Let me elaborate on my point that the more the camera becomes dominant in culture; the more that people can create images, the less and less grow the chances of success for the artist as dilution drowns the genuine talents - prior to digital, professional photographers aped the painters exceeding them in speed, ease, and distance from subject via telephoto intimacy. In digital, EVERYONE is Cartier Bresson; EVERYONE is Fellini; EVERYONE is a content producer. Of course I do not mind that technology is useful to others; I simply remark that the class of humans who recorded the visual testimony and character of the human experience - the artists - have now been outnumbered by the digital populace so their works being seen as worthy are so much reduced as their technical imitators vye for social oxygen approval. Something like that. 101 years ago an artist such as Serebriakova had to know perspective, oils, canvases, lighting; today? Not so much so, a la Helmut Newton (still an artist but an easier form), or Malcolm Let Me Hack Your Concept McClaren. :/ / :P - Hey, life goes on . . . text - da gama / image Zinaida Serbriakova / Bath, 1913 via Fayrene Artist If you need social or art criticism for hire, I am your boy. ;) / lolzzzz - ♛ ~ / ~ OM odysseystudiodagama / ₪ We are TOTM The One & The Many ₪
Posted on: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 21:20:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015