Ok ok, this is ‘man with newspaper on a terrace’, more modern version is ‘man with cellphone on a terrace ‘.... or ‘man with pink trousers on a terrace’ , or whatever, but it is ‘man on a terrace’.
And that is exactly what makes street per ‘real’ definition so boring.
Luckily, Rob’s pro attitude played a game with Windows or mirrors and made the pic a bit more than ‘real Street ‘
:o 8)
-
Strikes me as being a fine image made all the finer by the title.
Real street, well who knows?
-
A rarity?
This is version 1,200,000 of the ‘man sitting on a terrace ‘
Ok ok, this is ‘man with newspaper on a terrace’, more modern version is ‘man with cellphone on a terrace ‘.... or ‘man with pink trousers on a terrace’ , or whatever, but it is ‘man on a terrace’.
And that is exactly what makes street per ‘real’ definition so boring.
Luckily, Rob’s pro attitude played a game with Windows or mirrors and made the pic a bit more than ‘real Street ‘
:o 8)
You took the bait.
-
And swallowed it completely.
-
So, it's not real street?
-
Let me come clean: it's shot on a square, as in plaça, and so might be a less - er - rounded form of street?
:-)
-
Well, it's a good photo, so maybe it should have been posted in the thread for Good Photos.
Oh, wait! There isn't such a thread???
Maybe because there are so few... ;)
-
So called ‘real street’ is not even ‘bait’
:o
-
Careful, Ivo, I suspect you wouldn't know real street if it bit you in the posterior.
-
Well, it's a good photo, so maybe it should have been posted in the thread for Good Photos.
Oh, wait! There isn't such a thread???
Maybe because there are so few... ;)
I propose a subsection of the Street Showcase entitled Recent Real Street where all those the few who believe they are exponents of Real Street could post their own recent work pertaining to the genre.
The work could be contained, monitored and adjudged by the Real Street aficionados and disciplinarians.
Gawd bless 'em all.
;-)
-
Or how about several subsections:
Real Street
I think it's Real Street
Fake Street
I don't Care if It's Real Street
Ivo's Vision of 'Real Street'
All of the Above
-
How about getting rid of Street Showcase? That would end this kind of crap. If you're going to put stuff into genres you're going to end up with arguments about the definitions of the genres.
Everybody know what "landscape" is? How about this? Landscape? Well maybe it's street. A street may be nearby. There are enough categories on LuLa without Landscape Showcase and Street Showcase. The other categories have to do with action and criticism. You don't need to understand a genre in order to post properly in those lists. To post properly in a genre list you have first to study the masters of the genre in order to understand what it's all about. Too much work. Ain't gonna happen. We've demonstrated that sufficiently. Let's knock it off.
-
How about getting rid of Street Showcase? That would end this kind of crap. If you're going to put stuff into genres you're going to end up with arguments about the definitions of the genres.
Everybody know what "landscape" is? How about this? Landscape? Well maybe it's street. A street may be nearby. There are enough categories on LuLa without Landscape Showcase and Street Showcase. The other categories have to do with action and criticism. You don't need to understand a genre in order to post properly in those lists. To post properly in a genre list you have first to study the masters of the genre in order to understand what it's all about. Too much work. Ain't gonna happen. We've demonstrated that sufficiently. Let's knock it off.
Russ, if these discussions provide any lesson to be learnt then it surely has to be be careful what you wish for.
-
Right on, Keith. Ever since I pushed for a Street Showcase and got it, I've been pondering that lesson. I see now that if we started a Ballet Showcase it wouldn't be long before we'd see cheerleaders and football players dancing and plunging across fields. And of course, we'd be told that what we're seeing is ballet.
-
Ever since I pushed for a Street Showcase and got it, I've been pondering that lesson. I see now that if we started a Ballet Showcase it wouldn't be long before we'd see cheerleaders and football players dancing and plunging across fields. And of course, we'd be told that what we're seeing is ballet.
This is the very reason why serious art exhibitions and prestigious art shows are curated...an open forum such as this is often less than ______.
(fill in the blank with an appropriate adjective)
Peter
-
(fill in the blank with an appropriate adjective)
Come on, Peter, are you trying to get me kicked off of LuLa for good?
-
I'm still awaiting Rob's essay on the subject of categorisation.
;-)
-
Everybody know what "landscape" is?
