Artist/photographer

torags

Thought this guys work may be of interest here.

Others here have posted ancient history links, this is current events (going to exhibition opening this month)

With PS photos, collages and water color; he can tie together the economic dichotomy (in this shot) in one frame that would be geographically impossible with conventional photography.

by Gottfried Salzmann


Medium: mixed media, photograph on canvas

http://www.franklinbowlesgallery.com/Shared_Elements/ArtistPages/Salzmann/pages/salz-home.html

teedee

well... if you want an opinion,
im a litle offended actualy.... its super bad...
this has nothing to do with photography or a political remark, its just garbage.

bdcolen

Well, teedee, I'll grant you that it has no relationship to photography as we present and discuss it here, but "super bad?" Or "garbage?" Wow, that's pretty harsh. I have to say that I find some of it to be quite intriguing as mixed media.

Richard

I think the accepted term is "art using photography." It's nothing new--goes back to cubist and surrealist work in the early 20th century, in which pieces of photographs and newsprint were combined with paint media to produce collages. And don't forget Moholy-Nagy, whose photographs looked very much like some of his paintings and whose "photograms" dispensed with the camera altogether by exposing photo-sensitive paper directly to light with objects on top. More recently, the photorealist painters have further confounded the line between painting and photography by creating works that are so life-like that it's hard to tell whether you're looking at a painting or a photo. One I saw not long ago even had blown highlights .

Personally, I find all of this stuff very attractive. I think it needs to be seen in person to appreciate the different textures and qualities of light, which are lost in reproductions. It's certainly not the kind of photographic art we discuss here normally, but we can all benefit from exposure to different ways of seeing.

black mamba

I think Richard is right. His response pretty much gets to the core issues here. We can all learn something from being exposed to different interpretations and expressions.

Tom

torags

teedee wrote: »

well... if you want an opinion,
im a litle offended actualy.... its super bad...
this has nothing to do with photography or a political remark, its just garbage.

First welcome aboard (6 posts)

Allow me to respond...

I wasn't looking for an opinion, simply posting a photogs urban photography work for the benefit of those here who might be interested in some "frontier" work. Yes, it is outside the conventions practiced here, hence the interest to the curious

Offended?.... hmmm you are easy...

Super bad?... You're entitled to your opinion

nothing to do with photography? Perhaps to those who can't see. This is a composite image of individual photographs. Notice the skyscraper cityscape layers of different saturation, nicely done.

So factually you are wrong there.

Garbage? Well he has representation in NY & SF and people pay thousands for his work, I guess they don't think it's garbage (and he's still alive). How much have you sold you work for?

Seems to me, you might like to temper your opinions about other photogs work.

bdcolen

We all are aware of your opinions regarding photography and art, Raggs, and I had assumed that you put up that post as provocation - and it worked. ;-) But there are a couple things you say that really don't make a lot of sense.

(I preface this by noting, again, that I find the work quite intriguing, and really enjoy some of it. That said...) Can you possibly contend, with a straight face, that the fact that people have paid thousands of dollars for one artist's work, and haven't bought another's, means that the former is 'good' and the 'latter' is bad? Really? So that must mean those Keane paintings of wide-eyed waifs are great art, because Lord knows people have paid countless millions of dollars for them. Oh, and Kincaid and his 'works of light?' Great art, right? Van Gogh? One of the all-time greats? Only sold two paintings during his life time? Gauguin? Laughed at. So let's pass on that one.

Next, I'd suggest that a photographer is someone who uses some combination of lens and capture medium to focus - or defocus - light rays and create an image, not someone who builds works of arts out of numerous photographic images and may even then paint on those images. Yes, that person is creating art, but not as a photographer.

Finally, you suggest that we temper our opinions about other "photographers" work. Why? Are we not entitled to our opinions? I love the work of some photographers, I find the work of some to be vapid, and then there are those whose work I find vile. Am I not entitled to express those opinions?

torags

bdcolen wrote: »

We all are aware of your opinions regarding photography and art, Raggs, and I had assumed that you put up that post as provocation - and it worked. ;-) But there are a couple things you say that really don't make a lot of sense.

# It wasn't put up as a provocation, your conclusion is incorrect. As stated it's an example of how some photography is practiced

(I preface this by noting, again, that I find the work quite intriguing, and really enjoy some of it. That said...) Can you possibly contend, with a straight face, that the fact that people have paid thousands of dollars for one artist's work, and haven't bought another's, means that the former is 'good' and the 'latter' is bad? Really? So that must mean those Keane paintings of wide-eyed waifs are great art, because Lord knows people have paid countless millions of dollars for them. Oh, and Kincaid and his 'works of light?' Great art, right? Van Gogh? One of the all-time greats? Only sold two paintings during his life time? Gauguin? Laughed at. So let's pass on that one.

# The judgement I made was that people were NOT paying for what they consider garbage.

Next, I'd suggest that a photographer is someone who uses some combination of lens and capture medium to focus - or defocus - light rays and create an image, not someone who builds works of arts out of numerous photographic images and may even then paint on those images. Yes, that person is creating art, but not as a photographer.

# I disagree. You may be right concerning documentary photogs, but they are not creating the "art" that you have previously hung your hat; they are capturing within the frame a moment, their craft skills may embellish the image. Composite photography is art using photos since the photographer is imagining and composing something the camera didn't see in one shot.

Finally, you suggest that we temper our opinions about other "photographers" work. Why? Are we not entitled to our opinions? I love the work of some photographers, I find the work of some to be vapid, and then there are those whose work I find vile. Am I not entitled to express those opinions?

# As stated, we are entitled to our opinions - how we phrase them is a reflection of our civility.

Juano

Richard wrote: »

I think the accepted term is "art using photography." It's nothing new--goes back to cubist and surrealist work in the early 20th century, in which pieces of photographs and newsprint were combined with paint media to produce collages. And don't forget Moholy-Nagy, whose photographs looked very much like some of his paintings and whose "photograms" dispensed with the camera altogether by exposing photo-sensitive paper directly to light with objects on top. More recently, the photorealist painters have further confounded the line between painting and photography by creating works that are so life-like that it's hard to tell whether you're looking at a painting or a photo. One I saw not long ago even had blown highlights .

Personally, I find all of this stuff very attractive. I think it needs to be seen in person to appreciate the different textures and qualities of light, which are lost in reproductions. It's certainly not the kind of photographic art we discuss here normally, but we can all benefit from exposure to different ways of seeing.

Good answer Richard, balanced and constructive as always.