Two Blue Buckets

jerry12953 said:
It's my opinion. We're talking opinions here.
Click to expand...
You claim to have an opinion about his work (that's dismissive of it), and yet you can't articulate that? Isn't something missing there?
 
droj said:
You claim to have an opinion about his work (that's dismissive of it), and yet you can't articulate that? Isn't something missing there?
Click to expand...

No, like I said I found it so lacking in interest that it didn't really register in my consciousness. I found his idea about what constituted landscape rather strange.

it was several years ago.......
 
Last edited:
A negative prejudice with little basis, then. Curiosity might have been a healthier option. You couldn't see what was there, so you threw up your wall. I realise that your puzzlement is genuine, but it's as if you were too impatient for the nature of Tom's work to seep through your wall.

And what does constitute landscape, then?

At least you don't suffer from mouth and trousers syndrome!
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
Thanks for posting some of your photos, the cat in the headlights and the behatted pensioner in the fog both work for me, with the latter giving me a melancholy feeling. Without getting 'poncey' about it, it makes me think... is it a metaphor for us getting older, slowly plodding on until we gradually fade away and disappear? Does it represent loneliness? Is that place a cemetery or a garden of remembrance where the person has been visiting a dearly departed relative or friend? And I think that's what art should do, as well as entertaining us or amusing us, etc.. But that's just my take on it.

The cat in the headlights also makes me think a bit, is the cat just crossing the road, is it sniffing some roadkill or a discarded take-away, or has it been using a chainsaw (my 'humorous' side speaking up in my head again there!). So what do you see in them, Keith, and which one is your favourite and why?

I've not looked through your Flickr account yet as I haven't had time, but I'll enjoy a look when I do. As for mine, it's not a side account, it's the only one I have; I just use Flickr as a hosting site so I can post photos on here. Most of it is photos taken on film (as with the 'animals' shot) as I generally hang out in the Film & Conventional section of the forum... one of those people who likes to use vintage and classic cameras and go back to my roots to take photos 'the hard way'. :rolleyes: So I don't usually upload my digital 'stuff'. I suspect it would be just as eclectic as you say yours is if I did.

So come on, who's next to show us some of the photos they took that they consider is/are art? I'd love to see some more; and it would be good to know what others have 'seen' in those photos too. :)
Click to expand...

Tbh my Flickr is a random mess, until you go into the albums I guess. You're spot on, kind of, on the images, and thanks for the feedback. My favorite is the old man walking into the mist. He was walking that slow I could easily have passed him and got him coming toward, but it wouldn't be the same, so perspective is important. I wanted to get across how I felt walking along behind him at that moment, I slowed right down to remain behind him. I wondered similar to what you got from it. It was freezing that morning, and there was an eerie silence, it was in a park that houses both a Priest's college and an old mansion that is now used for counselling, it also has a wildlife section which is where I had planned to go but the fog hampered any hopes of that. I don't know which of the buildings he had come from, or indeed, where he was going, but I knew when I took the picture it was going to be a favorite. I could see how I would process it right there and then. And this old man, wandering home into the mist, would be forever oblivious that he made me ponder that morning, and that he would make it to my Flickr page. Melancholy is the word I would use

Again, I got it wrong, I thought like some, you had a side account that you used to troll or whatever, it happens.

Btw the cat is our own :D one of 2, she is the night prowler, I took that shot at something like 3am out front of the house. I was surprised to see a car coming, and it was just perfect timing to illuminate her sprinting across to come get her night feed [she knows I'm always up really late and she'll get a snack before retiring to the sofa]
 
droj said:
A negative prejudice with little basis, then. Curiosity might have been a healthier option. You couldn't see what was there, so you threw up your wall. I realise that your puzzlement is genuine, but it's as if you were too impatient for the nature of Tom's work to seep through your wall.

And what does constitute landscape, then?

At least you don't suffer from mouth and trousers syndrome!
Click to expand...

You do seem to have strong opinions on what consitutes art and what other people should think and feel. Why not just accept what I say? And for what it's worth, I seem to remember the presentation of the work was rather poor, in terms of mounting and framing, as if it had been thrown together rather quickly. But perhaps that was intentional?