Of course. "Landscape" is wider than high, and "portrait" is higher than wide. The other classic shapes are square, round, and oval. :D
I'm all in favor of genre-free threads. The potential value to some viewers of "Landscape" or "Street" Showcases is that it makes it easy to avoid genres they don't care for. But for me that is a non-issue, as I like to check on all posted images of any sort, even ones that I do very little of, such as "Street" (because it is very difficult to do well.) I do find that I respond more positively to those that fit the "classic" definition that Russ has described so well so often.
But I find quite boring the repeated queries about "Is this (pick a genre)?" I like to read comments that might make an image more expressive, and ones that assert no changes are desirable. I also skip all the political and quasi-scientific discussions, preferring the threads with actual photographs (plus, of course, the Humor thread.)
YMMV.
-
Or how about several subsections:
Real Street
I think it's Real Street
Fake Street
I don't Care if It's Real Street
Ivo's Vision of 'Real Street'
All of the Above
You can compress it.
-
How about getting rid of Street Showcase? That would end this kind of crap. If you're going to put stuff into genres you're going to end up with arguments about the definitions of the genres.
Everybody know what "landscape" is? How about this? Landscape? Well maybe it's street. A street may be nearby. There are enough categories on LuLa without Landscape Showcase and Street Showcase. The other categories have to do with action and criticism. You don't need to understand a genre in order to post properly in those lists. To post properly in a genre list you have first to study the masters of the genre in order to understand what it's all about. Too much work. Ain't gonna happen. We've demonstrated that sufficiently. Let's knock it off.
The only demonstration on going is the one about the souplesse of an Abrams tank suspension.
-
This is the very reason why serious art exhibitions and prestigious art shows are curated...an open forum such as this is often less than ______.
(fill in the blank with an appropriate adjective)
Peter
Yes, so imagine all these very fine classical real street photo’s, as often called by Russ, here on Lula, are only less than ________
Yep, I think you nailed it.
-
Of course. "Landscape" is wider than high, and "portrait" is higher than wide. The other classic shapes are square, round, and oval. :D
I'm all in favor of genre-free threads. The potential value to some viewers of "Landscape" or "Street" Showcases is that it makes it easy to avoid genres they don't care for. But for me that is a non-issue, as I like to check on all posted images of any sort, even ones that I do very little of, such as "Street" (because it is very difficult to do well.) I do find that I respond more positively to those that fit the "classic" definition that Russ has described so well so often.
But I find quite boring the repeated queries about "Is this (pick a genre)?" I like to read comments that might make an image more expressive, and ones that assert no changes are desirable. I also skip all the political and quasi-scientific discussions, preferring the threads with actual photographs (plus, of course, the Humor thread.)
YMMV.
Exactly, Eric. The other problem is that when you have an open category with a genre name, people who haven't a clue drop all sorts of crap into the category and confuse anyone trying to learn about the genre.
-
I'm still awaiting Rob's essay on the subject of categorisation.
;-)
I never wanted to offend you in the first place; I shall pass before I make things worse!
:-)
-
Phew!
:-)
-
Exactly, Eric. The other problem is that when you have an open category with a genre name, people who haven't a clue drop all sorts of crap into the category and confuse anyone trying to learn about the genre.
As has been demonstrated amply here on LuLa.
-
Again and again.
-
As has been demonstrated amply here on LuLa.
The only thing what’s demonstrated, again and again, is the blindness for work that goes beyond limitations of a so called genre.
‘Street Photography’ as explained here is like Latin. Once it was the language of a civilization, now it is dead and only good for obsolete academic use and other museum purposes.
:)
-
Exactly, Eric. The other problem is that when you have an open category with a genre name, people who haven't a clue drop all sorts of crap into the category and confuse anyone trying to learn about the genre.
Russ, possibly, but there's already plenty of crap posted under the guise of Real Street by those who profess to having an authoritative voice on the subject.
Perhaps we all need to lighten up, the Street Showcase is after all only a heading, not in any way a definition of a genre.
-
There is also the problem that though one may understand genres perfectly well, that does not of itself make any of us good at them from a production perspective; we might make better curators or gallerists. We'd most certainly make more money from photography that way!
;-(
-
Exactly, Eric. The other problem is that when you have an open category with a genre name, people who haven't a clue drop all sorts of crap into the category and confuse anyone trying to learn about the genre.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here Russ. For most people, mistakes are a vital part of learning. That includes other people's mistakes. If an image does not fit the genre, the more knowledgeable people have an opportunity to point out the differences. This than becomes a valuable learning resource: people can find all sorts of images (good and bad), plus an explanation of why it works or not.
