Surely in that case, some form of navigation apart from next/previous would
be far better - assuming of course that you do want people to look at your
work?

How about the scenario that someone is on a slow connection and just doesn't
happen to like the first three images that they have waited to see? What are
the chances that they will actually persevere through to the rest?

If, on the other hand, you provide some thumbnails (they needn't be
particularly large or resource-hungry, perhaps 100x100 pixels max) people
can see what is there to look at without having to pass blindly and slowly
through parts that they might not be interested in before jumping in where
their interest does take them.

--
regards,
dslr

Umm...  well, unless the viewer can recognize the vision, it can't be
shared.  It takes an agreement between the artist and the viewer to create
Art.  Otherwise, the "artist" is at liberty to call anything Art.  In
general, it is the treatment of recognizable subject material (themes)
according to the artist's vision that makes it possible for the viewer to
assess the value/worth of that vision.

Once an artist has established that value/worth, new and hithertofore
unrecognized subject material can be presented to the viewer.  The viewer
now has some sense of the artist's vision, and can attempt to discern it in
the new material.  If successful, the new material can be treated by
another artist, who is very likely to avoid going too far afield from what
was initially accepted.  Continued success in such treatment qualifies the
subject material as an acceptable theme.

Your assertion that Art must be an expression of the artist's vision is an
acknowledged truism.  From the artist's standpoint, having the vision and
being able to express it are the main concerns.  But in order to be
accepted by the viewer, it has to be something the viewer can recognize or
it simply does not succeed.

The history of Art records some number of cases where an artist offered what
was unrecognizable, and sometimes because of the subject, only to meet with
rejection.  Later, when the subject became accepted, the artist's offerings
were then open to analysis and the possibility of acceptance as Art.

In the case of our discussion here, Martin evidently does not assert that
his work is Art, though acknowledges that it might be.  In presenting his
work, therefore, recognizing that there are generally accepted themes
considered as potential for Art can perhaps help him sort his presentation.

I should probably have qualified that statement thus:  There are very often
generally accepted themes used in works presented as candidates for
acceptance as Art.

I am a victim of the very thing I've tried to avoid!!!!  ARGGHHH!!!

LOL!!!

Does that make sense, Lewis?

Bill Tallman

I didn't see it pre-update (busy day, couldn't be on Usenet all day
y'know...) but I certainly like the updated version.  Both the design and
the photography.

My own meagre site is looking veritably cluttered these days...

Peter

The title text is more readable, but the links text is still dark. Not sure
what else I could tell you, it is just slightly tough to read. Some alt text,
or a javascript description might help. Maybe a different font might work
better.

Another thought is you can run a small javascript that puts a random image into
the opener each time the page is visited. There are some freely available
examples of that, or some editing software has that capability.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com

       Looking fine, crisp, moves well.

       One small note: Move the Prev/Next links up above the images, or
potentially move the main menu to the left. While it varies on how the
browsers are configured, your format is screen-sized for 800x600 res,
mostly, but the nav links and copyright notice go off the bottom, requiring
minor scrolling. Vertical scrolling isn't a no-no, but if you're this
close, it might as well be eliminated, hey?

       Include a space on either side of the dash in the bio, otherwise
you're making a new hyphenated word.

       Otherwise looks good (and works on Opera, which is more than can be
said for a lot of newer sites). Glad to see you went with thumbnails, which
I'd consider a necessity.

       Now, or course, you've created a monster. You know websites need
constant attention, don't you? ;-)

    - Al.

Oh *much* better!

Cluster of thumbs works like a charm.  Looks good in Konqueror and Galeon
(Gecko).  BTW, the gifs for your links are cut too tight, the letters are
trimmed too close.  Probably should redo them with a bit of padding, I
would think.

Still could use something in the first page, though.....

How about an abstract design of something, perhaps in a complimentary muted
bronze to give it some focus against the muted silver...  hmmm...  a
stylized line drawing of an SLR square shooter, your choice of brand..
Rollei would be elegant...  just a thought.

Bill Tallman

Much better - I like it. The thumbnails are just right - enought to see
what's there but not excessively large.

I do agree with other posters that the front page needs "something", though.
If you want some javascript to do a random selection from the images already
on the site (minimal overhead that way), drop me a line and you're welcome
to use that which I use for the purpose on www.dslr.co.uk

--
regards,
dslr

wish to

a

specific

Traditionally the division was between Fine Art and decorative arts, aka
'craft'.  Fine art was where 'the art' was the end product - a painting,
sculpture, whatever - and decorative art where it was some 'thing' that was
decorated by the 'art' - a piece of furniture with carving on it, a pot,
whatever.  Of course the boundaries blurred, and the snob factor was a major
feature - hence architecture being recognised traditionally as a fine art,
even though it is pretty plainly 'craft' by the original definition.

Note that 'skill' or the difficulty of execution of the work has nothing to
do with this original definition.  Neither, come to that, has artistic
vision, or even intrinsic merit.

Photography of course messes this up, because it meets the definition of
fine art in exactly the way that painting does (end result is 'the work',
but it can then be used to decorate, illustrate, etc.) but many in the past
didn't want to accept photography as capable of creating art, still less of
'being' one.

This simply tells me that the old definition was never very useful, and is
even less so where photography is concerned.

For me, photography is commercial, craft, decorative, applied art, if I am
working to a brief - even the 'notional' brief that shooting for stock
implies.  It is 'art', which might as well be called 'fine art' only when I
am shooting to satisfy no one's criteria but my own.  Such works may appeal
to others, or they may not.  This definition, of course, would exclude
virtually all renaissance painting - so definitions have to move with the
times and be flexible!

Of all the pictures I've sent to the SI, only my rogues' gallery one falls
into this category of work done to please my own artistic criteria rather
than to fit a brief - even where that brief was only the SI mandate.  And,
predictably, it is the one of those I sent that had the widest range of
comments.  Among people who've seen it in my portfolio (it's at the back,
last page, after a lot of work that is much more avowedly commercial)
everyone seems either to say it is their favourite, or they simply don't
notice it at all.

That is sort of what I was thinking.  The 'fine art' work might still be
intended for sale, but you are not doing what someone else has told you to
do, or even what you  _think_  someone else wants to see.  You are doing
what  _you_  want to see, and if anyone else likes it then that's good and
if they don't it doesn't matter.

Peter

SNIP

Not so. :-)

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

but he already has Bill, this photgraphy site is his personal work. You
wouldn't want to visit a site showing what he does for money... ;-)

Nick