And I'm still waiting for your explanation of what "two blue buckets" actually means.....or have you moved on from that?
 
Poor old Kyffin had a chip on his shoulder ...

jerry12953 said:
I seem to remember the presentation of the work was rather poor, in terms of mounting and framing, as if it had been thrown together rather quickly. But perhaps that was intentional?
Click to expand...
It wasn't 'poor', Jerry, it was informal, and of course intentional. There's no reason that I can think of why art seems to be beyond you, maybe you could relax your prejudices a bit. Let it seep in. No need for the wall.

I explained the 2 buckets in post ... #75. The meaning is the message and the message is in the picture as I described. The language is photographic. There's no further intellectualisation necessary.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
Poor old Kyffin had a chip on his shoulder ...


It wasn't 'poor', Jerry, it was informal, and of course intentional. There's no reason that I can think of why art seems to be beyond you, maybe you could relax your prejudices a bit. Let it seep in. No need for the wall.

I explained the 2 buckets in post ... #75.
Click to expand...

You claim to have explained the meaning of "two blue buckets" but I see no explanation there.

I am getting a bit cheesed off with your personal comments, pretentiousness and condescension, Roj. Now where's that "ignore" button?
 
Mr Badger said:
The 'joke' (if it can be called that) is that people seem to see the photo and not notice the pigs, but when that is noticed I think the looks on the faces of some of the animals tend to take on a new meaning? It's more quirky than jokey really, but I think it might show how people's interpretation of a shot can change, with us making up our own 'story' based on what we see. In reality they're just lumps of wood, but we first see them as little animals, and then perhaps read something into the expressions they seem to have?

I must say, I do like those project photos you've taken, Ed; some interesting takes on the lives we lead there, so keep on doing it. (y)
Click to expand...

I can see how the pigs pitcure could work like that when shown to people outside of a thread vaguely discussing art. (y)

When it comes to my projects they seem to fall into two camps - the decidedly documentary and those which could be labelled 'art'. However, I am loathe to label any of my pictures with a genre. I think the Tom Wood 'landscape' pictures are a case for not putting pictures into genres. As I said, I really enjoyed the exhibition, but there were a number of pictures which weren't landscapes by any stretch of the imagination. I just found there were a lot of pictures which held my attention regardless of the label put on them. One reason for the way the work was displayed might be explained by something a gallery assistant told me about Tom Wood trying to add picture s to the show while it was being hung!

I have a couple of books by Tom Wood and one by @jerry12953 . They may use different approaches, different sensibilities and present their work in different ways but I'm interested in looking at all sorts of good pictures regardless.

Photography is a democratic medium. There's room for a broad spectrum of approaches to it. None are inherently superior to any of the others. What's more, photographs can inhabit different areas at the same time.

When it comes to art, however, I think Joel Meyerowitz summed it up nicely : “What is the art experience about? Really, I’m not interested in making “Art” at all. I never, ever, think about it. To say the word “Art”, it’s almost like a curse on art.”

And David Hurn nailed it for photography : "It [photography] is about a person trying to show someone else what they are personally interested in, in a way that the viewer might not have seen"
 
Cagey75 said:
You weren't invited to talk on someone else's behalf. All you do on here is moan like a demented little child. The adults sort it between themselves, they certainly don't need a know nothing like you backing them up.
Click to expand...


Pot............kettle; except you enjoy being rude - normally indicates an inferiority?
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Pot............kettle; except you enjoy being rude - normally indicates an inferiority?
Click to expand...


You're an expert on psychology now too? Any more hidden talents? :rolleyes:

I enjoy being rude to certain types only.

There's already one childish argument playing out in this thread, let's leave it at that. I have more than made up for my part. Where's your examples of art btw?
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
You're an expert on psychology now too? Any more hidden talents? :rolleyes:

I enjoy being rude to certain types only.

There's already one childish argument playing out in this thread, let's leave it at that. I have more than made up for my part. Where's your examples of art btw?
Click to expand...

Keith - I have no examples hence I am keen to try and learn - I hope that is OK ?
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Keith - I have no examples hence I am keen to try and learn - I hope that is OK ?
Click to expand...