The problem as I see it currently, is that the differences aren't pointed out adequately, and discussions end up in bickering "is too, is not, etc...", which subsequently leads to ad hominum remarks of "who made you the gatekeeper" etc...
It's important to note that the failure of a student, as they say, is the teacher's mistake. That includes breaking down the mistakes into comprehendible chunks, and it also includes providing motivation to actually study the masters if one thinks that will help.
-
There is also the problem that though one may understand genres perfectly well, that does not of itself make any of us good at them from a production perspective; we might make better curators or gallerists. We'd most certainly make more money from photography that way!
;-(
Or become a teacher. Those who can, do; those who can't...
-
Or become a teacher. Those who can, do; those who can't...
Those who can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't teach, teach gym!
Peter
-
...he Street Showcase is after all only a heading, not in any way a definition of a genre.
Sorry, Keith, I know you'd rather it not be true, but street photography is the name of a genre. The name is unfortunate, but there it is.
-
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here Russ. For most people, mistakes are a vital part of learning. That includes other people's mistakes. If an image does not fit the genre, the more knowledgeable people have an opportunity to point out the differences. This than becomes a valuable learning resource: people can find all sorts of images (good and bad), plus an explanation of why it works or not.
The problem as I see it currently, is that the differences aren't pointed out adequately, and discussions end up in bickering "is too, is not, etc...", which subsequently leads to ad hominum remarks of "who made you the gatekeeper" etc...
It's important to note that the failure of a student, as they say, is the teacher's mistake. That includes breaking down the mistakes into comprehendible chunks, and it also includes providing motivation to actually study the masters if one thinks that will help.
I don't buy into that, not just because my daughter is a teacher, but because I know from personal experience that some things in life are easy for me to assimilate but others, never, however often somebody explains them. It might be a problem with learning or trying to learn particular things too late in life: put into that category the inner working of cellphones, iPads and computers. And books don't help because they don't approach problems properly (for me); I would like to see step 1, step 2. step 3, etc. etc. but nope, it's generalised instructions that don't face specific glitches.
[For instance: when my daughter arrived at Palma Airport a few days ago, she sent me a series of texts (as per usual on her trips to see me) advising when the transfer coach had left the airport and progress en route to our place, so I could meet her at the drop-off point. In all, five messages, each of which I answered, and my cellphone told me they had been received. Not one did get through to her. Later, we sat down and tried it again: her texts got through to me, but not mine to her. Why? You see the problems I face with tech? Hers is an iPhone, mine a Samsung.]
Providing motivation to study the masters of whatever genre should not be the teacher's responsibility: if the student does not already have the thirst for that, what's he doing wasting people's time? You don't exactly get into street by accident: you have had to have been impressed by something that amazed you at some time.
Neither do I hold with the sometimes fashion for knocking Ivo's street work; I think he actually does have a style very much his own, and as I think I mentioned before, both he and you, Oscar, do appear to share a sort of exotic eye for things that most of us would miss. Not always obvious, but it holds through the body of work.
-
Those who can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't teach, teach gym!
Peter
;D ;D ;D
-
I don't buy into that, not just because my daughter is a teacher, but because I know from personal experience that some things in life are easy for me to assimilate but others, never, however often somebody explains them. It might be a problem with learning or trying to learn particular things too late in life: put into that category the inner working of cellphones, iPads and computers. And books don't help because they don't approach problems properly (for me); I would like to see step 1, step 2. step 3, etc. etc. but nope, it's generalised instructions that don't face specific glitches.
[For instance: when my daughter arrived at Palma Airport a few days ago, she sent me a series of texts (as per usual on her trips to see me) advising when the transfer coach had left the airport and progress en route to our place, so I could meet her at the drop-off point. In all, five messages, each of which I answered, and my cellphone told me they had been received. Not one did get through to her. Later, we sat down and tried it again: her texts got through to me, but not mine to her. Why? You see the problems I face with tech? Hers is an iPhone, mine a Samsung.]
Providing motivation to study the masters of whatever genre should not be the teacher's responsibility: if the student does not already have the thirst for that, what's he doing wasting people's time? You don't exactly get into street by accident: you have had to have been impressed by something that amazed you at some time.
