Is there anything about fine arts photgraphy in this forum?

[Jed]

I mean seriously, how often have you seen the bulk of esplanade photos or the usual xmm poses under "fashion". Put it crudely, it is the camera that is doing the job more than the photographer.

Just to play devil's advocate. How does it make a difference? Taking the legal standpoint for example, copyright exists in a photograph whether the photographer took hours to achieve his shot or just grabbed it out of the car window. Nor does it matter if the idea is not original, which means that the law recognises the photographer as the author of the work even if the Esplanade shot for example requires little real creativity.

Go start searching on flickr and you will find MILLIONS of good-looking photographs but few make impact. In another words, there is no depth in the photographs. For commercial or stock, they work fine but they're nothing outstanding.

Personally, speaking both as a lover of photography, as well as a student of photography (ie approaching this from both approaches), I find that if a photograph is "good-looking" then it has "impact". But perhaps we differ in what we consider "good-looking"; I wouldn't consider a run of the mill Esplanade shot "good-looking" for example.

Also continuing the devil's advocate trend, there are many people, and I suspect that would be the majority of people, who would rather look at a well-executed photograph of the Esplanade than a Jackson Pollock original. Run of the mill or otherwise.

There is also a common misconception that a good photograph needs to be aesthetic.

I largely agree with your point, but again the flip side to this is, there is also a common (mis?)conception that fine art needs to be different, which very often manifests itself in the form of throwing conventional ideas of art out the window.

If you are really interested, toss away that camera book and start searching our local libraries for books on photography rather than cameras.

As in the previous post, I couldn't agree more. My Masters degree was totally about photography and completely not about cameras at all; thinking about it I'm not sure we ever discussed a camera and we certainly never mentioned a camera model. Or brand.

If you were to look at it, the lighting isn't always perfect, nor the focus, nor the composition. But there is a deeper meaning in this photographs.

Question. If the same set of pictures were taken with perfect lighting, focus, and sound composition, would the set of pictures still have the same "deeper meaning", and would they be stronger or weaker for it?

If you approach it honestly then I suspect you and many others of the same ilk would argue that the more technically correct (and conventional) set of images would be too... commercial even. But the question to ask is why does art reward flawed technique, intentional or otherwise?

Personally I can appreciate certain forms of work of this type, particularly when the flawed elements contribute to the photographer's vision and message. (I liked the linked images, to be clear). But in some instances some artists are wont to utilise flawed technique as the only way that they can stand out.

 

[nstclicks]

the difference I see between the average photographer in the UK is that they are focused on the image, while the average photographer in Singapore is focused on the technology.

Is it really that much different ? I see the same sort of comments in non-Singaporean forums as well. Admittedly, my impression is that Asians change their handphones more often than Westerners, so maybe that's true of their cameras as well.

 

[Jed]

Is it really that much different ? I see the same sort of comments in non-Singaporean forums as well. Admittedly, my impression is that Asians change their handphones more often than Westerners, so maybe that's true of their cameras as well.

Ooooh yes. Like night and day.

I guess in any society you'll get your share of gearheads, but there is a big difference in the affluence of Singapore society and most others.

Possibly in America there is also a certain emphasis on equipment, but certainly in the UK almost all the photographers I know focus on the photography and the camera is the tool. In Singapore that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

 

[zaren]

Ooooh yes. Like night and day.

I guess in any society you'll get your share of gearheads, but there is a big difference in the affluence of Singapore society and most others.

Possibly in America there is also a certain emphasis on equipment, but certainly in the UK almost all the photographers I know focus on the photography and the camera is the tool. In Singapore that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

i agree wholeheartedly with you.

this should be required reading for all newbies aspiring to become better photographers

 

[forward]

This is the thread that real photographers
have been looking forward to.

One will never grow when one's choice
is to follow the crowd.

Remember kites rise against, not with,
the wind. Dare to be different, dare to
change old mindset, dare to be more
open to fighting the "tough man"

A combine force against all those
rules will lift your images to a higher
level.

