Let me begin by saying, "To train oneself to see through the fog of bias is the purpose of this post".
larryepage wrote:
I think that's not fair. That would be the same as looking over the artist's shoulder and making a review of a work while it is still in progress or worse yet (at least with the group on this site), reviewing an image straight out of the camera before it has received any post-processing. It creates a body of review material which is in no way reflective of the actual work. Even the authorized poster versions of this work in no way really represent the actual appearance of the actual product(s). There's even a somewhat lesser problem around which of the versions of the final print should be used to represent the actual work, which, after all, is the final image, not the captured exposure.
I think that's not fair. That would be the same as... (
show quote)
I believe it is also unfair to give credence to the artwork because of fame, hype or the artist instead of letting it stand on its own. After all, we are not looking at an unfinished work but rather a separate entity altogether. Doing so is neglecting the actual effort, skill and creativity for the signature.
larryepage wrote:
Throughout this discussion, I have been trying to bring in bits and pieces of the most reliable versions of the story behind this work. There are several accounts floating around, and while we can make assessments of which ones are most accurate, we can't know for sure. It became most popular more than 30 years after the negative was made. There were times in the intervening years when Adams had difficulty selling this or any other work. His views, after all, were considered pretty radical until thinking changed enough in the '70s to accommodate and gradually accept his conservationism way of thinking.
Throughout this discussion, I have been trying to ... (
show quote)
The OP was not about who made it or how the photo stacks against its many copies. Clearly the instruction was to set aside previous knowledge and just look at what is presented and give ones personal view.
larryepage wrote:
The final topic that has not been discussed is "professional jealousy." It's rampant in the artistic world. "That's no big thing. I could do the same thing with one hand tied behind my back." And that's perhaps true. But you didn't think of it first. Or the opportunity is lost forever for one reason or another (as in this case).
As for professional jealousy, TUA is the best way to prove ones skill. No need for jealousy, just prove ones worth by his/hers creation. This will allow the viewer to have a more pure way of appreciating a work and fully realize what is good, what is not and what really touches their heart.
larryepage wrote:
When i was discussing this with my friend Hayley, she showed me an interesting photograph of another work that she has on her wall. I said, "Oh...Clearing Winter Storm." Turns out that no, it wasn't. But it is a near duplicate taken many years later by a completely different artist. Viewed other than as an image on her cellphone, I'm sure the differences would be obvious. But not the way I was seeing it. Good presentation is necessary to avoid such errors.
They say imitation is the best form of flattery. I believe in imitating to learn, not to duplicate and sell.
larryepage wrote:
The majority of us would have recognized the image you posted. Most pretty immediately. You would have tricked the others, unfortunately, by not displaying a proper representation of it. (I think it is about 800x600.) I don't think identifying the artist as TUA would have made much difference, at least in this case.
There was no intent to trick anybody and would not happen if the post were read without bias. The owner of the image is clearly there as well as the many links that speaks of the photo.
To train oneself to see through the fog of bias is exactly why such a prominent image was used for this discussion.
This was not about TUA. It was only touched because someone suggested its core value.
.