Neither do I hold with the sometimes fashion for knocking Ivo's street work; I think he actually does have a style very much his own, and as I think I mentioned before, both he and you, Oscar, do appear to share a sort of exotic eye for things that most of us would miss. Not always obvious, but it holds through the body of work.
It is not because someone left the flattened trail, he is unaware of the trail.
-
I don't buy into that, not just because my daughter is a teacher, but because I know from personal experience that some things in life are easy for me to assimilate but others, never, however often somebody explains them. It might be a problem with learning or trying to learn particular things too late in life: put into that category the inner working of cellphones, iPads and computers. And books don't help because they don't approach problems properly (for me); I would like to see step 1, step 2. step 3, etc. etc. but nope, it's generalised instructions that don't face specific glitches.
[For instance: when my daughter arrived at Palma Airport a few days ago, she sent me a series of texts (as per usual on her trips to see me) advising when the transfer coach had left the airport and progress en route to our place, so I could meet her at the drop-off point. In all, five messages, each of which I answered, and my cellphone told me they had been received. Not one did get through to her. Later, we sat down and tried it again: her texts got through to me, but not mine to her. Why? You see the problems I face with tech? Hers is an iPhone, mine a Samsung.]
Providing motivation to study the masters of whatever genre should not be the teacher's responsibility: if the student does not already have the thirst for that, what's he doing wasting people's time? You don't exactly get into street by accident: you have had to have been impressed by something that amazed you at some time.
Neither do I hold with the sometimes fashion for knocking Ivo's street work; I think he actually does have a style very much his own, and as I think I mentioned before, both he and you, Oscar, do appear to share a sort of exotic eye for things that most of us would miss. Not always obvious, but it holds through the body of work.
I'm not sure who's doing the knocking here, but truth be told, street or not, his is the only work that I really look forward to seeing in this the Street Showcase.
Please, ignore the anally retentive and carry on, Sir.
-
[For instance: when my daughter arrived at Palma Airport a few days ago, she sent me a series of texts (as per usual on her trips to see me) advising when the transfer coach had left the airport and progress en route to our place, so I could meet her at the drop-off point. In all, five messages, each of which I answered, and my cellphone told me they had been received. Not one did get through to her. Later, we sat down and tried it again: her texts got through to me, but not mine to her. Why? You see the problems I face with tech? Hers is an iPhone, mine a Samsung
It is likely nothing to do with you. SMS text messaging is a “best effort” approach with no required guarantee or verification of successful delivery. Many are lost between cell carriers. The “success” message that you get likely only means that the text reached your cell phone carrier’s system.
If you have a “smart” phone with a “data plan” you can likely use a chat type app instead that can be used over cell or over wifi for free (if no data plan).
-
It is likely nothing to do with you. SMS text messaging is a “best effort” approach with no required guarantee or verification of successful delivery. Many are lost between cell carriers. The “success” message that you get likely only means that the text reached your cell phone carrier’s system.
If you have a “smart” phone with a “data plan” you can likely use a chat type app instead that can be used over cell or over wifi for free (if no data plan).
I've a smart wife with a smart phone who uses WhatsApp, works brilliantly and is free.
-
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here Russ. For most people, mistakes are a vital part of learning. That includes other people's mistakes. If an image does not fit the genre, the more knowledgeable people have an opportunity to point out the differences. This than becomes a valuable learning resource: people can find all sorts of images (good and bad), plus an explanation of why it works or not.
The problem as I see it currently, is that the differences aren't pointed out adequately, and discussions end up in bickering "is too, is not, etc...", which subsequently leads to ad hominum remarks of "who made you the gatekeeper" etc...
It's important to note that the failure of a student, as they say, is the teacher's mistake. That includes breaking down the mistakes into comprehendible chunks, and it also includes providing motivation to actually study the masters if one thinks that will help.
Hi Oscar, You may be surprised to learn that I agree with you, at least about making mistakes. As I pointed out in “On Street Photography,” if you’re going to learn to do it you need to shoot and shoot and shoot. It’s important to shoot stuff you know isn’t going to be good, just for the practice in composition and camera function.
In that article I said: “How do you capture a good street photograph? If you look carefully at the street photographs of masters like Cartier-Bresson, Elliott Erwitt, or Robert Frank, you soon realize that the best of them are snapshots, gut reactions to what they saw before them, but not planned intersections with the scene.”
