 all that glitters is gold... Wednesday, February 25, 2009 It's weird that photographers spend years or even a whole lifetime, trying to capture moments that added together, don't even amount to a couple of hours.--James Keivom i've been thinking about this premise a bit over the few days. when you stop and count at a toy camera's 1/100th of a second, to get a couple hours of photos a person would need a portfolio of about...720,000 shots. to be considered memorable or even slightly remarkable as a photographer how many images must a person garner? could one great image do it, would one need at least a dozen, three dozen? how do we measure? art is a very interesting quest, there are few gold medals given for the act of creating, sure you can be named 'best in show,' but all that means is that it was the best image that day, how are you rewarded for the act of creating and who is fit to judge such things? is it quality, is it quantity, is it public approval, is the art itself its own reward? i have no answers. they don't give away gold medals. Holga, Kodak Porta UC400. Comment (2) | Permalink |
