Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Rachael Talibart article  (Read 7416 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Rachael Talibart article
« Reply #40 on: January 28, 2019, 07:33:09 am »

Good stuff. We're in agreement that the written word in the forms of commentary and interaction have their place alongside the visual and acoustic artistry we love to absorb in solitary contemplation. I'm certain that so long as we make him feel welcome to, Josh will relax into the chat space and that will inform his role in crafting interview introductions.

In the meantime, I'm willing to absorb with equanimity the hi-folutin' words I understand, and allow those I don't to sail over my shoulder into the numinous, but ever absorbant and forgetful offing. Or for us below-decks types, the oggin.8)


Whoa! It's not about failure to understand words: those are certainly not beyond me, but it's their use in what I consider the wrong context that irks!

It all goes back a long way to an encounter in Hamilton's Gallery in London, where I learned to suspect gallerist-speak.

;-)

Rob

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2451
    • Keith Laban Photography
Re: Rachael Talibart article
« Reply #41 on: January 28, 2019, 08:27:45 am »

I thought that given the work on view the wording of Josh's questioning was both fitting and insightful.

RogTallbloke

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: Rachael Talibart article
« Reply #42 on: January 28, 2019, 08:33:33 am »

 :D Dire Straits
In the Gallery

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEl7devfqdc
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Rachael Talibart article
« Reply #43 on: January 28, 2019, 09:29:24 am »

:D Dire Straits
In the Gallery

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEl7devfqdc
 

Comes with a problem, for me: trying to get the words via the speakers in the little Sony system attached to the computer just fries my ears. However, using a little set of Panasonic earbud thingies, I get more of the words, enough to conclude it's about an artist, death and the gathering gallerist vultures. Kinda reminded me of the Tower of Silence in Bombay.

I know that I have the price list from that Hamilton's Gallery show; there were shots of Annie Lennox, amongst others, and I remember it as the snapper being Robert Mapplethorpe's brother, printer (or was he both?) or somebody like that. I think he used the maternal name rather than the paternal. To escape the  brother, maybe? Or was escape impossible and not really a clever thing to seek, so it was a device used to create more interest rather than separation? I shall never know.

Rob

RogTallbloke

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: Rachael Talibart article
« Reply #44 on: January 28, 2019, 09:59:03 am »

  Comes with a problem, for me: trying to get the words via the speakers in the little Sony system attached to the computer just fries my ears.

Ah, sorry, Knopfler is a dreadful mumbler. Here's a version with the lyrics onscreen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lflL-EFhPIA

I know that I have the price list from that Hamilton's Gallery show; there were shots of Annie Lennox, amongst others, and I remember it as the snapper being Robert Mapplethorpe's brother, printer (or was he both?) or somebody like that. I think he used the maternal name rather than the paternal. To escape the  brother, maybe? Or was escape impossible and not really a clever thing to seek, so it was a device used to create more interest rather than separation? I shall never know.

Rob

My brother in law had a day job as a sports photographer for a London paper. He used his press pass to wangle his way into gigs of an evening. He hid all the negatives of Pink FLoyd, Queen, Rod Stewart, Ritchie Havens, Stevie Marriot and many many more for years in case he was found out.

He's now living in retirement off the proceeds of the prints being published by Rock Archive.  :D



Nice trousers Rod!
« Last Edit: January 28, 2019, 10:13:49 am by RogTallbloke »
Logged

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1882
Re: Rachael Talibart article
« Reply #45 on: January 28, 2019, 10:57:52 am »


Yeah, but sometimes rather than orthopnea and diaphoresis, saying that you have trouble breathing when reclined, and that you’re sweaty, gets the point across more directly and with greater clarity.  Often sesquipedalian tendencies are merely a mask for fears of inadequacy.  Using more quotidian language, in active rather than passive voice, is often to be preferred. (There’s a joke here.)

Sighted sub.  Sank same.

Rand
« Last Edit: January 28, 2019, 11:01:20 am by Rand47 »
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Rachael Talibart article
« Reply #46 on: January 28, 2019, 12:47:23 pm »

Yeah, but sometimes rather than orthopnea and diaphoresis, saying that you have trouble breathing when reclined, and that you’re sweaty, gets the point across more directly and with greater clarity.  Often sesquipedalian tendencies are merely a mask for fears of inadequacy.  Using more quotidian language, in active rather than passive voice, is often to be preferred. (There’s a joke here.)

Sighted sub.  Sank same.

Rand

I can run with that analysis!

BBC 4 tv has another Art of America show on tonight at 9pm - UK time, so I'll have to watch it at 10pm, weather permitting. (We have a massive satellite dish, but it still suffers in stormy weather.) It's presented by Andrew Graham-Dixon (no, not the dish), who also did the BBC's Keith Richards interview some years ago when the latter's biographical book Life came out. I like both of those guys; Andrew also speaks good Italian, which is nice. I watched his shows on Rome (and cooking there), recently, and loved some of the long lens cinematographic travel set pieces; did the city proud, and gave me longings.

TV ain't all bad: you just have to use your judgement.

Rob

Rado

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 247
Re: Rachael Talibart article
« Reply #47 on: January 28, 2019, 01:14:03 pm »




Nice trousers Rod!

Ah, the Faces! The last time Rod made really great music...
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2451
    • Keith Laban Photography
Re: Rachael Talibart article
« Reply #48 on: January 28, 2019, 01:22:19 pm »

I can run with that analysis!