The most important thing you need to learn about street it what the function of good street is. It isn’t to show some guy eating lunch. The function of street is to show something important about that guy eating lunch. What are his thoughts? If he’s with someone, how does he relate to that other person? How does he relate to his surroundings? A certain amount of ambiguity helps. Does he really care much about that other person? It ain’t easy to do anything like that, but if you don’t succeed you don’t really have a street shot. What you have is a picture of some guy eating lunch. Which is why I said, in that article: “. . .you’ll shoot bags and bags of bloopers, a smaller number of not too bad shots, and the rare picture you should be willing to show. Beyond that, there’s the kind of picture upon which you’d be willing to hang your reputation. If you can average one of those a year you’re getting pretty good.”
But I don’t agree that looking at the bloopers posted by others helps you learn about street photography, or any photography. In the first place, you need to be familiar with a genre to be able to identify a blooper. In the second place, if you’re hoping to learn something about a genre by looking at photographs on LuLa, bloopers will lead you astray. Bottom line, I think it’s stupid for LuLa to try to identify genres. LuLa simply isn’t the right place for that, so I’d like to see both “showcases” disappear.
Oh, and finally, for Keith: Having done it for three years in various parts of Eastern and Southeast Asia, I can tell you that trying to do good street in a foreign environment is almost impossible. You get interesting pictures of the local environment, but the kind of relationship between people and between people and their environment that makes for good street mostly is beyond you because you’re not a native and don’t really understand those relationships in this environment. You still can get lucky, but that’s what it is: luck. Well. . . come to think of it, as HCB said, “It’s all luck. You just have to be receptive. That’s all.”
-
Hi Oscar, You may be surprised to learn that I agree with you, at least about making mistakes. As I pointed out in “On Street Photography,” if you’re going to learn to do it you need to shoot and shoot and shoot. It’s important to shoot stuff you know isn’t going to be good, just for the practice in composition and camera function.
In that article I said: “How do you capture a good street photograph? If you look carefully at the street photographs of masters like Cartier-Bresson, Elliott Erwitt, or Robert Frank, you soon realize that the best of them are snapshots, gut reactions to what they saw before them, but not planned intersections with the scene.”
The most important thing you need to learn about street it what the function of good street is. It isn’t to show some guy eating lunch. The function of street is to show something important about that guy eating lunch. What are his thoughts? If he’s with someone, how does he relate to that other person? How does he relate to his surroundings? A certain amount of ambiguity helps. Does he really care much about that other person? It ain’t easy to do anything like that, but if you don’t succeed you don’t really have a street shot. What you have is a picture of some guy eating lunch. Which is why I said, in that article: “. . .you’ll shoot bags and bags of bloopers, a smaller number of not too bad shots, and the rare picture you should be willing to show. Beyond that, there’s the kind of picture upon which you’d be willing to hang your reputation. If you can average one of those a year you’re getting pretty good.”
But I don’t agree that looking at the bloopers posted by others helps you learn about street photography, or any photography. In the first place, you need to be familiar with a genre to be able to identify a blooper. In the second place, if you’re hoping to learn something about a genre by looking at photographs on LuLa, bloopers will lead you astray. Bottom line, I think it’s stupid for LuLa to try to identify genres. LuLa simply isn’t the right place for that, so I’d like to see both “showcases” disappear.
Oh, and finally, for Keith: Having done it for three years in various parts of Eastern and Southeast Asia, I can tell you that trying to do good street in a foreign environment is almost impossible. You get interesting pictures of the local environment, but the kind of relationship between people and between people and their environment that makes for good street mostly is beyond you because you’re not a native and don’t really understand those relationships in this environment. You still can get lucky, but that’s what it is: luck. Well. . . come to think of it, as HCB said, “It’s all luck. You just have to be receptive. That’s all.”
Russ, I have no interest in the genre, or for that matter genre in general.
-
Fair enough, Keith. But then why are you posting in Street Showcase instead of User Critiques?
-
Fair enough, Keith. But then why are you posting in Street Showcase instead of User Critiques?
I'm not looking for critique.
-
Then why not post in Landscape Showcase? If Street Showcase didn't exist, which it didn't not long ago, where would you have posted? You must think your stuff is at least close to street.
-
.....
