Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: James Porto  (Read 3743 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22534
James Porto
« on: November 26, 2017, 05:32:06 am »

Amazing, in all of the senses.

Now there is photographic talent and determination!

Rob C

P.S.

With reference to the current arguments about photography and art: would folks be happy to label this work The Art of Applied Photography?
« Last Edit: November 26, 2017, 06:33:23 am by Rob C »
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1758
Re: James Porto
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2017, 06:44:26 am »

Amazing, in all of the senses.

Now there is photographic talent and determination!

Rob C

P.S.

With reference to the current arguments about photography and art: would folks be happy to label this work The Art of Applied Photography?

I'd have no interest in labelling this work: I don't like pigeonholing peoples work.

Of course, I have opinion about the work, but I'll follow the advice my father gave me as a child and won't say anything at all.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22534
Re: James Porto
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2017, 07:08:59 am »

Well, I prefer to say that I appreciate something when I do, and when I don't then it depends on whether I think it matters to me or not.

Silence being golden? Ask the lambs.

This must be Sunday.

;-)

Rob

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1758
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1758
Re: James Porto
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2017, 08:48:59 am »

Ah, Boy George...

;-)

 
Logged

OmerV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 509
    • Photographs
Re: James Porto
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2017, 09:05:54 am »

http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/105374/david-hockney-pearblossom-hwy-11-18th-april-1986-2-british-1986/

This I adore.
Good choice. I too like this. I've tried collage and other photo manipulation techniques but have not been successful. Another photographer whose work I like is John Pfahl. His "Altered Landscapes" have a kind of wry, playful humor.

http://johnpfahl.com/pages/newalteredmenubottonmenu.html

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1758
Re: James Porto
« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2017, 09:35:57 am »

Good choice. I too like this. I've tried collage and other photo manipulation techniques but have not been successful. Another photographer whose work I like is John Pfahl. His "Altered Landscapes" have a kind of wry, playful humor.

http://johnpfahl.com/pages/newalteredmenubottonmenu.html

Another painter using photographic images and processes whose work I adore. Richard Hamilton, The Father of Pop Art.

http://www.tate.org.uk/search?type=artwork&aid=1244
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2551
    • advantica blog
Re: James Porto
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2017, 11:37:40 pm »

Beautiful artwork! The picture with the woman riding the black stallion is spectacular.

Much more pleasing and infinitely more creative than those millions of creamy dreamy water images made with ND filters.
 

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22534
Re: James Porto
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2017, 03:45:05 am »

Beautiful artwork! The picture with the woman riding the black stallion is spectacular.

Much more pleasing and infinitely more creative than those millions of creamy dreamy water images made with ND filters.

+1, but I excuse Michael Kenna from blame because, well, I like him, and he puts a lot of work into his art.

That said, I've been thinking a lot about this art topic these days, and I think I have to conclude that, as written and suspected before, there really is no photographic art as such. What there is is the personality of the artist, the ability and emotional slant that allows his work to contain another dimension which removes it from the prosaic by giving it a sense of containing more than its purely visible parts, something that is an additive process in that the more one learns of a photographer the more one can or can not see the extra quality that makes the difference. In other words, where the non-artist frames and makes his click, the artist is able to inject that something else which beggars description but is sensuously (not necessarily sexually) there. Of course that's not precise, but its presence or lack of makes the difference. Viewer sensitivity is thus challenged, too. Challenge, perhaps, in the sense of self-challenge, for I doubt the seasoned artist really cares that much about the viewer unless within a strictly commercial context. Which does not alter his blessed state of being an artist. I say blessed, yes, but that is far from implying that his life will essentially be one of comfort and ease.

Rob
« Last Edit: November 27, 2017, 04:02:23 am by Rob C »
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1758
Re: James Porto
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2017, 04:59:15 am »

Oil paint isn't art but can be used to create art. Same goes for watercolours, acrylics, charcoal, blood, semen, horse shit and photographic processes. Whether a work is art or not isn't dependent on the medium.

Gosh, I'm now a Full Member  ;D
« Last Edit: November 27, 2017, 05:07:22 am by KLaban »
Logged

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3097
    • Pictures
Re: James Porto
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2017, 05:19:58 am »

+1, but I excuse Michael Kenna from blame because, well, I like him, and he puts a lot of work into his art.

