| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/11/2015 02:44:48 PM · #26 |
valid opinion:
Originally posted by ubique:
There is nobody who better embodies pure, loving photography; the immersive magic of the medium, than he. |
off putting art snob lingo:
Originally posted by ubique:
Through his photographs you can get to know him, and yourself, and photography in its most essential, most pure, no-bullshit expression. There's no vanity here, no trivial accumulation of social media 'likes'. Warren is the real thing. If you can't be thrilled and inspired by Warren Harold, you aren't a photographer. |
|
|
|
|
08/11/2015 03:31:19 PM · #27 |
"There's no vanity here, no trivial accumulation of social media 'likes".
I have to agree there, Internet photography has become such bullshit because of this. You left me a great comment and favourited my photo, oh how I love you and wish you all the happiness with that family I've never met and don't know a thing about, I wish you all the best with your job and you know that I think that all the photos you take are out of this world, you are just pure talent. Please just keep licking my virtual arse and I'll keep loving you, whatever you do is awesome. You fit right in and you're doing alright, just don't go against the flow and you'll never feel the sting of loneliness that comes from being yourself.
Message edited by author 2015-08-11 15:32:34. |
|
|
|
08/11/2015 04:32:54 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by jagar:
"There's no vanity here, no trivial accumulation of social media 'likes".
I have to agree there, Internet photography has become such bullshit because of this. You left me a great comment and favourited my photo, oh how I love you and wish you all the happiness with that family I've never met and don't know a thing about, I wish you all the best with your job and you know that I think that all the photos you take are out of this world, you are just pure talent. Please just keep licking my virtual arse and I'll keep loving you, whatever you do is awesome. You fit right in and you're doing alright, just don't go against the flow and you'll never feel the sting of loneliness that comes from being yourself. |
Holy Schmidt. THIS is drama! More! More! |
|
|
|
08/11/2015 04:49:06 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by ubique:
But be warned: you must be prepared to give this guy at least half an hour of your time. Through his photographs you can get to know him, and yourself, and photography in its most essential, most pure, no-bullshit expression. There's no vanity here, no trivial accumulation of social media 'likes'. Warren is the real thing. If you can't be thrilled and inspired by Warren Harold, you aren't a photographer. |
that statement sits ok with you? because this thread is pretty divided over it. |
Oh, I agree, it's very polarizing rhetoric. What one has come to expect from  Ubique, actually :-) What I don't agree with is your characterization of it as "talking down to". And IMO polarizing rhetoric often adds a certain je ne sais quoi to a discussion, what? |
|
|
|
08/11/2015 06:42:38 PM · #30 |
is it possible for this site to get a blurry/ grainy black and white font that is barely legible so that the art snobs here might be able to understand what the rest of us are saying?
|
|
|
|
08/11/2015 08:57:50 PM · #31 |
| I can't tell if this thread is a joke or not. |
|
|
|
08/11/2015 10:14:33 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Ann:
I can't tell if this thread is a joke or not. |
It's turning into one, anyway :-) |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 03:25:17 AM · #33 |
Yep, "you aren't a photographer" was just a bit of intentional hyperbole. Something to arouse the perennially indignant.
Of course every hack with a camera is a photographer. Even fakers like me, though I often deny it (the photographer appellation, not the faking; I happily admit to that part).
Even the dreary stock photographers among us are indeed photographers, in spite of their grimly limited horizons.
I don't intend to defend my position on Warren Harold. If you look at his stuff, his uncomplicated love of photographs, and you remain indifferent, then you are indeed missing the essential magic of photographs as objects. But don't fret because most photographers do that.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2015 09:34:28 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by ubique:
I don't intend to defend my position on Warren Harold. |
i guess i just got ubiqued. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 09:42:22 AM · #35 |
So, by studying this guy for (say) 30 minutes I should now be aspired to taking shots like this and wait for the accolades to role in? Am I missing the depth/meaning of this work of Art?
 |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 10:08:23 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:
So, by studying this guy for (say) 30 minutes I should now be aspired to taking shots like this and wait for the accolades to role in? Am I missing the depth/meaning of this work of Art?
|
how do you not get this picture???
what you’re looking at is a meditation on transgender politics of the 19th century. the image evokes trepidation with a hint of eroticism that speaks to men more than women, the longer it is studied, the more tangible the feelings of regret and nostalgia become. long after you’ve finished viewing the piece, you’ll be haunted by the artist’s intentions and the unshakable certainty that you’ve been profoundly affected by a wake up call of seismic proportions. it took over 2 years for the artist to develop, including painstaking research across three continents where he worked tirelessly to concoct the perfect hue using the leaves of a rare plant that blooms but twice a decade on a remote Tibetan mountaintop.
i can't believe ubique wont explain this to you. F*** him and f*** your inability to decipher this image and its meaning.
you arent a real photographer.