 

[night86mare]

Possibly in America there is also a certain emphasis on equipment, but certainly in the UK almost all the photographers I know focus on the photography and the camera is the tool. In Singapore that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

i second this.

americans tend to focus more on the gear, somehow.. but then again... ok i shall not go on.

the brits i know do not ask silly things like "which camela you use to make this"

 

[night86mare]

no need to define it.

you'll know it when you see it.

listen to the guy, and visit his flickr stream.

and then try to get him to post more in clubsnap instead of hiding on flickr. :bsmilie:

 

[night86mare]

that's because in the past the cameras didn't make a difference, not in the IQ dept at least. These days you can have good gear to make up the lack of skills, and so many people get the impression good gear is everything. Besides photography in the past really took skills, not just in the artform, but in operating a camera. Skills that are not attractive to a regular joe. These days they are automated, anyone with fingers will be able to use 1, hence the popularity. We humans like to pick up things that are easy

actually, i don't think good gear can make up for the lack of skills. really.

 

[night86mare]

well, just another viewpoint on "fine art" or not.

i like new concepts, i like cool ideas.. truth is, i don't appreciate all of them. i've come across images where loads of people laud it as being "art".. gone into the louvre and seen touted masterpieces, i feel nothing. tupi guy once said to me (or at least words to that extent or meaning) that conveying your vision to some people, that is what you should be aiming for.. which is right, you can't please everyone.

that is fine, and i agree, that is lacking in singapore. everything seems to be done in a set way, in particular in P&P. there is not much exploration here, in particular in clubsnap. most of the people bothering to explore something new, they don't get much attention, if you notice. sooner or later, they just lose interest in posting here since the crowd is not conducive for what they are seeking to portray. so they move on, move out. and it's a vicious cycle. you just end up with the people doing the same thing, at the same time (hence welcome the mass photoshoots).. i don't know about you, but i find it boring, stifling.. and when the technical parts are not up to par (oversmoothened skin, bloated face syndrome, upturned noses) it just makes it worse.

at the same time, i think it is important to not fall into that trap - where you shoot for the sake of trying to be different.

suffice to say i think we all can more or less see certain people doing it. yes, this is different, but if you're not passionate in it, why try so hard? if you have a nice idea, share it with someone whom you think you can pull it off better, who has the vision, who has the energy to want to see it through. producing a half past six half-baked version of a good idea is almost as bad as not doing it at all - you should only do your best in something you start.

i seem to be veering off in many different directions here.. i guess what i'm trying to say is:

1) stop caring about what others think of your work - i don't mean, sit around and say "this is art and it is good because i say it is art" - i mean, consider comments properly, sit in the person's shoe, think of why they say what they say. if they like it, don't have to take them too seriously; if they don't like it, the same applies.

2) self-critique, self-critique, self-critique, but not to the point of beating yourself up

3) shoot the thing that makes you want to sing when you are shooting it. not the thing that people give you praise on - if the two are coherent, good for you. if they are not, just keep working at it. if anything, something will come of it, it is only a matter of time, and whether you are serious enough.

4) at the same time, be aware of your limitations

i guess that's about it. i'm sure many of us here (in particular on this thread) want to see a greater diversification in terms of styles, subjects, themes.. to be honest, it isn't the location, it isn't singapore's fault that it is small.. there is just some desire for a plunge into compartmentalisation, where clicking every thread in a particular section sometimes just results in every tab looking the same.

 

[maddyks]

i agree wholeheartedly with you.

this should be required reading for all newbies aspiring to become better photographers

This guy, Bruce Percy, is utterly awesome. And that link you have posted was the first I ever read. Stopped me from being an utter gear head (tho i am a bit of one). And if you send him questions on email and stuff, he replies to them personally. a very nice guy

 

[havocidal]

well, just another viewpoint on "fine art" or not.

i like new concepts, i like cool ideas.. truth is, i don't appreciate all of them. i've come across images where loads of people laud it as being "art".. gone into the louvre and seen touted masterpieces, i feel nothing. tupi guy once said to me (or at least words to that extent or meaning) that conveying your vision to some people, that is what you should be aiming for.. which is right, you can't please everyone.

In reference to your remarks about the works in the louvre, one reason you feel that way is because you don't know enough about it. In another words, you are passing judgement with limited knowledge. Put it in another analogy, I am sure everyone in Singapore recognizes the "No Smoking" sign. But if I were to use the same sign and show it to a native in some far away land, they will not be able to make sense of it. Same here, because your definition of what is "good" is accumulated by what you've gone through in life, namely the media. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to put you down here. There are reasons why those masterpieces are where they are, and it can only be a fair judgement only if you understand them more (the historical/social/political context at the time where the work was created)

that is fine, and i agree, that is lacking in singapore. everything seems to be done in a set way, in particular in P&P. there is not much exploration here, in particular in clubsnap. most of the people bothering to explore something new, they don't get much attention, if you notice. sooner or later, they just lose interest in posting here since the crowd is not conducive for what they are seeking to portray. so they move on, move out. and it's a vicious cycle. you just end up with the people doing the same thing, at the same time (hence welcome the mass photoshoots).. i don't know about you, but i find it boring, stifling.. and when the technical parts are not up to par (oversmoothened skin, bloated face syndrome, upturned noses) it just makes it worse.