You surely have some photos that you consider art? I'm not waiting to critique, just like to see what you got is all. I normally wouldn't post up a string of my images and claim them to be art, but when asked to do so I found it refreshing tbh, to dip into my past images and chose some I actually really like. I rarely ever do this.
 
Cagey75 said:
You surely have some photos that you consider art? I'm not waiting to critique, just like to see what you got is all. I normally wouldn't post up a string of my images and claim them to be art, but when asked to do so I found it refreshing tbh, to dip into my past images and chose some I actually really like. I rarely ever do this.
Click to expand...

Seriously Keith, you are welcome to look at my Flickr account (it's certainly 'no great shakes') but as i have tried to explain on numerous occasions before - the taking of the photograph has given me as much enjoyment as the final image but I now want to learn more about my hobby.

My flickr account is here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147585014@N03/albums
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Seriously Keith, you are welcome to look at my Flickr account (it's certainly 'no great shakes') but as i have tried to explain on numerous occasions before - the taking of the photograph has given me as much enjoyment as the final image but I now want to learn more about my hobby.

My flickr account is here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147585014@N03/albums
Click to expand...


Some really nice stuff there, in particular the MF film images, also the B&W street. There's certainly a bunch of images on there I would deem to be art or artistic
 
Cagey75 said:
Some really nice stuff there, in particular the MF film images, also the B&W street. There's certainly a bunch of images on there I would deem to be art or artistic
Click to expand...

Never holds a 'grudge' no matter what you say to him - hence I quite like you in an internet way Keith!
 
Dave,

That was a really excellent post. I would never claim that any of my work was "Art" and l have often wondered whether it is actually "Photography" either.

I think l remember you saying that you have the Pembrokeshire book? I have always hoped that a collaboration between a photographer and an author should be just that - a real two-way process - but it hardly ever has been. In this case the author suddenly got some tv work and l was left trying to predict what he would (eventually) write about.....

I'm aware that my own work often straddles boundaries or falls between two stools - landscape/documentary or landscape/wildlife.
This could suggest that one is working in new areas and thus producing something worthwhile. But equally some people find pigeonholes are preferable and if you don't fit one they can't relate to it.

Back to the two blue buckets. I've been pondering this one over the last couple of days and have an inkling of what its success might be down to. It might be a reaction to what photogrphs are traditionally "about", which is the spectacular, the beautiful, the meaningful, the interesting..... lt is none of those things. It would therefore appeal mainly to those with a knowledge of the history of photography and a desire to subvert these traditions.

I thought l would throw that in.....
 
jerry12953 said:
Dave,

That was a really excellent post. I would never claim that any of my work was "Art" and l have often wondered whether it is actually "Photography" either.

I think l remember you saying that you have the Pembrokeshire book? I have always hoped that a collaboration between a photographer and an author should be just that - a real two-way process - but it hardly ever has been. In this case the author suddenly got some tv work and l was left trying to predict what he would (eventually) write about.....

I'm aware that my own work often straddles boundaries or falls between two stools - landscape/documentary or landscape/wildlife.
This could suggest that one is working in new areas and thus producing something worthwhile. But equally some people find pigeonholes are preferable and if you don't fit one they can't relate to it.

Back to the two blue buckets. I've been pondering this one over the last couple of days and have an inkling of what its success might be down to. It might be a reaction to what photogrphs are traditionally "about", which is the spectacular, the beautiful, the meaningful, the interesting..... lt is none of those things. It would therefore appeal mainly to those with a knowledge of the history of photography and a desire to subvert these traditions.

I thought l would throw that in.....
Click to expand...

Thanks Jerry.

It's Wales at Water's Edge which I have. It currently nestles between A Landscape of Wales by James Morris and Lifeboat by Nigel Millard on my bookshelves. Two very different books, the former pretty firmly in the 'art' category and the latter a promotional book for the RLNI. To the collector of photobooks only the Morris would likely be worthy of consideration. To me all three are books which have photographs in them which I like to look at from time to time.

Photography seems to play second fiddle to words in a lot of people's minds. Photographs seen as 'mere illustrations' to the prose. Which may well explain the TV work for your accomplice on ten back of 'his' book. A sad commentary of teh regard in whoch photography is held, and the visual awareness of the majority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top