I agree. He's one of my favorites. I don't think he is easy to get for many though.
Ranchu
Veteran
Don't be so defensive, is it your ox being gored here somehow? Aren't you yourself attempting to supply 'like' checkboxes for the rest of us to follow along with?
I'll tell you one thing, Crewdson whatever is no Eggleston. Any wank with a decent line can convince a bunch of vacuous art students that sh!t is shinola, a transmogrification they need to learn. But you knew that.
Last edited:
Andy Kibber
Well-known
I'll tell you one thing, Crewdson whatever is no Eggleston. Any wank with a decent line can convince a bunch of vacuous art students that sh!t is shinola, a transmogrification they need to learn. But you knew that.
Ranchu has spoken! Crewdson fans take note!
Ranchu
Veteran
tlitody
Well-known
its seems to me that anyone consistently doing anything weird gets classed as an artist.
Mind you, I rekon I don't want to consistently make mundane images even if it does come naturally.
Mind you, I rekon I don't want to consistently make mundane images even if it does come naturally.
Sparrow
Veteran
Ah ... that would explain Michael Gove
Why is "like" a criteria anyway there are many artworks I dislike but still accept as art of the highest level, Guernica springs to mind, great work, wouldn't give it house-room ... even if my house was large enough
The images are compositions in color, not geometry. The White of the gas station is used to capture the color of dusk on one side, the evening sky on the other. The camera is positioned to use the gas station as an angled reflector, probably on a tripod with a long exposure used.
The pictures in general, have a nice feel to them regarding a Town in the South of that period. Too bad he did not stop at the gas station on GA 85 with the bubble-top gas pumps. He would have loved it.
The pictures in general, have a nice feel to them regarding a Town in the South of that period. Too bad he did not stop at the gas station on GA 85 with the bubble-top gas pumps. He would have loved it.
SciAggie
Well-known
Speaking for myself, I have read everyone’s comments here with interest. There are definitely some strong opinions here about some issues. For me the value of this thread has nothing to do with liking or disliking another’s work. It’s more about being able to understand the appreciation someone else has for a piece of work that I fail to find interesting. I guess sometimes it’s like being the one person standing with a group of friends and not catching the punch line of a joke – there is a distinct difference between not thinking a joke is funny and not understanding the joke.
peterm1
Veteran
Don't be so defensive, is it your ox being gored here somehow? Aren't you yourself attempting to supply 'like' checkboxes for the rest of us to follow along with?
I'll tell you one thing, Crewdson whatever is no Eggleston. Any wank with a decent line can convince a bunch of vacuous art students that sh!t is shinola, a transmogrification they need to learn. But you knew that.
Hahahaha Seems there ar many in the art world who are willing to pay BIG bucks for some vey smelly shinola!
And specifially as to Crewdson and Eggleston - seems to me they are like tweedle dum and tweedle dee when it comes to manufacturing that product! Different roads, same destination.
Serously though as to the question about whether people have to "like a work of art. I think the answer is a qualified no. I think firstly you have to respect it. As someone here said, I would not want to hang Guerica by Picasso on my wall - but personally I do respect it as a work of art. The second (and most imortant thing for a piece of art) is that it must communicate to the viewer. If it does not then it is nothing more than pretend shinola. Or at best wannabe art. I guess my problem with both of these "artists" is that their work says nothng to to me. Perhaps some people speak their "language" If so I suppose thats fine but I cant help but feel the work of Crewdson and Eggleston that I have seen is rather pretentious. (Then again I never "got" Jeff Koons either. Well - apart from his porno photos of him and Cicciolina.) :^)
At some level though I suppose people must like a work of art if its to be successful. In the art business though "like" may simply mean..."I think this product will sell so I like it for its profit potential." Not that they think the art piece has particular intrinsic value as an art work. And I sometimes wonder if studios and galleries pass of the work of the "next big name" on the unsuspecting public as a kind of "in joke" on them. (As in hahaha lets sell them this crud and see if we can get away with it by convincing them it is shinola. Boy wouldnt that be funny")
Last edited:
Ranchu
Veteran
I think the key word used in your blurb above is the last one.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
^-----ROTFLOL.
igi
Well-known
Art is like an inside joke. You either "get it" or not.
tlitody
Well-known
tlitody
Well-known
So my images of bokeh for the sake of bokeh qualify as art. I think not. They qualify as self indulgent exercises in playing with out of focus areas. That makes them craft. Part of the craft of photography. I would be a fool to think they were art in their own right purely because of the bokeh and even if they were totally about the bokeh.
Sparrow
Veteran
Well yes, it seemed clear from the outset it was a exploration of colours in combination, but that should absolve it's geometry do you think?
The colours presented in the print are clearly not natural to the original reality of the scene anyway, so the next question is "why has the artist altered them?".
The main area of colours are harmonic and seem to have been deliberately saturated, that's unusual. Saturating complementary colours obviously would tend to increase the vibrancy, but I have trouble seeing the point of doing the same with harmonic colours, other than making it look a little odd.
Personally, I think the original photo is quite well composed, not very interesting but well enough composed. I can see why he choose to tilt the camera so he could keep the light on the right parallel to the frame edge and how the dark areas contain the image. However to claim the rather mundane subject is redeemed by a bizarre colour balance doesn't work for me, a bit like cross-processing beyond the novelty it's just a one trick pony.
NLewis
Established
It is quite possible this is true. He was walking around, doing his usual thing, and noticed that he was getting that "magenta sunset light" that only happens for about 2 minutes. Quick, I need a subject! Here's a handy gas station, guess it will have to do.
paulfish4570
Veteran
his work was the first color photography shown at moma. apparently, it took szarkowsky a while to "like" it, too ...