I don't know how much interesting photography works you have seen nor shall I assume. But believe me, many Singaporeans here barely push themselves. There is no attempt at trying to be different, and that is sad. The only reason why the technical parts are not up to par is because they make no attempt at it. Let me show you something:

http://lyndonwade.com/

Yes he isn't a fine art photographer, but he makes an attempt to be different, and is successful at that too. Something everyone should be attempting. Pushing their work further and creating works with thought. The only reason why there seems to be little interest is as I have mentioned in my earlier point. Being too influenced by the media, by the mainstream stuff. And to some people on this forum, their idea of a "good work" is stuff you see in your magazines, advertising etc. Stuff that has been media-influenced.

One the other hand, one of the very few people in Singapore whom I can think of is doing something unique will be Jing Quek and I applaud him for that. I'm sure many of you guys know him.

http://www.superhyperreal.com/

Sure, there will definitely be people who will disagree and think his pictures are cheesy. But I think there is a lot more in his work other than mocking at our local culture in a tasteful manner.

at the same time, i think it is important to not fall into that trap - where you shoot for the sake of trying to be different.

I fully agree with you on this. While I won't deny that there are definitely pieces of work in the fine art world that is too much on concept and falls short on technical execution. That could possibly be because of my experience in the commercial and the fine art training that I receive. For me I believe then when you can master both sides, that's where you create works that have real value. Not only do you fulfill the fine arts side, which is carrying a strong message/statement in your work, but you've also fulfilled the commercial side, which is to make your work speak to the masses. Some of such personalities include Annie Leibovitz and Tim Walker.

suffice to say i think we all can more or less see certain people doing it. yes, this is different, but if you're not passionate in it, why try so hard? if you have a nice idea, share it with someone whom you think you can pull it off better, who has the vision, who has the energy to want to see it through. producing a half past six half-baked version of a good idea is almost as bad as not doing it at all - you should only do your best in something you start.

While I do agree that the best ideas need good execution to live up to, I'm afraid I need to disagree with you on this. Especially the "share it with somebody whom you think can pull it off better". That works for the commercial design world, where the art director handles the art direction of the work and the photographer executes to fulfill the art director's vision. This is commonly seen especially in advertising photography.

If you're talking about fine art photography on the other hand, you play the role of both sides, which is the execution and the concept. In regards to producing a half-baked version, you must understand that a masterpiece is never done until you have decided to call it. If you feel your body of works are not representational of what your vision is, rectify it. Shoot more, but don't shoot blindly. As for the many photographers on this forum, I dare say a good number of them do already have the technical skills. Since that have already accomplished the first step, why not push it to the next level, and give their work meaning, rather than just taking pretty pointless postcard-worthy photographs?

 

[night86mare]

In reference to your remarks about the works in the louvre, one reason you feel that way is because you don't know enough about it.

that may be true, but i feel nothing when i look at winged victory, or mona lisa. i don't see how knowledge about an artpiece should affect how you feel about it. if say, it is a photo essay, maybe the pictures were meant to be paired with text, meant to be explained - fair enough.

but a sculpture, a painting - the creators certainly did not say "hey, you must know xxx knowledge, before you like it." anyways, we digress, i am a self-confessed plebian so that does not matter.

One the other hand, one of the very few people in Singapore whom I can think of is doing something unique will be Jing Quek and I applaud him for that. I'm sure many of you guys know him.

now, you haven't seen quite enough actually, if you think it is unique.

i mean no disrespect to mattlock, but personally i don't think the idea is particularly unique. the execution is great, the refinement of the idea is good, but it is by no means a groundbreaking idea. that said, i do like his work.

