Flat, soulless and stupid.

LOL well I've read many comments about this article. I've yet to read a comment which went past insulting and dismissing Jones and addressed the content of his piece.

after all, he does not consider photography worthless. He just says it's not fine art and can't compare to painting, and should not be "taking space" which might be dedicated, or should be dedicated to "the real thing".

He is perfectly aware of the popularity of photography; how compelling it is to the general population.

Further he issues a challenge; Find a good exhibit of painting, and then move directly to a photography exhibition. Then be honest.

Obviously all of us are very invested in photography and we love it. So we don't want to hear these sentiments, which apparently are common ( not unanimous ) in the painting community.

His broad brushstrokes sort of remind me how many serious shooters regard popular photography with phone cameras today.

With the plethora of art mediums today, I also wonder if painting itself is regarded this way by newer ways of expression: all those wild and vairied installations.

Perhaps underlying the whole piece is an expression of the pecking order. He peck at "us" is related to some other peck at his concept of art.
 
Seems like an extremely bias opinion.

Of course if you spent your college days sucking up oil paintings, you might consider anything else "flat", unfortunately, I don't see much weight in this article, other than one persons rant.

Im sure they'll get over it before Christmas.
 
galleries

galleries

I consider galleries the poormans chance to see up close all that we as a species can and will continue to produce.Granted some forms of art are not equal or beautiful , but we cannot let expression fall too a few disciplines.
 
Photography is merely a mechanical reproduction of reflected light.
Nothing more and a lot less.... an easy craft for lazy want to be artists.
 
Odd article with an extremely limited viewpoint that I certainly don't agree with. He's entitled to his opinion though!
 
George Bonanno said:
Photography is merely a mechanical reproduction of reflected light.
Nothing more and a lot less.... an easy craft for lazy want to be artists.
Click to expand...


Are you serious here ... or just trolling for a reaction?

But I guess you are also entitled to your opinion! :D
 
uhoh7 said:
Man, this guy knows you LOL

How's that 240?
Click to expand...


He's a bloody stirrer .... that's what he is! LOL :D

240 all good .... nothing has fallen off or stopped working. :p


Of course I'm assuming you didn't mean one of these?

:D

_volvo-200-series-1.jpg
 
Yeah, I don't know. I find a lot of photography as compelling as I do painting. At the art museum here, in the contemporary wing, you will see a Schoolworth adjacent to an Ochoa, next to something by Thiebaud, and then a Sherman, a Ruscha, Bosworth, Diebenkorn, Crewdson ... And a lot of stuff that is neither photography nor painting. Or bits of both.

This 'mediumistic' attitude does not seem to have any relationship to actual contemporary art. This Jones guy is probably confused by contemporary art if he's still fighting the "photography is not art" battle. That was declared irrelevant some time ago.
 
Chris101 said:
he's still fighting the "photography is not art" battle. That was declared irrelevant some time ago.
Click to expand...
That's what Richard Dawkins thought about the concept of "group selection" until EO Wilson recently revived it. That Brouhaha also involved a scathing review of Wilson's recent books by Dawkins which would fit right in around here LOL

Giant battle now in evolutionary Biology, over concepts considered "settled" for 20 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom