telaviv - the fucking metroplitan

[vic vic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

mp 50 28, rsx100

 

part of the project: metropolitans / telaviv

 

1. text on the wall in hebrew: privet parcking. the metaphysics of privet/public space use

2. rough nature left in the middle of urban landscape.

3. old typical telaviv building (historic value) without maintainance. usually, to justify refcostruction of the street in the future.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[MrEd]

The last one caught my eye, I'm a fan of old buildings.

Cool shots.

Thanks for sharing.

Ed.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[dan_drabek]

I think Ed is being very kind.

DD

[Guest Motivfindender]

I think Ed is being very kind.

DD

So think I.....

[vic vic]

thanks ed.

ya i also love old buildings (and other old stuff). they are the physical substance of our history (personal, social/national, and all human).

of ocurse i dont say that old buildings should not be removed, otherwise we will be stacked in the same place, but a little more care and values will be nice. )

 

daniel.. this pics are not up to you. they are not cute and pritty enough for you, they need a little "intelectual masturbration".. im telling you, not for you... you have complitly different attitude and paradagims in photography, especially in conceptual photography i beleive )

 

dirk hello ) hahhah

this is your argument, this is your criticism. to applaud, and to whome?

bravo, but this is just the same as the list of cute kitschy words and phrases u collected on the other thread. no insight, no argumentation, not a criticism at all.

just a personal provokation (sure u know what i mean) )

dont mess with me

[fotografr]

Now, wait a minute. I thought we hashed this all out and decided criticisms of our work were fine and would be accepted willingly, and here you go lashing out at two people who say they don't like the images. Dan and Dirk are right--these compositions are pretty bad--not thought out at all. They seem like point&shoot. The last one is downright terrible with all the out of focus stuff in the foreground disrupting the frame. The middle one says nothing--just a piece of dirt in the middle of the city, but so what? These are everywhere. What's the point?

[vic vic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

no brent..

you critisized the photos now.

they just said empty words about it )

 

i dont agree with you about the critics, but fully respect your point of view. you have arguments there... and my response to your arguments :

 

1. yes, there is the aethetics of almost point and shoot. a kind of unceremonized (photographically) ducumentation. i think it is a valid part and aesthetic attitude in photography. a kind of "in your face" that snapshot like photography can have when it is filled with some content.

2. dirt - ya, defenetly, it is obvoius - too obvious to notice at times. the only natural parts in cities are concidered as dirt, that is another way to look at it )

3. blurry elemnts there.. ya, i choosed to see that building in non-presentational way.

 

this is my way of presenting things. presenting the frame in specific way. like languege - you talk some content, but you can say it in many ways, beautifully, sarcastically, angry, dirty, cooly etc ....

your are welcomed to keep on with your criticism and argumantations of course.

[dan_drabek]

no brent..

1. yes, there is the aethetics of almost point and shoot. a kind of unceremonized (photographically) ducumentation. i think it is a valid part and aesthetic attitude in photography. a kind of "in your face" that snapshot like photography can have when it is filled with some content.

2. dirt - ya, defenetly, it is obvoius - too obvious to notice at times. the only natural parts in cities are concidered as dirt, that is another way to look at it )

3. blurry elemnts there.. ya, i choosed to see that building in non-presentational way.

 

I was trying to be kind as well. But since you insist. I see poorly composed images. Flat light with no sense of dimension. Subjects lacking in visual interest, with nothing that draws the eye. I get no feeling of emotion with these images. They are--as Brent indicated--snap shot quality. I've seen your other work and I think you are capable of far better than this. Photography, like any art form is about communication. In my opinion these images fail to communicate.

The attempt to explain and justify them in terms that are meaningful only to you--as you have done above--is the kind of thing I would classify as intellectual masturbation.

These shots just plain don't work. You need to let it go and move on.

DD

[vic vic]

daniel,

i dont agree with you but at least you have a point of view now )

 

no, im not justifying my picture, it is a photographic genre where pictures are not pretty and not photogenic in classical terms. photography has many faces

but again, "beautiful photography" is also valid and some love that and only that, which is ok too.

 

i would recomemnd one of the finest books about the "faces of photography":

the photographs as contemporary art. charlotte cotton. thames&hudson (world of art series): 2004.

[dan_drabek]

Then we will agree to disagree, and that's fine.

I appreciate your taking the comments gracefully.

I'll look for the book.

DD

[Guest Motivfindender]

 

dirk hello ) hahhah

this is your argument, this is your criticism. to applaud, and to whome?

bravo, but this is just the same as the list of cute kitschy words and phrases u collected on the other thread. no insight, no argumentation, not a criticism at all.

just a personal provokation (sure u know what i mean) )

dont mess with me

 

Your "art" presented in this thread is not worth more than a ironic sentence.

If I agree with someone I do. That´s it.

 

The person, who offends others - that´s you again, warming up your very unilateral way of looking down on others.

 

In the "other Thread" I gave exact arguments . But you ignore arguments.

Correct arguments for you are "demagogy" - you may refer to Aldous Huxley, perhaps?

 

In "Brave new world" , they explain the "new order":

 

"War is Peace and Peace is War"

 

and

 

"Reality is Lie and lie is reality"

 

That´s just the way you talk and perhaps the way you live.

If one gives you some arguments, you will not accept them, so this short sentence is all you get. These pictures are not worth more than that, for the person behind them, it seems to be the same.

 

Poor man!

 

 

I was trying to be kind as well. But since you insist. I see poorly composed images. Flat light with no sense of dimension. Subjects lacking in visual interest, with nothing that draws the eye. I get no feeling of emotion with these images. They are--as Brent indicated--snap shot quality. I've seen your other work and I think you are capable of far better than this. Photography, like any art form is about communication. In my opinion these images fail to communicate.

The attempt to explain and justify them in terms that are meaningful only to you--as you have done above--is the kind of thing I would classify as intellectual masturbation.

These shots just plain don't work. You need to let it go and move on.

DD

 

Thank you Dan, one couldn´t get to the point with better words than like that.

 

Dirk

[rob_x2004]

Bit busy Vic. I cant fathom without your introduction.

[vic vic]

hi rob, ya i guess in the limited context here it needs a little intro, anyway, i will probably upload some time later the full series of this project, dont have the prints back rite now, and a bit lazy with scannings and computer processings.

 

 

oh oh dirck.

oh, now you complitly exposed yourself. read again my comment,

the "other thread" that i have mentioned was agreement with you: here it is... wait let me find the link:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/26867-criticism-pleasant-photography-4.html

see what i mean ?????????????

and you gone too far, big mistake ) fully exposed... told your - dont mess with me....

 

 

what is that boolshit ?? peace war war peace??? who talks about that here? or there? or there? or here?

 

 

go on dear, go on, you may not like me, but i like your chalange ) but please, though funny, but dont be so boring next time )

 

 

imants.. now you too say that it doesnt work...

man, maybe im too much with the impression of the prints on the wall of this project (though most prints are not huge). dont know, something maybe missing even with my intro in this presentation here - the different format ???

anyway, thanks all for your critiques of course (except dirck - with him, i have open account from now and on)... booooooh dirck, kidding )