While I do agree that the best ideas need good execution to live up to, I'm afraid I need to disagree with you on this. Especially the "share it with somebody whom you think can pull it off better". That works for the commercial design world, where the art director handles the art direction of the work and the photographer executes to fulfill the art director's vision. This is commonly seen especially in advertising photography.

you missed my point about passion.

if the idea you have thought of doesn't make you go bananas, or doesn't really appeal to you, and you force yourself to execute something just for the sake of being different.. don't go the extra mile to realise the full potential of the vision .. it shows in the work, and that much is a fact - it just means that it isn't technical shortfall, you just don't have the liking for what you thought about.. and the work just looks like you slapped it together for the sake of being different.

anyhow, i am curious why fine art HAS to be different. take for example some of the "fine art" examples at ipa 2009,

http://www.photoawards.com/en/Pages/Gallery/zoomwin.php?eid=8-8426-09&count=0&code=Fine Art
http://www.photoawards.com/en/Pages/Gallery/zoomwin.php?eid=8-8544-09&count=0&code=Abstract

to be honest i don't find michael levin very vastly different from the masses of long exposure fans on flickr. no doubt the execution is great.

i'm not sure if i even feel anything from this:

http://www.photoawards.com/en/Pages/Gallery/zoomwin.php?eid=8-4152-09&count=0&code=Abstract

this doesn't seem particular groundbreaking, other than the fact that it was taken in a cold place:

http://www.photoawards.com/en/Pages/Gallery/zoomwin.php?eid=8-12398-09&count=0&code=Landscape

same for this:

http://www.photoawards.com/en/Pages/Gallery/zoomwin.php?eid=8-7314-09&uid=55318&code=Landscape

in fact, for the last, i have seen shots from the location before on naturescapes, which i won't really consider a "fine art" inclined forum.

i think something we have to think about when we emphasize "being different" is that it has been all done before, one way or another. if people think it is different, i can honestly tell you, maybe not. maybe somewhere in a corner of the universe some poor photographer who doesn't have the money to access the internet and post his works online had done it already. who knows?

what i'm trying to say is - "fine art", whatever it is, shouldn't be about being different. it should be about.. pushing what you really think about out of your minds - and i just refuse to believe that in singapore, all that runs through people's minds are girls doing victory signs in bikini.

 

[havocidal]

that may be true, but i feel nothing when i look at winged victory, or mona lisa. i don't see how knowledge about an artpiece should affect how you feel about it. if say, it is a photo essay, maybe the pictures were meant to be paired with text, meant to be explained - fair enough.

but a sculpture, a painting - the creators certainly did not say "hey, you must know xxx knowledge, before you like it." anyways, we digress, i am a self-confessed plebian so that does not matter.

I think you're missing the point here. It's not about you needing to have ____ knowledge in order to appreciate it but because for the general public who do not have such knowledge, they do not fully understand the context at which the work was created. It's like a bunch of physicists who made a new discover and you look at it as a 3rd party and go meh. You're simply looking at these works at a very superficial level.

One of the things you need to take note is that you cannot compare such works with modern day artworks. People were leading a different lives then, the appreciation of art isn't the same as of today. If you really read up on art history, you will know how even contemporary artists today have drawn inspiration from different periods and how one movement has led to another.

There is a much deeper understanding than just oh it is nice or oh it isn't.

 

[night86mare]

There is a much deeper understanding than just oh it is nice or oh it isn't.

well, to each his own.

this, i disagree. to me, requiring knowledge to appreciate art, or an explanation seems pretentious.

anyone can explain away a line on a wall. to me, it remains a line, and if the explanation is convincing and alluring, fine and dandy, the artist is a great writer. that doesn't make him a great artist, just a guy with a line on a wall and nice prose.

if i have to place myself in the shoes of a person living in an earlier period to find something nice.. then that, is also pretentious to me. maybe it is not for you, but it is for me.

 

[havocidal]

well, to each his own.

this, i disagree. to me, requiring knowledge to appreciate art, or an explanation seems pretentious.

anyone can explain away a line on a wall. to me, it remains a line, and if the explanation is convincing and alluring, fine and dandy, the artist is a great writer. that doesn't make him a great artist, just a guy with a line on a wall and nice prose.

if i have to place myself in the shoes of a person living in an earlier period to find something nice.. then that, is also pretentious to me. maybe it is not for you, but it is for me.

you still don't get it do you? right now you sound as ridiculous as a person saying "eee why so blur one?" for a photo with DOF.

This isn't about being pretentious.

