|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/24/2009
|
Of course we will never have exactly what we had in mind, Marcio! And so we continue trying though (or perhaps exactly *because*) we know that there will be always room for more perfection and we will never achieve "infinity".
But exactly *this* is the driving engine for arts, and not the sentimental nonsense of some boys and girlies sitting and advertising their ridiculous "family albums" in front of public.
And this is also exactly why we have for example only some few dozens of so great portraits like yours here in UF, and a flood of "portraits" that should be torn to pieces immediately.
This statement of yours: "photography is art and therefore it is finished when the artist finishes the work" is exactly rigt, but most ignorant wannabes will never get that. They will never get that because it implies that one has to *know* what he/she wants to have, in order to know when it is finished, ey? Or else we just sit like zombies and do things in random, that is. 90% of the wannabes here *are* actually zombies. Mindless, visionless spectres who never had a vision. This is why I am so glad to see your portraits every day. Because I see the results of a mind that did have an impression, an idea, a vision!
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/23/2009
|
Thanks a lot for the reply, Judson! Now I understand what you mean. I don't really have any intention to change anybody's primary vision but I do have some certain idea in mind and try systematically to turn it to a real existing image. So the result is not something random but rather artificial in the sense that it is generated by some conscious mind and will, which is the reason why art is called art. The artificial, anything after some conscious will or intention, as opposed to natural or random in the sense of things that happen by themselves with no conscious mind behind them. (Not to say that something natural can't change one's vision too. It's only a label for characterisation of the of the origins of any possible result.)
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Marcio Janousek
{K:32538} 8/23/2009
|
I appreciate the clear explanation and I agree with you.
Actually I think that always we have not the accuracy of the final result.
Even improving the techniques always have some interference with this result.
Because photography is art and therefore it is finished when the artist finishes the work.
May be a digital processing, a collage etc. ..
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/22/2009
|
Thanks a lot for the nice comment and the interest, Marcio!
I don't post any image that was only a random result, even if it is a good random result. What I do in such cases like this is that I do have some certain idea, much like an image in mind. Then I start using different lights, obects, camera shofts, etc, in a very systematic way, in order to understand what is going on, and in order to be able to say what kind of means will bring me the result that I wish. As the time passes by, and if you keep on studying, comprehending the results, you also develop a logical reasoning that allows you to translate the look and feel of the image that you carry in mind to clear and definite actions that you have to take. So, after that the decision is easy and the "predicted" effect is very near to the real existing one.
The digital camera itself is no problem for quriosity. It is the complete false understanding of most people, even here, about what is important. Most people adopted the "quick and easy happy shooting" that is advertised all the time, It is our times that bring the problem of inferior mental interest for photography, and for many other things too.
One advantage of folm photography is that most things are much more difficult, more cumbersome. It sounds strange, to say that this is an advantage, but examining it thoroughly one can see that it brings the necessity to deal seriously, consciously with such matters. So one can comprehend better and better what is going on and then to also conclude logically about the look of the image that was taken under certain conditions. That's a big difference with the typical mindless photography from the sides of "chewing gum sunny guys" with vacuum in their heads. It the difference between consuming and delight.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/22/2009
|
Thanks a lot Jacques!
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Judson Borges
{K:6727} 8/22/2009
|
"Interesting" is your way to see your subjects and present them to us with some effect or composition changing the primary vision of people. This is art.
Congrats, Judson.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/21/2009
|
Thanks a lot Judson.
What do you find "really interesting" here? Just out of curiosity, that is.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Marcio Janousek
{K:32538} 8/21/2009
|
I think very good and techno experiments that you use in your work Nick, always trying to differentiate from the common shot.
I ask if your works are premeditated and intensional .. or are random?
I believe you already have the idea what it will become.
With digital cameras, this curiosity ends in a few seconds.
I liked the waterfall and mainly white lights that cross it and stand; hugs.
|
|
|
|
|
jacques brisebois
{K:73883} 8/21/2009
|
nicely seen and done Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Judson Borges
{K:6727} 8/20/2009
|
Very nice capture dear Nick.
It's really interesting.
Best regards, Judson.
|
|
0 
