| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/05/2007 10:10:21 AM · #1 |
This is an extension or spin-off of another thread currently active regarding "Maximising Bokeh".
One of the more current posts links to the description of Bokeh on Wikipedia, at the bottom there is a tiny bit that says has a link saying
"Kim Kirkpatrick a photographer known for his creative use of bokeh"
OK, so being a bit partial to a nice bokeh-driven photo I click on the link, it took me to another Wikipedia page.
Reading through this there was an interesting bit at the end that reads (cut`n`pasted from wikipedia)
"Mike Johnston noted, in reference to bokeh, that Kirkpatrick "made deft use of it as design, as figuration, and as a way to use color abstractly".[6] Mike Johnston further wrote that Kirkpatrick is "the American master of bokeh-aji " and selected Kirkpatrick as one of the 10 best living U.S. photographers."
Underneath this there is a link to Kirkpatricks website, so, I duly followed that to revel in all his bokeh-goodness.
Now this is where I am feeling a bit stupid, going through his current work the stuff in there, is, a bit of a letdown, in my uneducated opinion its actually pretty shite.. So I clicked on his past works gallery, thinking maybe he made a name for himself a while back and his good stuff is in here.... Nope, more of the same..
Can someone here help me understand why someone said he was one of the "10 best living US Photographers", as to be honest, even our beloved Whiterook would give him a run for his money..
Added links for convinience.
Wikipedia - Bokeh link
Kim Kirkpatrick - Wikipedia Link
Kim Kirkpatricks website
Message edited by author 2007-09-05 10:22:41. |
|
|
|
09/05/2007 10:19:52 AM · #2 |
I think I followed that same link with the same conclusion. ?
I don't get it either. |
|
|
|
09/05/2007 10:20:45 AM · #3 |
Based on what he has on his website I would have to agree with you. There is certainly nothing particularly special about his work in my eyes. The only one that did catch my eye was the pillars in the car park - but even then he's not made the most of the oppurtunity imho.
Maybe he doesn't put his best stuff on his website for some reason? That or I too am totally uneducated. |
|
|
|
09/05/2007 10:21:46 AM · #4 |
| Shortcut to the website: Kim Kirkpatrick |
|
|
|
09/05/2007 10:23:27 AM · #5 |
| Hmm...head is starting to hurt from scratching. After looking at the site I am just as baffled as to why/how this person is considered one of the best photographers as well. |
|
|
|
09/05/2007 10:23:33 AM · #6 |
Thanks Latenetflip, I have added all links to the original post.. |
|
|
|
09/05/2007 10:24:25 AM · #7 |
There's only two in his early work that I think are a bit special. The rest just seem like snaps at a construction site to me.
Obviously, someone thinks they're better than that. |
|
|
|
09/05/2007 10:24:40 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by latentflip:
There is certainly nothing particularly special about his work in my eyes. The only one that did catch my eye was the pillars in the car park - but even then he's not made the most of the oppurtunity imho. |
In DPC world that would be lucky to break a 5 score. Maybe on this site expectations are far too high? Glad its not just me confused.
Message edited by author 2007-09-05 10:24:51. |
|
|
|
09/05/2007 10:27:45 AM · #9 |
Have you considered that info on Wiki is as good as it's source? Who wrote the article?
Don't fall into the "it must be true, it's on the internet" syndrome. :)
|
|
|
|
09/05/2007 10:28:37 AM · #10 |
A guy I used to date was "International Photographer of the Year" as selected by the London Monthly Herald. The article was atrociously written, and I guarantee everyone here would be scratching their heads wondering what makes him better than any random person here. He's good, but he's not a  librodo.
By that token, I can say with absolute authority that I am an award winning photographer, winning ribbons in every show I've ever entered save one, but at the end of the day I'm well aware that I'm nothing special.
So, says who? Is the title attributable to any reputable source? Anyone can edit a Wiki page, even Kim Kirkpatrick.
;-)
|
|
|
|
09/05/2007 10:32:32 AM · #11 |
| Im assuming Kirkpatrick has an interesting backstory, or has managed to spin enough bullshit into the images that people dig them on "another level" - isn't that what art is all about? |
|
|
|
09/05/2007 10:34:06 AM · #12 |
My theory about stuff like this goes something like this:
"Serious*" photographers get bored with postcard-pretty shots and start to look for things that are different. In their quest to find something different, bad becomes good, and they begin to admire what the rest of us see as aesthetic train wrecks.
