Bill Atkinson's Kentucky Series Photographs (mystic, Articles)

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Buttercup

My guess is fairly early in the morning. What do you think? The faint and soft blue of the sky in the outer perimeters of the pic lead me to that thought.

I agree. Early morning or perhaps even late in the day. But I'd bet the sun isn't high in either case. Besides the delicate lighting in the sky, the trunks would be lighter if the sun was high up, wouldn't they?

I still am wondering about what filter he might have used.

I think the lace of the branches is so typical of the Eastern Woodlands, even though these are probably trees in something like a hedgerow rather than a stand of timber.

[Buttercup]

Originally Posted by michel

Hmmm......Good, but not that special .....

Not sure if you're referring to the Atkinson photos in the OP or the art posted by me and Purex but that statement is what I'm talking about art and its subjectivity. You might not find a piece of work special based on your tastes at the moment. What I enjoy is that there are no 'rules' in art or music selections..we're allowed to have specific opinions and we can't be criticized for it like in politics!

My taste changes over time and really varied anyway to start with...I had a framed print that I LOVED 10 years ago...I gave it away recently because I didn't like it anymore...Do you find that happens for you as well?

The images you posted Michel are lovely......

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

LOL! Are you not into nature photography, by any chance? Those are very interesting, PureX, but we'd be comparing apples and space probes to discuss them here. Why not begin a seperate thread for those fascinating works?

Oh, I like nature photography OK, it's just my personal taste that tends to lean toward the bold more than the subtle. Here's a few I picked from a nearby web site. They aren't great photos but they give an idea of what I mean.

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

Photo 5

[Sunstone]

I notice four of your five photos, PureX, have a huge, prominent, even central, human presence. I'm curious: Is that of any significance to you?

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I notice four of your five photos, PureX, have a huge, prominent, even central, human presence. I'm curious: Is that of any significance to you?

Not particularly. I think the reason it's there is because the juxtaposition of human design contrasts more overtly with the 'lack of design' of a natural scene. I like art that makes you look at it, rather than letting you walk by it unnoticed. And I also understand that art is a specifically HUMAN activity. Even though as a human being I can read pertinence into a purely natural scene (through the artist's act of selection if nothing else) but when I look at art I hunger for that "round trip ticket through another human being's soul". I want to see the human in the record of the art activity because art is a human activity. And because I'm a human being, craving intellectual and spiritual intercourse with other human beings.

This is just a personal thing. But having been a working artist for many years, and knowing how incredibly difficult it is to actually get artwork in front of the public through a gallery, when I see art, I want it to make the most of it's moment in front of me. I want the artwork to jump at me and assault me. I want it to grab me by my shirt collar and scream in my face. And after all that bluster, it damn well better have something pertinent to say! *smile*

Subtle is good, too, but if an artwork is quiet and subtle, it better have some real depth and substance, and it better be willing to let me see it without making me work very hard. I dislike art that makes the viewer work to understand it. To me, that's an act of arrogance on the artist's part, when he/she should be humble and grateful to have someone want to look at their artworks. The world is confusing enough without artists getting all full of themselves and expecting their viewers to have a master's degree in art theory before looking at their artwork.

Mostly, when it comes to nature photography, or any photography, the best part to me is that anyone can do it, and do it incredibly well. The down side is that there are so many good photos out there that they kind of all get lost amongst each other.

Of the photos above, I actually like #5, best. Though in truth none of them are astounding.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Buttercup

Not sure if you're referring to the Atkinson photos in the OP or the art posted by me and Purex but that statement is what I'm talking about art and its subjectivity. You might not find a piece of work special based on your tastes at the moment. What I enjoy is that there are no 'rules' in art or music selections..we're allowed to have specific opinions and we can't be criticized for it like in politics!

My taste changes over time and really varied anyway to start with...I had a framed print that I LOVED 10 years ago...I gave it away recently because I didn't like it anymore...Do you find that happens for you as well?

The images you posted Michel are lovely......

Stragely enough, with art (as in pictures, Paintings,etc) I don't thinbk my taste has changed much over the years; that may well be because I am not that interested in pictures as a form of Art. I am so concentrated on music I guess that takes up all my 'artistic energy'.

My taste in pictorial art is 'childish' (as in very basic); I am happy with the Flemish artists (who mostly did portraits), and with (for instance) Constable for landcapes.

Though this picture below (which you can immediately see has been air brushed ) is the sort of thing I love too. I guess I am easy to satisfy.