::introtext::
Now I know that this entry is going to get me in trouble...
::/introtext::
::fulltext::
The very first artist I ever felt drawn to was Georgia O'Keeffe. I still cannot explain exactly the something that I completely understand about the way that she painted. When I saw her work, I felt like I finally had a comrade in the universe who felt the same way I did about nature. I find her work very inspiring deep in my soul. Maybe its because she just did what she loved to do, and somehow it shined through her work (that kind of stuff does shine through artist's work, you know, even the people gallery curators and editors think are stupid have the ability see this, they just wouldn't know how to put words on it, they just say to themselves or maybe even just feel, 'Something is wrong with that artist/piece').
So even now, when I'm really feeling kind of blah and uninspired inside I make some macro images of flowers, like the one above, and play with them. It makes me feel better, like I'm 3 again and I just found my crayons and a clean white wall (I loved to color on walls and mirrors as a child, well, still do). The thing is though, is that now, everybody (or at least, that's what I hear) does pictures of flowers so this somehow means that mine are irrelevant. And what it makes me wonder about is, how many other things are automatically invalidated just because there is a lot of them? This seems to be just one of the many ways that the quanity of photography (and it doesn't just apply to photography) is smothering the quality of photography. I mean, with all the digital cameras out there snapping away we probably are more likely to get the entire earth photographed as never before, but does it mean that we no longer need quality photographs?
::/fulltext:: ::cck::13::/cck::