I was photographing new snow on the trees while out skiing yesterday morning and something reminded me of the sweater I’d seen the Fashion Queen put on that morning for the breakfast meeting she was going to. Since I had Dualities on the mind after yesterday’s POTD, I took Connie’s photo in the sweater when I got home and created this new Duality image.
I took the photo on the right last week, the photo on the left eleven years ago. There’s a similarity of course, but I’m still surprised this tree reminded me immediately of a photo from over a decade ago that I don’t even have a print of hanging around anywhere.
In regard to the earlier photo, although I wasn’t crazy about finding a wet dog on the bed, I let her stay there and not just because I wanted to get this photograph. Favored dogs have a way of getting special treatment sometimes.
Read the rebuttal to Jonathan Jones’ commentary on photography as art here (also in the Guardian).
It’s been over 180 years since the first photograph was taken and it’s been almost that long since the arguments over whether or not photography is an art started. The recent sale of a Peter Lik photograph for $6.5 million has prompted the Guardian writer Jonathan Jones to stir up that controversy yet again. Jones says “Peter Lik’s hollow, cliched and tasteless black and white shot of an Arizona canyon isn’t art – and proves that photography never will be.” (See the full article here.)
Given there does not seem to be a generally accepted working definition of what is art and what is not, it seems pointless to argue whether or not a specific piece of work is art or not. Ignoring that niggling logical issue, I will just say that as long as a small canvas can be painted one single shade of white with no texture (think large paint chip) can hang as a valuable contribution to the art world in an institution as august as the Tate Modern in London, then pretty much anything you want to call art is in fact art.
Jonathan Jones article adds nothing to the debate on whether or not photography is art. In fact he spends most of his time not even addressing the issue, instead explaining in detail why he doesn’t like the image. Since when does a particular person’s tastes have anything to do with whether or not something is art? Perhaps that old saying “I don’t know much about art but I know what I like” applies here. Or better yet, how about “I can’t define art but I know it when I see it.”
(In case you’re wondering, except for the price I’m not particularly impressed with Lik’s image. But that wasn’t my point here.)
Duck, Duck, Goose
Two many geese and not enough ducks for this title to be truly appropriate but it was what came to mind. I took this because they reminded me of this (much better in my opinion) photograph I took in Santa Fe some 14 years ago:
We’ve got some big windows in the gables on our new house. I think one of them needs a goose but that opinion is not shared by my in-house decorator who vetoed the idea.
When I took this photo a couple of weeks ago after our first big snowfall of the season, I got the impression that these houses were nestling into the trees to ride out the winter like some flock of birds. Our week long spate of 50 degree weather has since melted the snow blankets off of just about everything in town so it wasn’t such a long term hunkering down as it seemed it was going to be.
These clouds above the Gallatin Range south of Bozeman were doing a darn good imitation of mountains themselves.
I took this photo right around Halloween so I assumed the spruce tree had decided to go trick or treating as a birch tree. The costume is only partly convincing. (It’s actually a birch stump nestled into the branches of the spruce.)