If you enjoy looking at the commercial stuff on the market by all means go ahead. Just FYI, alot of the commercially accepted stuff came from the fine arts. The principles of lighting we see (portraiture) came from Italian Renaissance. Not some random guy on youtube who teaches you to light.

 

[havocidal]

Here's another example.

Star Wars IV: A New Hope won several awards including Best Visual Effects. At the point of its creation, it was way beyond many other movies in the CG department. If you're going to look at it now and go meh, no big deal, that's because you're looking at it in the modern context. You can't compare today's visual effects with it. The technology is different now and then, and the same goes for the works at the Louvre and photography we see today. Just a sidenote, much of the works in the 17th Century actually got more realistic as there were artists who used photography (camera obscura) to aid them in getting the right proportions/depth-of-field. Artists such as Da Vinci came before that period, and what he could do was beyond many others.

 

[night86mare]

you still don't get it do you? right now you sound as ridiculous as a person saying "eee why so blur one?" for a photo with DOF.

This isn't about being pretentious.

If you enjoy looking at the commercial stuff on the market by all means go ahead. Just FYI, alot of the commercially accepted stuff came from the fine arts. The principles of lighting we see (portraiture) came from Italian Renaissance. Not some random guy on youtube who teaches you to light.

well, that's my view, and i'm entitled to the view that art has to stand on its own. by itself.

maybe i don't get it, but i'm honest about it, and it is a view that isn't founded on the spur of the moment, it is built up through the years, and i can explain my reasons for doing so.

can you explain YOUR reasons for liking art other than its status? no artist aims to please everyone, i would like to think, yet here you are, hoping that we are all pleased by them. and you do not think that is ridiculous?

Here's another example.

Star Wars IV: A New Hope won several awards including Best Visual Effects. At the point of its creation, it was way beyond many other movies in the CG department. If you're going to look at it now and go meh, no big deal, that's because you're looking at it in the modern context. You can't compare today's visual effects with it. The technology is different now and then, and the same goes for the works at the Louvre and photography we see today. Just a sidenote, much of the works in the 17th Century actually got more realistic as there were artists who used photography (camera obscura) to aid them in getting the right proportions/depth-of-field. Artists such as Da Vinci came before that period, and what he could do was beyond many others.

:bsmilie:

that's film. now you're getting ahead of yourself. to suggest that that particular example gives me the idea that you think that all art is done the same way, has the same weightage put in place.

pardon me if i fail to see the link between technology being used in film making me go "wow" at a new hope, and what we are speaking broadly of here. let's see, fact remains fact, if any of the old star wars movies were shown today as a new film, they'd be laughed at. i suppose you're trying to make that point.

now, take any old picture made at the same time "a new hope" was made, show it today, if it stands by itself, it will stand by itself.

what is my point? my point is that your example is flawed, because advances in CG technology are vastly different from advancements that photography has made - it isn't that photography is less than film, or has less than film, it is just different.

same as how a painting is different from film. so many things are different from film, they involve less of technology. are you saying that an artist needs a camera to work better? does using an extremely expensive, top-of-the-end paintbrush, a million dollar canvas make much of a difference? no. i might agree with you on the above point, but it proves nothing, because different branches of art are inherently different animals.

at the same time, let's look at something involving less technology, say.. "a streetcar named desire". you show it 10 years ago, 10 years after, 100 years down the road, nothing's going to change. special CG , better cameras, these won't do anything much for that particular film. so why pick something with special effects? how many branches of art actually flow the same way as what you speak of?

you seem to profess a lot of knowledge about art, so tell me, why should i appreciate something like cubism?

come on, tell us, what is so great about this piece? maybe you can see it, maybe you can spout some quoted commentary someone else wrote on it, but can you explain why you consider it as art, if you do? if you can, please do so, so we can see how much thought has gone into it. if you cannot, then why force the idea with understanding that we can appreciate art?

is there any particular reason why i MUST accept it to be good, because people say it is good? :bsmilie: was painting something like that a particular LEAP in performance that was not accomplished beforehand?

no, you are the one who misses the point. my point is, and always has been, that art is subjective. so stop trying to shove your opinions down my throat in some bizzare attempt to prove yourself. i have my opinions, you are entitled to yours - if there was something new that i hadn't actually bothered to think about, that i didn't know about, fine and dandy. but i don't think you seem to have much to offer on the area other than prancing around and telling me that i should appreciate art that has been called art, that much is clear.

thank you.