*"snobbish" fits here too ;) |
|
|
|
09/05/2007 10:34:48 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
So, says who? Is the title attributable to any reputable source? Anyone can edit a Wiki page, even Kim Kirkpatrick.
;-) |
You have the best idea, I wonder if the pages were written by that person or for that person by someone else. I'd guess the former rather then the latter. :D
MattO
|
|
|
|
09/05/2007 10:39:06 AM · #14 |
Yes...I think I'll get a friend to create me a Wiki-page, and call me "one of the top 3 photographers in the history of photography". Then, I'll have them link the article to some random Icelander's image here on DPC. No one will ever know.
Message edited by author 2007-09-05 10:39:22. |
|
|
|
09/05/2007 10:39:56 AM · #15 |
I guess he found his niche.... an uninteresting object in the foreground with some bokeh. They look like test shots or they look like shots that someone would take to teach a class DOF. They demonstrate the point, but beyond that they are incredibly boring and noisy.
That would get much lower than my average vote given in a dpchallenge, and my average vote given sucks pretty bad. |
|
|
|
09/05/2007 10:54:16 AM · #16 |
| Sounds like blatant Google bombing, linking to your own site from others to get the result to go up. |
|
|
|
09/05/2007 10:54:19 AM · #17 |
Hmm. I quite like them.
First of all, let's all agree that "he wouldn't do well on DPC" is a meaningless criticism. Many, if not most, fine art photographers are not creating things that would do well on DPC. Those that do well here are talented photographers who are shooting for a particular audience, and they do it well, but it is certainly not the definition of fine art photography.
Now, on to his work: These two, for instance,
//www.kimkirkpatrick.com/early%5Fwork/earlywork4.html
//www.kimkirkpatrick.com/current%5Fwork/currentwork1.html
I think are very nice shots. Cleanly composed, nice color and clarity, and they provide an interesting abstraction of a mundane scene.
I like the early work more than the later (some of the later does do nothing at all for me), and I certainly respect people's rights to not like it, but to completely dismiss it as being without artistic merit is kind of silly.
Edit to add link to Johnston's article.
Message edited by author 2007-09-05 10:58:47. |
|
|
|
09/05/2007 11:50:45 AM · #18 |
Try and look at his prints, if you can get to a gallery or something which has one of them.
What looks good on the web, as shown by flickr and this site, is often garish and unsubtle compared to the effect of a proper, large print.
Anyway, I've always been a bit of a fan. |
|
|
|
09/05/2007 11:58:36 AM · #19 |
*Yawn*
Message edited by author 2007-09-05 11:59:51. |
|
|
|
09/05/2007 12:00:43 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by chip_k:
My theory about stuff like this goes something like this:
"Serious*" photographers get bored with postcard-pretty shots and start to look for things that are different. In their quest to find something different, bad becomes good, and they begin to admire what the rest of us see as aesthetic train wrecks.
*"snobbish" fits here too ;) |
Shit is shit no matter how bored you were when you created it.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2007 12:18:11 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Shit is shit no matter how bored you were when you created it. |
But sometimes shit is Art, at least according to the critics and the connoisseurs.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2007 12:23:12 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Shit is shit no matter how bored you were when you created it. |
But sometimes shit is Art, at least according to the critics and the connoisseurs.
R. |
Sooo true... LOL
|
|
|
|
09/05/2007 12:29:09 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Shit is shit no matter how bored you were when you created it. |
But sometimes shit is Art, at least according to the critics and the connoisseurs.
R. |
But, of course, their opinions are wrong, demostrably so; only we have the ability to dictate taste.
You're guilty of the same crime you're accusing the "critics and connoisseurs" of. |
|
|
|
09/05/2007 12:31:43 PM · #24 |
| Just look at the $2,000,000 stripe they have hanging in the National Gallery in Ottawa. A few years back they even had a dress made from a side of beef on display. |
|
|
|
09/05/2007 12:31:44 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Shit is shit no matter how bored you were when you created it. |
But sometimes shit is Art, at least according to the critics and the connoisseurs.
R. |
But, of course, their opinions are wrong, demostrably so; only we have the ability to dictate taste.
You're guilty of the same crime you're accusing the "critics and connoisseurs" of. |
How do you figure that? I am being literal. There are numerous examples of feces and other excrement, or depictions of same, being exhibited in reputable galleries and museums...
I don't place myself in the position of "judging" what is art, ever. I feel no need to do that. It's entirely a personal decision.
R.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/13/2025 03:13:07 AM EDT.