That said, I've been thinking a lot about this art topic these days, and I think I have to conclude that, as written and suspected before, there really is no photographic art as such. What there is is the personality of the artist, the ability and emotional slant that allows his work to contain another dimension which removes it from the prosaic by giving it a sense of containing more than its purely visible parts, something that is an additive process in that the more one learns of a photographer the more one can or can not see the extra quality that makes the difference. In other words, where the non-artist frames and makes his click, the artist is able to inject that something else which beggars description but is sensuously (not necessarily sexually) there. Of course that's not precise, but its presence or lack of makes the difference. Viewer sensitivity is thus challenged, too. Challenge, perhaps, in the sense of self-challenge, for I doubt the seasoned artist really cares that much about the viewer unless within a strictly commercial context. Which does not alter his blessed state of being an artist. I say blessed, yes, but that is far from implying that his life will essentially be one of comfort and ease.

Rob

Yes, i like that idea.
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1758
Re: James Porto
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2017, 06:45:30 am »

Had many a conversation with artists, rarely about materials and never about the definition of art. It's usually about who's shagging who and other general debauchery.

What is it about photographers and art?
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22534
Re: James Porto
« Reply #13 on: November 27, 2017, 06:48:10 am »

Oil paint isn't art but can be used to create art. Same goes for watercolours, acrylics, charcoal, blood, semen, horse shit and photographic processes. Whether a work is art or not isn't dependent on the medium.

Gosh, I'm now a Full Member  ;D

Felicidades on serving your time! You now go onto the adult wage system and scale. See what you and I ultimately managed to evade?

On the greater part of your post, yes, quite right: it's an artist that creates, not any medium. Whew, took us a while to get that one together together!

:-)

Rob

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22534
Re: James Porto
« Reply #14 on: November 27, 2017, 06:49:51 am »

Had many a conversation with artists, rarely about materials and never about the definition of art. It's usually about who's shagging who and other general debauchery.

What is it about photographers and art?

Maybe only the stars get to do much interpersonal plumbing?

Rob

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
    • Some of my photos
Re: James Porto
« Reply #15 on: November 27, 2017, 08:55:51 am »

Had many a conversation with artists, rarely about materials and never about the definition of art. It's usually about who's shagging who and other general debauchery.

What is it about photographers and art?

Like musicians then... although they can get quite obsessesd about their instruments, and even a Phase One Triphasic is pretty cheap compared to a good violin.
These come together in one story about a violinist in a Swiss chamber orchestra, who didn't really like working in that group. However his instrument was a loan from the bank who sponsored the ensemble and the touring schedule allowed him to carry on his affair with a violist at a safe distance from his wife.
Logged

Krug

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 235
Re: James Porto
« Reply #16 on: November 27, 2017, 10:03:17 am »

Years ago a wise old man told me to ignore the 80/20 rule it needed to be much more like 90/10 or even less. Especially about "Art" and even more so about new or innovative attempts at art. So if we apply that to James Porto's work and what he says about it we are left with a few rather interesting images and a few words worth thinking about.  And that is about par for many discussions about "Art" by many people ... about the same as the comments here perhaps ?? - including my own, of course!!
Logged
John Ashbourne
 www.johnashbourne.com

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22534
Re: James Porto
« Reply #17 on: November 27, 2017, 10:10:45 am »

The thing is, we have almost inevitably ended up writing about an abstract when the fact of the matter is that James Porto has shown us some very clever commercial photography, which is not more than I think he offered, but more than most of us have skill, resources or patience to do, I would imagine.

Good for him for being the superlative, and successful craftsman he is.

Rob C

Dave (Isle of Skye)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1843
  • The Earth without Art is just Eh
Re: James Porto
« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2017, 12:23:40 pm »

+1, but I excuse Michael Kenna from blame because, well, I like him, and he puts a lot of work into his art.

That said, I've been thinking a lot about this art topic these days, and I think I have to conclude that, as written and suspected before, there really is no photographic art as such. What there is is the personality of the artist, the ability and emotional slant that allows his work to contain another dimension which removes it from the prosaic by giving it a sense of containing more than its purely visible parts, something that is an additive process in that the more one learns of a photographer the more one can or can not see the extra quality that makes the difference. In other words, where the non-artist frames and makes his click, the artist is able to inject that something else which beggars description but is sensuously (not necessarily sexually) there. Of course that's not precise, but its presence or lack of makes the difference. Viewer sensitivity is thus challenged, too. Challenge, perhaps, in the sense of self-challenge, for I doubt the seasoned artist really cares that much about the viewer unless within a strictly commercial context. Which does not alter his blessed state of being an artist. I say blessed, yes, but that is far from implying that his life will essentially be one of comfort and ease.

Rob

The definition of what constitutes art is easy, as it is simply a matter of engagement. So if what you do engages people, then it is art and if it doesn't, then it isn't...

Dave  ;)
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1758
Re: James Porto
« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2017, 12:27:29 pm »

The definition of what constitutes art is easy, as it is simply a matter of engagement. So if what you do engages people, then it is art and if it doesn't, then it isn't...

Dave  ;)

Apparently pornography is the #1 search engine subject.

;-)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up