Message edited by author 2015-08-12 10:09:01. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 10:08:45 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Ann:
I can't tell if this thread is a joke or not. |
yes |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 10:12:22 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:
So, by studying this guy for (say) 30 minutes I should now be aspired to taking shots like this and wait for the accolades to role in? Am I missing the depth/meaning of this work of Art?
|
how do you not get this picture???
what you’re looking at is a meditation on transgender politics of the 19th century. the image evokes trepidation with a hint of eroticism that speaks to men more than women, the longer it is studied, the more tangible the feelings of regret and nostalgia become. long after you’ve finished viewing the piece, you’ll be haunted by the artist’s intentions and the unshakable certainty that you’ve been profoundly affected by a wake up call of seismic proportions. it took over 2 years for the artist to develop, including painstaking research across three continents where he worked tirelessly to concoct the perfect hue using the leaves of a rare plant that blooms but twice a decade on a remote Tibetan mountaintop.
i can't believe ubique wont explain this to you. F*** him and f*** your inability to decipher this image and its meaning.
you arent a real photographer. |
Nicely done, I can see you 'get it'.. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 10:30:16 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by Mike:
how do you not get this picture??? |
Obviously I need to brush up on my 19th Century transgender politics, thanks for the enlightenment Mike, I understand now but it's still tosh to me. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 10:39:06 AM · #40 |
Substitute "Photograph" for "Poem" and you'll be closer to the aesthetic being championed by the OP:
Ars Poetica
BY ARCHIBALD MACLEISH
A poem should be palpable and mute
As a globed fruit,
Dumb
As old medallions to the thumb,
Silent as the sleeve-worn stone
Of casement ledges where the moss has grown—
A poem should be wordless
As the flight of birds.
*
A poem should be motionless in time
As the moon climbs,
Leaving, as the moon releases
Twig by twig the night-entangled trees,
Leaving, as the moon behind the winter leaves,
Memory by memory the mind—
A poem should be motionless in time
As the moon climbs.
*
A poem should be equal to:
Not true.
For all the history of grief
An empty doorway and a maple leaf.
For love
The leaning grasses and two lights above the sea—
A poem should not mean
But be. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 10:57:22 AM · #41 |
| So, what you're saying is, it should appear deep at first glace, but upon closer careful examination actually be found to be meaningless? |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 10:58:37 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Cory:
So, what you're saying is, it should appear deep at first glace, but upon closer careful examination actually be found to be meaningless? |
Depth and meaning are two different things. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 10:59:02 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Cory:
So, what you're saying is, it should appear deep at first glace, but upon closer careful examination actually be found to be meaningless? |
Depth and meaning are two different things. |
Clearly..
Perhaps I should have said "So, what you're saying is, it should appear deep at first glace, but upon closer careful examination actually be found to be so meaningless as to reveal that it is in fact shallow enough as to effectively be without depth of any kind?"
--
Honestly, I never know if you guys just enjoy seeing if you can convince others that there is something really deep in stuff that is shallow, or if I'm just unable to see what you see. Honestly suspect the former, as this stuff always strikes me initially as "oh wow" then once I consider it for about three seconds I realize that it's just 99.9% empty space.
Message edited by author 2015-08-12 12:05:38. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 12:10:25 PM · #44 |
What is all this muttering about art? I never said anything about art in relation to Warren Harold. I said that his love of photographs, his reverence for photographs, his understanding of photographs, is admirable. And infectious. And inspirational. And rare. I certainly didn't mention art, nor depth, nor any other fuzzy bullshit. He records his life, his loves, his family and his thrills and disappointments; he does it with clarity and purpose, year after year. He's a photographer who does not need to be a better photographer. For him, to be a 'better' photographer would be to become a lesser photographer producing lesser photographs. Just like yours. He actually does have considerable technical mastery, especially of the older, unfashionable apparatus and techniques, but it never defines his photographs. His photographs exist nearly in spite of 'photography; rather than because of it.
"I don't intend to defend my position on Warren Harold".
Message edited by author 2015-08-12 12:16:38. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 12:22:30 PM · #45 |
does he shit rainbows and piss gold too?
|
|
|
|
08/12/2015 12:36:20 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Mike:
does he shit rainbows and piss gold too? |
How eloquent, I want to thank you for this post and everyone involved in this thread because it has really crystallized things for me. I remember a time when someone could have posted this and there may have been a discussion about the merits of his work but I don't think there would have been so much blatant dismissal of another persons craft and art. Instead we have people saying things about him that they would never say to his face or even post here if he were a member. But because he is not, they can call his work "cliche" "shallow" and "shite" as though everything they have ever produced has been art in it's truest most pure form.