 

[night86mare]

something for you to read, that i came across a while ago:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/may/08/art.oxforduniversity

something from somewhere.

You can't always appreciate every form of art. If I understand art to be a manifestation of the creator's emotions, insights and ideas then it has to find and speak to you in a certain way, and not everything will.

does reading more about say, chimei hamada, make me care more about his art?

maybe, if he had similar traits, if i could identify, blah blah blah. i did, and it made no difference to me, because i didn't quite see the connection between what it's touted to represent. but it's one of the few names i remember after seeing so much art in europe. which is kind of ironic, if you think about it, since he's asian and i had to come all the way here to see something that i liked that he did. i just like what he does. it's as simple as that.

 

[havocidal]

no doubt art is subjective, but you mentioned earlier on why you were not impressed. I am not saying anyone with the background knowledge should be impressed, but rather you will understand why such works are considered great.

I have never tried to force you into any beliefs. All this while I have only been explaining why such works have been appreciated, and it is beyond just this is nice or this is not nice.

I can explain to you but I rather keep it to PM. It isn't something that can be explained in a single paragraph let alone a sentence.

I have never professed to have great knowledge in art. I used to think the way you did on what art should be, until I have been exposed to art history. Nothing wrong with that. All I am doing here is sharing what I know, and I think it is really sad that all you're attempting to do is to defend yourself. I am not making an argument. I don't claim to make the best points.

Regarding the Star Wars comparison, I never said that film advances are the same as the world of photography. I was just making an illustration of how you cannot judge a current work and compare it with something of the past. It is an apples and orange comparison. You were saying you didn't appreciate it. That's fine, and I am telling you why they are being appreciated. If at the end of the day, you choose to stick to your beliefs it's your call.

Such things are way too long to be written in a single forum post. It seems like your only interest is to debunk what I have to say rather than take it with an open mind.

I am no expert here, but just to give you a general idea, many different movements of art (at least in the world of painting) started from the Impressionists. At that period of time, art was being studied as an academic subject (neoclassicism) and it came to a point where a group of French artists got so frustrated at what was considered art, they tried to break away from norms. Hence Impressionism was born, and these were the people who no longer painted realistically (unlike the Renaissance works). From there it branched out to many other art movements, such as Cubism, Surrealism, Fauvism, etc.

I am not asking you to appreciate Cubism on its own. My other friends in art school have their preferences too, but we do understand the context at which it was created. It was something out of this world at the point of its creation.

If you think it is that easy, why don't you show me something of yours, that is beyond our period. Something new, that the world hasn't seen before. It is difficult partially because of the way the world is, art is no longer controlled in the age of contemporary. There is no specific style to say it came from this period.

At the end of the day, if you wish to believe what you want to believe, then fine go ahead. I have shared what I know. You can choose to consider what I have to say and think about it with an open mind or you can find every chance to disagree with me. It's your opinion and I respect that.

 

[night86mare]

no doubt art is subjective, but you mentioned earlier on why you were not impressed. I am not saying anyone with the background knowledge should be impressed, but rather you will understand why such works are considered great.

i said that i felt nothing. i never turned up my nose and said that "hey, there's nothing great about this artwork" - i just thought that a lot of the people who were exclaiming at this or that in the louvre were just being fanboys for the sake of joining the jones.

anyways, no big deal, it's just a view i have about art.

we take what we will from it, don't you think? maybe you prefer learning more about this or that - another hated branch of study is history, it bores me. sometimes i like to find out about certain things, so that particular branch of history excites me.. beyond that.. :sweat: so perhaps you might better see where i'm coming from.

If you think it is that easy, why don't you show me something of yours, that is beyond our period. Something new, that the world hasn't seen before. It is difficult partially because of the way the world is, art is no longer controlled in the age of contemporary. There is no specific style to say it came from this period.

well, that leads us to the point i made earlier, didn't i?

"it's all been done before."

now, i don't understand anything that alberto giacometti does, but i am.. intrigued by his viewpoint on everything - what he did, how he did it, etc. i'm actually done talking here, i'm sorry if you think that i wished to debunk everything you said.. it seems that it gets that way everytime i disagree with anybody.

here's a quote:

I've been fifty thousand times to the Louvre. I have copied everything in drawing, trying to understand.

well, i don't understand either, and i've gave up trying the first time. except for photographs, maybe, since it is something that speaks more to me than anything else. cheers.