|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/28/2008
|
Of course there are extreme differences between the two persons and their techniques too, Yazeed. That's not unknown. It is the very general concept that we consider here, namely *how* to approach such things. And the approach cannot be based in "liking" or "disliking". We can only appraoch such works by considering other things than that.
We consider for example introduction of new techniques for achieving something that was only vision priorly. Picasso introduced the line, or marriage of flatness with perspective. Dali introduced the flowing exagerration of perspective, or the natural desintegration of shape. But they both did that *flowless* and that's exactly why they are some of the very strongest pioneers of creative work. This is why their work is appreciated and not because perhaps I happen to like them. I could also like anything else, any kind of incompetent work.
For example I like the Rolling Stones too though they are quite incompetent as musicians. This is only my taste but I can't say that they are "good musicians" only because I like them. On the other hand your son plays alone much much better than all of the Rolling Stones together. Even if didn't like the music your son plays, I would *have* to admit that it is extremely well done! This is the difference! And so your son's work might be not "liked" by most people, but it has to be judged as very good by the measures of arts.
I can't just my taste above these things and declare what is good or bad according to that. Of course I can say that I like something but this doesn't have to do anything with "good or bad". At the end, I also like photographing cities much more than anything else. But don't expect anybody to say that my images are good only because they happen to like cities like me.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
M jalili
{K:69009} 8/26/2008
|
Dear Nick .
I believe that there is a very large difference between Dali and Picasso.
Picasso serving propaganda by the half-educated. The Dali is the opposite of that completely.
This is what I believe in the personal level. This does not mean that there is no errors when Picasso or Dali. Dali work where many of the stories suggest, to respond to the poor with Picasso work.
But many remained Dali more than Picasso .
REgards ....
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/26/2008
|
We introduce the measurable quantities exactly for neutralizing bias, Yazeed! You don't judge a photo in an exhibition according to the biased taste. That is always very subjective. For this reason we have measurable quantities like for example contrast, or sharpness. These are defined quantities under well defined conventions. As an ecample, I *liked* France much much much better than Italy in the last world cup, but *Italy* won because they had more goals. And that's the very definition of the game, no matter if I like it or not. Most people keep on having that confusion in their heads about what an exhibition is, instead of asking first about what is that, that makes an image "win"? And then of course, if somebody has a certain "feeling" about how things work, then the things have to work after the own impressions. But judging about an image is something completely different than liking it. This is the definition of that.
The reason Picasso (and many many other guys) are good is not if I "like" them or "dislike" them. That's irrelevent for the judging. It is only relevant for me. For the judging about, say Picasso, you forget your own "liking" or "disliking". There are many other things that play a huge role for that. Like for example Picasso's ability to transform his pictures in mind to real existing images that you then cna look at. Anything else would be a failure, since the maker wouldn't have shown to the spectator what he/she wanted to show, but something less similar to his/her own vision. So, if I take an image after some idea I have, and if the image turns to be "good" but *not* what I wanted, it is then a photographical failure.
How can we know if the artist, the producer, the maker succeeded into translating the viusion to something real exisiting? First of all: Sincerity! Picasso was sincere enough to destroy ten times as many things as he exposed to public. (As you can see, the artist doesn't work "accidentaly".) People who saw what he disapproved from the own works, were amazed because they also "liked" those specific works. But this "liking" doesn't count.
Or take for example Dali. It is his amazing technical ability to *materialize" his abstract worlds in mind, and not the mere ideas that he had. Ideas we all have and also tastes. That's piece of cake. But the artist, and so the critique too, do not stay on "liking/disliking".
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
M jalili
{K:69009} 8/25/2008
|
Dear Nick .
In my opinion this is not true in all cases.
Bias of human qualities. Since the arbitrators are human beings objectives that it exists.
Do you think that the fees Picasso was a good stage for him. I think that is what makes Picasso is known for the absurdity of people at that point in time .
Yours Yazeed .
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/25/2008
|
Of course, Yazeed. Where there is much work we will always have man mistakes too. No other way than that. But we must also refer to the mistakes for avoiding them on some later work, and get a bit better.
The images that win competitions are not judged by "liking" and "disliking". This would make it impossible to say which one is best, since no personal taste can be used as a general method. Whose taste should be used at all? And why? The images that win competitions are judged by many criteria, and it is absolutely possible to say that some image is well done *despite* the fact that we might also not like it at all.
Cheers and all the best,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
M jalili
{K:69009} 8/24/2008
|
There are a lot of work that might be where a lot of mistakes. But the issue remains floatation and subject. More importantly, this is what impact the work of an internal sense to an audience.
Not all the photos that win the exhibits are good and not all the photos that did not win is not good .
Yours Yazeed .......
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/24/2008
|
Thanks a lot once more, Yazeed!
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/24/2008
|
They are damaged indeed, Harry, but I don't find anything good or anything bad on that. If the image is OK then the state of the real existing object behind the image is irrelevant to me.
The colors I find OK too, but I think that the contrast got some extra points just because of the two almost complementray colors here, which means that my "contribution" was less than it seems.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/24/2008
|
Thanks a lot for the nice comment and the generous rating, Aziz!
The HDR look might be partially the result of the almost complementary colors here.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
M jalili
{K:69009} 8/23/2008
|
Beautiful my dear . Regards .............
|
|
|
|
Wolf Zorrito
{K:78768} 8/23/2008
|
Good colors here. Pity you first beat up the flowers, they are a bit damaged. Lovely flowers !
|
|
|
|
aZiZ aBc
{K:28345} 8/23/2008
|
Just excellent, Nick. Looks like HDR images !
Shiny leaves and flowers are very beautiful.
7+
Aziz
|
|
0 
