A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I like Rineke Djikstra



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old August 7th 06, 12:24 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
J. Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default I like Rineke Djikstra

wrote:

wrote:
Because I have a sense of humour. And it IS crap.
--
Paul


Man. The more you say it's crap the more you show ignorance, stop it


Call me ignorant too. I think they are woeful. You said yourself,
quite early in this thread:
"..you can recreate this shot on any English afternoon within minutes
perhaps.."
"..nevermind that the picture looks like it was shot with a disposable
point and shoot.."

Don't those words tell *you* something?

Sadly a significant amount of art is an accident. Sometimes it has
nothing to do with quality images - a series of blurred/mangled rubbish
can often become 'art'. Why? Why NOT? Art is all about desirability.
Not about being technically, or even artistically good. And it can
also be about luck (or luck-by-design - if you happen to know an art
gallery curator/collector/raconteur, pretty well *anything* can be made
into a desirable collection...)

And if you *want* drab/boring/fuzzy/technically incompetent images for
effect/mood (and they *can* be very effective, don't get me wrong -
I'll Holga with the best of 'em!) - why not use *exactly* that type of
image, and call them art?

Is there anything wrong with that? Nope.

Is there anything wrong with people like Paul (and me) calling it
rubbish? Nope.

Should images like these be promoted as something to aspire to? (grin)

Why don't *you* answer that, casio? - and tell us how *you* would go
about it. Or if you don't ewant to, why not exactly? You've already
indicated that it should be easy to take similar shots... so.... ???

It's indisputable that these pictures have a tremendous
amount of art.

On what basis precisely? That they are in a *few* museums/collections?
That they sell for a lot of money? They are pretty bad/sad criteria
in my opinion, so I'm hoping you have other reasons.

I think a much better test for art is that the object/image invokes
emotion in a powerful way... For me, these don't even come close to
doing so.


They do me. The emotion is amazement that anybody would actually pay good
money for such crap. And awe for Rineke's abilities as a con woman. And
disgust with myself for not thinking of so obvious a scam.

Not the "I'm 23 and I say I'm an artist so I do whatever
I want and what I call art is art"

So you are saying that doesn't happen? Or just *here*..?

no, but the "I studied the content
of hundreds and hundreds of years of art over some decades of my life
and it was a deep and very, very disciplined studying".

Then can you briefly summarise your conclusions for us about what makes
a fine art piece, or did you mean *Rineke* did that (and that ergo we
must accept that whatever she does is art to the finest degree)..?


A friend of mine studied the content of hundreds and hundreds of years of
art over some decades of her life, even ran a major museum for a while, and
she does not even pretend that that gives her the ability to _create_ art.

Signed,

The Devil's Avocado... (O;


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  #52  
Old August 7th 06, 04:44 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Lou Pecora
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default I like Rineke Djikstra

In article . com,
"Bill" wrote:


That sounds like a must have DVD. Daniel Seraphine was on drums for
that Chicago song. Please don't ask how I remember that obscure piece
of trivia.


Yes, it's a good DVD (Disraeli Gears by Cream). Not only do you get the
songs, but you get the history of how they did each one with interviews
from the past and recently with Cream and others who know them.

-- Lou Pecora (my views are my own) REMOVE THIS to email me.
  #53  
Old August 7th 06, 05:04 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Frank ess
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,232
Default I like Rineke Djikstra

J. Clarke wrote:
wrote:

wrote:
Because I have a sense of humour. And it IS crap.
--
Paul

Man. The more you say it's crap the more you show ignorance, stop
it


Call me ignorant too. I think they are woeful. You said yourself,
quite early in this thread:
"..you can recreate this shot on any English afternoon within
minutes
perhaps.."
"..nevermind that the picture looks like it was shot with a
disposable point and shoot.."

Don't those words tell *you* something?

Sadly a significant amount of art is an accident. Sometimes it has
nothing to do with quality images - a series of blurred/mangled
rubbish can often become 'art'. Why? Why NOT? Art is all about
desirability. Not about being technically, or even artistically
good. And it can also be about luck (or luck-by-design - if you
happen to know an art gallery curator/collector/raconteur, pretty
well *anything* can be made into a desirable collection...)

And if you *want* drab/boring/fuzzy/technically incompetent images
for effect/mood (and they *can* be very effective, don't get me
wrong - I'll Holga with the best of 'em!) - why not use *exactly*
that type of image, and call them art?

Is there anything wrong with that? Nope.

Is there anything wrong with people like Paul (and me) calling it
rubbish? Nope.

Should images like these be promoted as something to aspire to?
(grin)

Why don't *you* answer that, casio? - and tell us how *you* would
go
about it. Or if you don't ewant to, why not exactly? You've
already
indicated that it should be easy to take similar shots... so....
???

It's indisputable that these pictures have a tremendous
amount of art.

On what basis precisely? That they are in a *few*
museums/collections? That they sell for a lot of money? They are
pretty bad/sad criteria in my opinion, so I'm hoping you have other
reasons.

I think a much better test for art is that the object/image invokes
emotion in a powerful way... For me, these don't even come close
to
doing so.


They do me. The emotion is amazement that anybody would actually
pay
good money for such crap. And awe for Rineke's abilities as a con
woman. And disgust with myself for not thinking of so obvious a
scam.


Andy Warhol was operating in just such a vein, but seemed slightly
less subtle and with just a little different focus. Not that there is
anything wrong with that.


Not the "I'm 23 and I say I'm an artist so I do whatever
I want and what I call art is art"

So you are saying that doesn't happen? Or just *here*..?

no, but the "I studied the content
of hundreds and hundreds of years of art over some decades of my
life and it was a deep and very, very disciplined studying".

Then can you briefly summarise your conclusions for us about what
makes a fine art piece, or did you mean *Rineke* did that (and that
ergo we must accept that whatever she does is art to the finest
degree)..?


A friend of mine studied the content of hundreds and hundreds of
years of art over some decades of her life, even ran a major museum
for a while, and she does not even pretend that that gives her the
ability to _create_ art.

Signed,

The Devil's Avocado... (O;


Seems to me "Art" or the Art-ness of a given display is likely to fall
somewhere on the Gaussian curve of worthiness. Each of us will develop
a sense of standard deviations from the mean, and I think agree in a
surprising number of cases. The instances when there is little accord
are those whose resonances do not immediately succumb to blending
effects of statistics; they will, eventually.

I still think Rineke's art earns a place on the Art curve, perhaps
even a bit above the mean; however, like the sad-eyed puppies and
children of yesteryear, the proportion of crap-content is relatively
high. Not that there is anything wrong with that. It's just a little
irritating that someone loves their adoptive, retarded children more
than mine.

--
Frank ess

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I like Rineke Djikstra [email protected] Digital Photography 51 August 7th 06 04:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.