|
|
Mark Hamilton
{K:8387} 4/5/2006
|
Hi Roger
We can agree to differ which is good but i subscribe to a lot of things you have mentioned. i too have added you to my friends list and I most certainly will check out your site incident series.
Thanks for the discussion I look forward to more.
Regards
Mark
|
|
|
|
Roger Skinner
{K:81846} 4/5/2006
|
yeah.. I also subscribe to the notion that we can use our work just sit expressionless, joyless, no impact you know that sort of thing.. and will often take pleasure in creating such images, if you go back and have a look at my Site Incident series on UF you will see what I mean.. some of the landscape in the series is classic non classic stuff the no frills deadpan landscape .. what did Andy Warhol say "can you see beauty in ugliness" I dont want to start an international incident so we can agree to differ .. suffice it to say I have added you to the friends stash so I can surf your portfolio.. look forward to more lively discussions!! Peter Eastway is editor of Better Photography Magazine hear in Oz ..it aslo goes to NZIPP members. c ya
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Hamilton
{K:8387} 4/4/2006
|
Hi Roger
I agree with you totally. Images don't need a focal point to work and you shouldn't become enslaved to such rules but if they don't have it they need something else to succeed. Jackson Pollock whom I am a fan of is a great example. His large gestural paintings have no focal point but they succeed for me because I love how the colours work with each other sometimes bleeding into each other or at times completely taking over. The share scale of some of the work is breath taking.
A photograph to work for me has to evoke some sort of emotion. It has to make me feel something or tell me something that I have not previously known before.
Your reply comment has gone someway towards that and puts the image into more of a context and the image is certainly stronger for it. The image presented by itself doesn't offer me with any of this information so I judge it as I see it.
Thanks for sharing.
Cheers
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Skinner
{K:81846} 4/4/2006
|
Yeah hear what you are saying Mark but after Pollock's “Lavender Mist” Halls “Untitled 1974” and Mudford's “Lewis Commission Parliament House” stuff does one have to be a slave to focal point? I think not.. I also reckon that a quick look at the (landscape)work of Ian Lobb and Peter Elliston will bear me out. I am reminded of James Tyrell’s (see the Roden Crater) question to Robert Hughes..”so what are we looking at? well I hope you are looking at your looking so that rather than it being a journal of my seeing you are in fact engaged in the self reflexive act because there is no focus there is no record” Further when I was considering the image I also saw it as a further possible grave site to add to the now closed Site Incident Series on this site. With regard to the weather you are dead right but as I said on the first image from the Barry Way stuff (go back a few) I gave explanatory remarks re the day and critical to all tourist experience is the notion that one may be in that destination for one day only (as was the case here) and it is up to the photographer to rise to the challenge and let the interpretation fit with the lighting dull and boring.. so be it.. this is not the landscape of grandeur this is the landscape of the bypassed the forgotten the despised and illegitimised all that was beautiful in this valley has been ruined as a result of the Snowy Mtns Scheme and this river valley struggles to survive. Thanks for your thoughts
|
|
|
|
Rashed Abdulla
{K:163889} 4/4/2006
|
another wonderful landscape here , very beautiful , all of the best
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Hamilton
{K:8387} 4/4/2006
|
Hi Roger
Brave attempt. I'm sure there is a picture here somewhere but this may not be it.
There is too much happening in this image. One half of the frame dominated by the rock the other half dominated by the bush. So I find the image a bit confusing with no strong focal point.
The light is also too flat which doesn't compliment the wonderful textures. A great location I'm sure but not on this day.
Mark
|
|
0 
