ah, i've been honored with a PDML-esque discussion. this, if nothing, makes the posting of the photo in question, worthwhile :)
i do agree that the fact a photograph is based on reality in a certain objective way is important. but, than again, i don't think it rules out abstract photography. it's just, a work of art doesn't need a history or a 'builders' manual' for one to be able to appreciate it, and if some potential abstract photo does whatever one wants in an abstract art form, than it is abstract. the fact you can trace it to film and therefore 'original scene' is meaningless. similarly, finding roots of pollock's paintings is also meaningless in respect to them being abstract or not. On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Christian <[email protected]> wrote: > ann sanfedele wrote: >> >> >> Luka Knezevic-Strika wrote: >> >>> perhaps it is just that. i tought it had a good balance and that it >>> was graphically compelling. >>> >> So do I, Luka... and a nice piece of photo-journalism... might like to see >> a black and white conversion though. >> > > At first i found it a bit jarring, but I do like the colors and geometry of > it. > > > -- > > Christian > http://404mohawknotfound.blogspot.com/ > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
