mbaggs Loc: Daphne, AL

In one of the links in this thread is the Photographer/artist starting that there isn’t anything in any of her images that was was not there when photographed, no photoshopping used. One I remember is her story on what it took to get the divers holding the car still in the water with the girl swimming. As far as shadows go I can attest to the magic of what cinema lights and screens can do to shadows on a set.

markjay

No photoshop.
Staged photography.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

They could be telling the truth and still present a composite/edited image.

This is a small section of "The Extras, 2019". Let us look at the light/shadows.
The blue projection lines are all parallel. These represents key points of the shadow projected to the ground.
Except on the areas marked with a blue question mark they are cohesive with the main element.
On the mark near the foot, the corner of the magazine and the ladies knuckles are missing. They were not projected on the ground.
On the mark near the hat, the second point of the handkerchief is also missing. We know that it should project a shadow because the hanky on his chest is well lit by the main light source.
If we now look at the orange projection lines, We can see that although these are also all parallel, they are the same light source but coming from a different angle. The orange projected the shadow that appear in the hat and the anomaly near the foot.

This tells me that this came from at least 2 photos where the light could be the sun and it had already moved when the second photo was taken.
They can thus say that "there is no element there that was not photographed" but this is still 2 (or more) merged photographs. Probably not Photoshop if they are saying "it was not shopped" but the shadow anomaly shows that it is a composite/edited image.

The green projection line shows the lighting direction of a secondary light source that created the shadow on her legs and on the paper she is reading. If we look at it, unlike the main lighting, it converges and when referenced to the full photo, a possible location of this lighting fixture would be behind the clown. Either hidden by the clown or was erased on editing.

The full photo with the clown can be seen here:
https://www.lehmannmaupin.com/exhibitions/alex-prager6

mbaggs Loc: Daphne, AL

Who knows, maybe so... In the end it doesn't matter to me. I just like her work and am amazed at the effort she put into them.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

You say it as if it’s a bad thing. Yet this is how many people enjoy art and there is nothing wrong with that. They are enjoying the art that’s what matters. There is no rule that says you have to be an Art major to enjoy art.

srt101fan

The attitude I object too is the one that says that if I like it it's art, if I don't like it it's trash (or bad art). That's arrogant and narrow-minded ignorance....

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Thank you. I agree!

And there it is, you have defined the roots of the problem, which is not only a problem in Art but other areas of our culture as well.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

It looks bad because you snipped the message which is a rebuttal to your previous comment which is not good. There you speak as if you know so much about art that it gives you right to belittle my opinion yet you compare 2 different genres which has absolutely no comparison.

JD750 wrote:

"You make me wonder if you have seen a Van Gogh in person. The Mona Lisa is an icon but can’t compare artistically, in my opinion, even to other works by Da Vinci. In the Louvre, crowds gather around the Mona Lisa while ignoring the works of Titian in the same room or stunning works by Raphael and Da Vinci out in the hallway before stepping in. Van Gogh’s are amazing in person. Just like a Michelangelo, in person it has characteristics that make other works around it seem inferior."

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Attitude, yes if required.
Please read back the thread and my other similar posts why the "narrow minded arrogance".

This is not about the specific art being trash or not because of my personal liking, This is not me bashing your choice and appreciation.
Rather its about the money & business culture that clouds it. People have different taste, but when knowledgeable individuals manipulate something pure into twisted tales of lies, that is where the trash comes from.

I said it before i'd say it again.

"if an artwork requires it to be explained to be appreciated, then it is not art"
That is made-up lies to increase the objects or persons worth.

"I am stating that the value being attached to (some artwork) is ludicrous and the (they are fooling others to accept a) point of view (causing) people are buying into it is (with their) just a grand sales pitch.

Anything can be looked upon as art. But not all art is good. That is my critical and narrow minded view.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

JD750 wrote:
"You make me wonder if you have seen a Van Gogh in person. The Mona Lisa is an icon” ... etc

You are confused. I did not say that. Dossile said that.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Sorry.
But i did mean that it look awful because the message was snipped.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

It wasn’t intended to look awful. It was intended as light humor. I’m sorry if you were offended. That was not my intent.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

7 Things Van Gogh Can Teach Us About Photography

https://digital-photography-school.com/7-things-van-gogh-can-teach-us-about-photography/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=July-1620

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

I'll remind myself to be less serious in UHH

dat2ra Loc: Sacramento

As a Geologist, I could easily tell that the car over the cliff is a model.