My activity here has been on and off for the last couple years but this makes it easy for me. There are a few people here I love in an internet way but the site as a whole can go screw itself. I'm going to go shoot and post and talk to people who love photography instead of people who love to talk about why other people suck at it. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 12:41:22 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Honestly, I never know if you guys just enjoy seeing if you can convince others that there is something really deep in stuff that is shallow, or if I'm just unable to see what you see. |
You're painting in broad strokes. Do you include that time when I tried to convince you that there was something beautiful to your chase of the moon? Do you include the time when I started a thread for jmritz's 1,000 photos? Are you referring to all posthumous ribbons? You've created quite a comfortable position for yourself by being vague... gives you good leverage and room for maneuver... |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 12:42:29 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by Mike:
does he shit rainbows and piss gold too? |
How eloquent, I want to thank you for this post and everyone involved in this thread because it has really crystallized things for me. I remember a time when someone could have posted this and there may have been a discussion about the merits of his work but I don't think there would have been so much blatant dismissal of another persons craft and art. Instead we have people saying things about him that they would never say to his face or even post here if he were a member. But because he is not, they can call his work "cliche" "shallow" and "shite" as though everything they have ever produced has been art in it's truest most pure form.
My activity here has been on and off for the last couple years but this makes it easy for me. There are a few people here I love in an internet way but the site as a whole can go screw itself. I'm going to go shoot and post and talk to people who love photography instead of people who love to talk about why other people suck at it. |
Hey, not only have I admitted that I might be the one who's unable to see this, I NEVER claimed my work doesn't suck. |
|
|
|
08/12/2015 12:48:39 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Cory:
Honestly, I never know if you guys just enjoy seeing if you can convince others that there is something really deep in stuff that is shallow, or if I'm just unable to see what you see. |
You're painting in broad strokes. Do you include that time when I tried to convince you that there was something beautiful to your chase of the moon? Do you include the time when I started a thread for jmritz's 1,000 photos? Are you referring to all posthumous ribbons? You've created quite a comfortable position for yourself by being vague... gives you good leverage and room for maneuver... |
To some degree, at least on my chase of the moon, you saw more than I intended. Whether that's real or not? Hell who knows. For me, it's not, I was just taking some photos of town that all included the moon as it rose and the day faded.
I think 1000 entries is an accomplishment, but do not see that it makes something more or less art than it was at 10 or 10,000.
I have a sort of fascination with the PH ribbons, I honestly think mostly they're shit, with the occasional gem among them, but keep trying to figure out what it is you see. I genuinely DO wonder if you're just taking the piss, or if you really find them as moving as you claim.
Again, I don't know that I'm not just somehow crippled, but it all genuinely seems fishy to me. Not even intended to be inflammatory, just genuinely how I feel.
Frankly, the works that I find most art-like are the photos that tell an entire story in one frame, or spread a story across 20 frames. Both have a deeper meaning that I can appreciate - but so often it seems that you seek ambiguity over substance, and that simply doesn't work for me.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2015 12:55:22 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by Mike:
does he shit rainbows and piss gold too? |
How eloquent, I want to thank you for this post and everyone involved in this thread because it has really crystallized things for me. I remember a time when someone could have posted this and there may have been a discussion about the merits of his work but I don't think there would have been so much blatant dismissal of another persons craft and art. Instead we have people saying things about him that they would never say to his face or even post here if he were a member. But because he is not, they can call his work "cliche" "shallow" and "shite" as though everything they have ever produced has been art in it's truest most pure form.
My activity here has been on and off for the last couple years but this makes it easy for me. There are a few people here I love in an internet way but the site as a whole can go screw itself. I'm going to go shoot and post and talk to people who love photography instead of people who love to talk about why other people suck at it. |
i never said anything about Warren Harold's work. i make an effort not to shit on the work of others as someone else may find it compelling. What urks me is when a fan comes along and and says, this guy is great, if you dont agree, there is something wrong with you.
Fuck the guy that makes that statement. its pretentious, pompous and ignorant of others thoughts and appreciations.
if you like someones work please explain why, if not, feel free to do that as well, i dont mind opinions but dont condemn others if they dont see things the way you do and the fact that Robert is defending such incendiary statements is even more amazing to me.
Jesus Christ, have some respect for the opinions of others, God forbid they dont like the same things as you.
Message edited by author 2015-08-12 12:57:41. |
|