BBC 4 tv has another Art of America show on tonight at 9pm - UK time, so I'll have to watch it at 10pm, weather permitting. (We have a massive satellite dish, but it still suffers in stormy weather.) It's presented by Andrew Graham-Dixon (no, not the dish), who also did the BBC's Keith Richards interview some years ago when the latter's biographical book Life came out. I like both of those guys; Andrew also speaks good Italian, which is nice. I watched his shows on Rome (and cooking there), recently, and loved some of the long lens cinematographic travel set pieces; did the city proud, and gave me longings.

TV ain't all bad: you just have to use your judgement.

Rob

Andrew - it's almost as if - Graham-Dixon.

It's almost as if he's an art critic.

God, I miss the passing of Robert Hughes. Now, there was a critic with true passion!

;-)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Rachael Talibart article
« Reply #49 on: January 28, 2019, 02:30:46 pm »

Andrew - it's almost as if - Graham-Dixon.

It's almost as if he's an art critic.

God, I miss the passing of Robert Hughes. Now, there was a critic with true passion!

;-)

I know, our Andrew is one of your favourites. :-)

I used to enjoy Waldemar Something Unpronounceable in the Sunday Times, but on tv he was, for me, unwatchable. What chance most wannabes on LuLa?

I found Jeremy Clarkson was exactly the same: great in the ST but unwatchable on Top Gear.

Just those different strokes and bloody folks again...

:-)

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2451
    • Keith Laban Photography
Re: Rachael Talibart article
« Reply #50 on: January 28, 2019, 05:33:35 pm »

I know, our Andrew is one of your favourites. :-)

I used to enjoy Waldemar Something Unpronounceable in the Sunday Times, but on tv he was, for me, unwatchable. What chance most wannabes on LuLa?

I found Jeremy Clarkson was exactly the same: great in the ST but unwatchable on Top Gear.

Just those different strokes and bloody folks again...

:-)

Agreed about Waldemar Januszczak. As for Clarkson, well, better not said.

;-)

Krug

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 246
Re: Rachael Talibart article
« Reply #51 on: January 29, 2019, 09:05:22 am »

Maybe I am feeling especially "liverish" this morning but I feel bad for Rachel Talibart and feel she deserves an apology. 

How is it that what started out as a serious, respectful and focussed discussion of some clearly wonderful photographic work - and was generally acknowledged as such by the initial comments - has now degenerated into a saloon-bar/undergrad common room  brawl about esoteric approaches to communication which would be better suited to the Coffee Corner area ?  I am obviously wrong in my assumption that this recent trend had a lot to do with the previous administration of the site - although I am sure that Michael would have discouraged it swiftly, courteously but quietly effectively.

Rachael Talibert's work is excellent and one very valid approach to photography - there are many others - and it deserves discussion and recognition as such without all of this distraction.

Disputation on whatever for its own sake is great entertainment for old men - I know as I am one of them  - but in the right place please, if only out of respect for worthwhile feature contributors who might otherwise be discouraged from contributing.
Logged
John Ashbourne
 www.johnashbourne.com

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Rachael Talibart article
« Reply #52 on: January 29, 2019, 09:34:06 am »

What can I say... chatters gonna chat ;)

On a serious note, though, I agree with John, regarding respect for the original article. Discussing approaches to photographic communication at least has something to do with the article. Rod Stewart’s trousers, or some obscure (outside a local pub) TV personalities, however ....
« Last Edit: January 29, 2019, 09:45:40 am by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Rachael Talibart article
« Reply #53 on: January 29, 2019, 01:53:23 pm »

Maybe I am feeling especially "liverish" this morning but I feel bad for Rachel Talibart and feel she deserves an apology. 

How is it that what started out as a serious, respectful and focussed discussion of some clearly wonderful photographic work - and was generally acknowledged as such by the initial comments - has now degenerated into a saloon-bar/undergrad common room  brawl about esoteric approaches to communication which would be better suited to the Coffee Corner area ?  I am obviously wrong in my assumption that this recent trend had a lot to do with the previous administration of the site - although I am sure that Michael would have discouraged it swiftly, courteously but quietly effectively.

Rachael Talibert's work is excellent and one very valid approach to photography - there are many others - and it deserves discussion and recognition as such without all of this distraction.

Disputation on whatever for its own sake is great entertainment for old men - I know as I am one of them  - but in the right place please, if only out of respect for worthwhile feature contributors who might otherwise be discouraged from contributing.


Actually, I don't think people have been taking issue with the photography. If anything, I think she gets a good vote of well done! The video with music was wonderful; perhaps it's all a matter of presentation, that's a problem a lot wider across the 'net than just what goes down here in humble cosy LuLa.

As most know, one of my favourite photographic artists is the redoubtable Sarah Moon; her work is visible in various modes, but I feel that there is a couple of them where stills are accompanied by music which, perhaps not entirely to my taste, is at least non-invasive and, should you like the musical idiom itself, an even better way of looking at her work. At worst, you can kill the sound. In almost all cases, I think the written word is simply too distracting for the basic reason that you have to remove your eye from the image in order to get the drift of the opinion being flaunted. In other words, the mechanics are flawed.

If one is willing to hang one's washing out on the line in the village green, then one has to be prepared to live with all the consequences of that act. Hell, some people just hate pink! Or blue.

Rob
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up