I’m wondering if anyone might have some experience with this on-demand publishing service called MagCloud by HP…? Quality?
Seems to be yet another avenue for self expression / self branding… full of potential with the right content and very little economic means.
And now with a little boost from the NYT – perhaps a wider audience, though I’m wondering about the “vanity publishing” aspect with this comment… “it’s a nifty idea for a vanity press that reminds me of the underground zines we had in the ’60s and ’70s.” ?
Surely, content trumps quality and it is likely so in this case… but perhaps there is a certain fitness to purpose, to satisfy the desire to hold print in our hands in addition to the flickering glimmer of our screens…
UPDATE: Read about the show…and see a couple of images via NYT…
Showing at the Whitney
“…He often talked about edges: about the areas between walls, between a floor and
a ceiling — about gaps and voids, which he made into art. In the show are
photographs that he took of the spaces under chairs, between the floors of
buildings, on the ceiling of a loft, where the sprinkler pipes were: places
people don’t usually bother to notice. “Opening up view to the unvisible” (he
loved wordplay), was something he jotted on a note to himself. It might be his
manifesto.” – Art Review- Cross Sections of Yesterday
By MICHAEL KIMMELMAN
Published: February 23, 2007
Gordon Matta-Clark, “Splitting,” 1974,
black & white photo collage, 40 x 30 inches
Collection Jane Crawford
Courtesy Rhona Hoffman Gallery, Chicago
I find Matta-Clark’s vision of space more to my sense of being in the world… After all we humans stand up on two legs… and look out at the world through two eyes (I’m generalizing here)… We don’t fly over things like birds… so I find things like this…. by Andreas Gefeller – which I think is a bit more odd and difficult to enter into… excepting that I am a practicing architect (intern) – so I’ve got some practice looking at “plans”. But that’s a whole other subject – like the Oblique…
To me the plan (more like a way-finding map – removed – abstracted – about iconography) means something entirely different than the section photo montage by Gordon Matta-Clark above. I like the collage of photographs each room with it’s own vanishing point. Vanishing point – that assumes that there is a subject perspective…. a point of view. Therefor I can imagine being in this space… I like the offering of being able to “see it all at once” yet I’m, not really able to a have true understanding of the space. That’s what’s challenging in this work. What we think we see in photos recomposing a certain kind of reality… In this case Gordon’s. I like it.
Incidentally, the work and other stories of Matta-Clark will be shown at the Whitney coming next year. Should be a show worth seeing.
Untitled [Back Window]
I am confused
Alright, I do realize that this post might tick off quite a few people, but here’s my question anyway: Am I the only one who thinks that HDR photos mostly look like old colour postcards? (sorry for the probably non-ideal link to old postcards – if you know a better site, let me know) You basically get the same effect: The colours look gaudy and artificial, and the scenes look somewhat unreal, the only difference being that HDR photos look crisper.
I have to agree with the examples (from Flickr) of HDR offered up in the link from Jörg Colberg over on Conscientious – however, I am not so quick to discount some value to HDR… it depends upon how you approach the “output”…in my opinion…. (above example my own attempt).
Above is an HDR image. I think it works because for me I can’t sense that it is HDR. But, if you photograph under these lighting conditions (in digital mode) you’d have to do a film type of multiple exposure in order to get the light from inside wall surfaces to work with the amount of light outside coming through the window, otherwise in a conventional exposure – one area or the other would get over / under exposed.
So, I don’t discount HDR as a technique – I think may have its place but it is just that “a technique” a tool…along the way… not an end in my opinion….. I’ve got other examples tagged here.
The measure of “effect” on the final product – the photograph…. whether by digital filter or analogue filter – should not get in the way of the illusion contained with-in the surface…
It’s a like being jarred from the temporary suspension of disbelief of when you’re immersed in a movie.. you know by the Skittles the jerk behind you dropped that are now rolling under your feet…!