Making art photography is an exercise that is not related to accessibility or like-ability. Most people can master a technically good photograph with today's cameras. Many people can make a good photograph in a compositional sense. Not many produce art.
It is the intent, the expression, and the interpretation together that define a piece as art, and also provide a meter as to whether it succeeds or fails in the context of the artist's intent. Without intent, no photograph is art ... they're all just pretty pictures or documentary recordings of a scene. To look at photographs purely as pretty pictures and insist that they must be accessible to all is to miss the vast majority of the ideas, emotions, expressions that photographers might wish to convey. This saddens me. There is room for pretty pictures and art photographs in the world to coexist. It is not necessary that every photograph be a pretty picture, or be a piece of art. And it is also not necessary that every piece of art be accessible to every person's appreciation, or even if it is, be liked by every person who appreciates it. If you see a photograph that you don't "get", you can comment, or not, as seems fitting. If you want to try to understand it (or more specifically, understand the photographer's intent behind it...) and expand your ability to appreciate such work, commenting and/or asking a question is the only way to go. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