Neither do I hold with the sometimes fashion for knocking Ivo's street work; I think he actually does have a style very much his own, and as I think I mentioned before, both he and you, Oscar, do appear to share a sort of exotic eye for things that most of us would miss. Not always obvious, but it holds through the body of work.
Thanks Rob. I value your appreciation, thanks. :)
-
I'm not looking for critique.
Another place to post which is just for that purpose (even though it is inside the User Critiques area) is the "Without Prejudice 3" thread.
-
Another place to post which is just for that purpose (even though it is inside the User Critiques area) is the "Without Prejudice 3" thread.
Eric, thanks. I've posted there in the past, I'll try to remember to post there in future.
-
Then why not post in Landscape Showcase? If Street Showcase didn't exist, which it didn't not long ago, where would you have posted? You must think your stuff is at least close to street.
Close to or on the street, miles apart from yours.
-
Close to or on the street, miles apart from yours.
Whatever that means. . .?
-
I've often been tempted to post some of my road tar images in the Street Showcase thread, but maybe I need to start a Real Road Showcase first. But then I guess I'd have to post a lengthy essay defining the genre... ;D
-
I've often been tempted to post some of my road tar images in the Street Showcase thread, but maybe I need to start a Real Road Showcase first. But then I guess I'd have to post a lengthy essay defining the genre... ;D
What's the difference between "real street" and "true street"? :-\
-
I've often been tempted to post some of my road tar images in the Street Showcase thread, but maybe I need to start a Real Road Showcase first. But then I guess I'd have to post a lengthy essay defining the genre... ;D
In future when I upload images to the Street Showcase I will mark them as NSFW NSFR.
;-)
-
What's the difference between "real street" and "true street"? :-\
That concept is fully explained in the classic Zen couplet:
Student: "What's difference between a duck?"
Master: "One of it's feet are both the same."
8)
-
That concept is fully explained in the classic Zen couplet:
Student: "What's difference between a duck?"
Master: "One of it's feet are both the same."
8)
I must investigate this; appeals strongly to my sense of reality.
Rob
-
How about "A Touch of the Absurd". Could make for another opportunity to digress.
Peter
-
Great idea, Peter. All we have to do is change the title from "Street Showcase" to "A Touch of the Absurd." Nothing else needs to change.
-
How about "A Touch of the Absurd". Could make for another opportunity to digress.
Peter
Rob could definitely use a touch. A female touch to be exact, which, if you think about it carefully, could also be considered a touch of the absurd, but I digress. On the other hand, Rob is already in touch with his feminine side, and unfortunately for him he still remains a lousy cook. Now that's politically correct, because it proofs that there is no causal basis for suggesting any meaningful relation between gender and stove.
And yes, Rob, you're wife was a great cook. We know. No need to repeat. I mean no disrespect by that either, it in fact just shows we do actually listen... sometimes.
-
Great idea, Peter. All we have to do is change the title from "Street Showcase" to "A Touch of the Absurd." Nothing else needs to change.
pfff, including the participants? Hahaha, well, at least I would have a significant increase in images to share...
-
As I suggested in earlier threads, adopt Magnum’s definition of street. Call the forum Magnum Street Showcase. Problem solved.
-
Good point, Slobodan. Then you even can do street with a view camera.
-
Good point, Slobodan. Then you even can do street with a view camera.
Too late; done already (to death).
-
If you check Mark Power's supposed street work in Magnum's street course you'll see it's impossible, Rob.
-
If you check Mark Power's supposed street work in Magnum's street course you'll see it's impossible, Rob.
But Crewdson dunnit; he's an artist!
:-)
-
You're trying to pull my leg, Rob. Crewdson set everything up -- to the extent that it was like a Hollywood set.
-
You're trying to pull my leg, Rob. Crewdson set everything up -- to the extent that it was like a Hollywood set.
Exactly and it's ambiguous as hell. Crafted street.
Peter
-
You're right, Peter. It's more than a setup that looks like a Hollywood set, it's like a Hollywood production. But yes, it's loaded with ambiguity. I like a lot of it.
-
Exactly and it's ambiguous as hell. Crafted street.
Peter
Which I think is his intent in all that vein of work. Fake real. He does it indoors, too.
-
Which I think is his intent in all that vein of work. Fake real. He does it indoors, too.
Like I said , Crafted street. Story telling that you never quite sure what is happening. This is what I like about his work.
Peter
-
The artist's photographer.
-
Also known as Hoppckney.