>Jeanette's Comment: I“m curious why you make the images you make >when you don“t like beautiful images
I like beautiful images, but I'm trying to get beyond the "usual beautiful": sunsets, skies, women (I never had a chance long enough with this subject here, isn't it funny, I'd love to have a serious chance once, I know I look at them differently too), babies, butterflies, flowers, dogs and cats, etc etc etc
I'm trying to do less usual subjects and less usual viewpoints.
>to work with conventional compositions and so on, cause i can >see in your shots thats really important things to you. >AND, to try to breake the rules you must know them very very well, >first of all, and to breake them is still to work with them.
You are very, very, very much right. I'm not trying to go "against", and as it happens I can't leave traditional composition - it keeps returning in half my photos, I was educated that way, it became "built-in".
But I would like to go beyond, transcend, experiment, etc. I'm not being too successful, in my personal point of view, but I'm determined to try.
Some people here (and at other sites) are absolute examples of alternative composition and technique. My reference is now after 1990, but NOT Jeff Hall. A few older ones like Kishin Shinoyama, Bill Brandt and most of those I mention in my profile are definitely very interesting to me (and I'll keep stressing Friedlander, Eggleston, Steven Shore).
At some time I was into the concept of Technically Perfect Banality, and I still think it works. But I think that now I lost self-importance and am just snapshooting banality, which is a refreshing idea (to me). While I was stuck with the idea of technical perfection and imitating american street photographers... I stopped photographing completely!!! That's been over 2 years, almost. I mean, in what regards experimentation and new stuff (new for me). I even went to see a doctor (similarity with writer's block).
Most of my recent and unimportant stuff is at one of my blogs and now getting to the Scrap section of my DeviantArt page (pointlessstuff.deviantart.com).
>The composition and perspective is the way we see and understand >the view around us, the crop is the way we make our image language.
Hm. Please notice one thing: if you show a photograph to someone who has never seen a photograph
TADA! that person doesn't understand the image, not even if it's the photo of someone he/she knows well. You have to TEACH people to see photographs.
It's a cultural construction. It's not in the least immediate. That was a revelation to me (that and the monkeys and Cartier-Bresson story I have in my profile.)
>It“s rather in the crop i have seen something interesting >ongoing theme in your work.... if you see what i mean. I also >think that in the space "inbetween" there is something interesting... >but as soon as trying to explain it, it“s not longer there....
Thank you. That's very flattering. Maybe I'm getting near to somewhere somehow.
I“m curious why you make the images you make when you don“t like beautiful images, to work with conventional compositions and so on, cause i can see in your shots thats really important things to you. AND, to try to breake the rules you must know them very very well, first of all, and to breake them is still to work with them. The composition and perspective is the way we see and understand the view around us, the crop is the way we make our image language. It“s rather in the crop i have seen something interesting ongoing theme in your work.... if you see what i mean. I also think that in the space "inbetween" there is something interesting... but as soon as trying to explain it, it“s not longer there.... Jeanette ps, this one is very conventional :)
0 
{K:41945} 5/20/2006