Photo cubism

"amenfoto" wrote in message

I’ve been experimenting for a while with a sort of "photo cubism," and other techniques which you can see at the following link:
http://www.amenfoto.com/blog/archive/2005_08_01_archive.php# 112343365558306089

"amenfoto" wrote in message

I’ve been experimenting for a while with a sort of "photo cubism," and other techniques which you can see at the following link:
http://www.amenfoto.com/blog/archive/2005_08_01_archive.php# 112343365558306089

That is not even remotely cubism.

in article
wrote on 08/07/2005 3:00 PM:

"amenfoto" wrote in message

I’ve been experimenting for a while with a sort of "photo cubism," and other techniques which you can see at the following link:

http://www.amenfoto.com/blog/archive/2005_08_01_archive.php# 1123433655583060 8>> 9

That is not even remotely cubism.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

"Larry Linson" wrote in message

in article , johnboy at

wrote on 08/07/2005 3:00 PM:

"amenfoto" wrote in message

I’ve been experimenting for a while with a sort of "photo cubism," and other techniques which you can see at the following link:

http://www.amenfoto.com/blog/archive/2005_08_01_archive.php# 1123433655583060 8>> 9

That is not even remotely cubism.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

No, my opinion is authoritative. Cubism is a known esthetic. You can try to make things up as you go along, but it just shows ignorance.

in article
wrote on 08/07/2005 7:28 PM:

"Larry Linson" wrote in message

in article , johnboy at

wrote on 08/07/2005 3:00 PM:

"amenfoto" wrote in message

I’ve been experimenting for a while with a sort of "photo cubism," and other techniques which you can see at the following link:

http://www.amenfoto.com/blog/archive/2005_08_01_archive.php# 1123433655583060 8>> 9

That is not even remotely cubism.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

my opinion is authoritative.

Not to anyone but you.

Move on little boi.

"johnboy" posted:

"amenfoto" wrote in message

I’ve been experimenting for a while with a sort of "photo cubism," and other techniques which you can see at the following link:
http://www.amenfoto.com/blog/archive/2005_08_01_archive.php# 11234336555 8306089

That is not even remotely cubism.

Right. But it shows what a big difference there is between art and mechanical manipulation. And what geniuses Braque and Picasso were to invent cubism.

– Max

—
MisterMax

http://buten.net/max/
Slideshows of Angkor Wat, Bali, Crete, France, Malaysia, Maui, Morocco, Mt Holly, Myanmar (new), Sicily, St Tropez, Singapore, Thailand (new), Tour de France.

http://pbase.com/mistermax – Shadows and Reflections

MisterMax,
"mechanical manipulation:" you mean like the camera you use to take photos? Do you use photoshop to "mechanically manipulate" YOUR photos? Is something not art because a mechanical manipulaltion was used? Do you really believe there are RULES as to what TOOLS can be used to CREATE art? Do you not know that Picasso and countless other artists have used mechanical devices like cutting torches, etc. to create metal sculptures? Mechanical saws to cut wood for artboard and installations?

Although, as JohnBoy says that cubism is a "known aesthetic," I never said my images were cubism, which shows multiple views and passage of time, I referred to it as "photo cubism," which isn’t defined as a genre in the way that bauhaus, expressionism, plasticism, neo-plasticism, etc. are. David Hockney’s Polaroids are some of the few which have been termed such, but although dealing with multiple views, they aren’t characterized by the reduction to fundamental shapes as the cubist art of Braque and Picasso were.

Whether anyone considers the images I displayed as art is irrelevent. I’m interested in exploring and the results I got were earnest attempts at achieving an original expression. As I state in my blog, the intent wasn’t to recreate a particular style, and it started with my photographs as a base image, custom masking and custom environments. There were no presets used, there’s no way you can push a button and get the results I did.

What I’ve done with the technology and my knowledge of photography (20 years working as a photojournalist and working on Photoshop since 1.0) is to use the principals of optics reproduced in this brilliant and powerful liquid media (KPT Gel) to refract the image in a way that Braque and Picasso were unable to calculate. If you don’t know what refract means, look it up…

Do a search on "photo cubism" and you’ll see that there’s not much that will come back from the subject. So what the hell, I might as well define it, since it is as yet undefined.

"amenfoto" wrote in message

Although, as JohnBoy says that cubism is a "known aesthetic," I never said my images were cubism, which shows multiple views and passage of time, I referred to it as "photo cubism," which isn’t defined as a genre in the way that bauhaus, expressionism, plasticism, […]

Adrian:

You simply chose a term that is likely to be confusing. Perhaps you can come up with something that makes it clear that the work is photo-derived and speaks to recursive or object reflection.