[Aza]

I think you are wrong.
Especially concerning the original pieces.
No photo can capture the apparent movement from viewing the pieces at different angles...it is impossible.

[anbesivam1]

Sept 20, 2014 23:02:58 GMT 1 eschiff said:

there are no pieces there above 35k.

and i think photos do it justice, they're awesome pieces and it's not like the photos hide anything!  I always find it odd when people say that about art...pictures in their essence absolutely capture images.  Now, if the exhibition was about emotions and the point was to make someone feel fear, or love, or sympathy then yes...you can't capture that on film.  This (and every print that people say 'pics don't do it justice') can absolutely and accurately be portrayed by the pictures.

Rant over

eschiff - this is a fascinating position statement to make.

I do however humbly think that your main premise is flawed. I would argue that it is the very nauture of a photo that means it will NOT capture images justly. Photography in its conventional sense is a 2D representation of a 3D world (or artwork, in this example). Our brains are wired for stereoscopic vision.

It is well recognised by many industries that have forged ahead with 3D technology that the world around us is better represented by stereoscopic images..

For example, in laparoscopic (keyhole) surgery, when it was first introduced relied on 2D views. Many mistakes were made due to the lack of depth perception on trying to interpret 2D views. Now 3D HD scopes allow for improved interpretation of complex anatomy.

Other points to consider which can greatly affect whether a photo is truly representative of an artwork are:

Resolution
Lighting
Saturation
Contrast
Focus
Manipulated photos
Etc

Your second point that one cannot capture emotions of an exhibition such as fear on film, I would again argue is not true - it maybe harder but certainly possible. It is clear photos can capture emotions, aswell as evoke an emotional response. Which may be incorrectly interpreted, a famous example is the photo of the summary execution of a Viet Cong fighter in Saigon.

Coming back to Adam Neate's work - I feel that for his work in particular, due to its 3D nature, photos do NOT indeed do them justice.

[Deleted]

Whilst on occasion pictures may not do a piece justice (although there's a discussion to be had regarding relatively flat image prints - where people do talk the 'in the flesh' bs line) ... You can if the photo is good gain an understanding of the image to the point where it's capable to make a value judgement as to whether you like it or not - I'd say.

[eschiff]

anbesivam1 that's actually some good points i hadn't thought of...i still stand by my position that the photos of the pieces do justice in this case (ie when i went to the exhibition there were no revelations...i thought the work looked good in pics and they looked good there) but i agree it wasn't a completely formed argument but more of a late night rant

I still think people should go to the exhibition and see it if possible, but every thread reading 'you have to see it in person' just irks me. I mean, people say that for iconic buildings as well but when i saw the sydney opera house, or the Eiffel Tower, or the Empire State Building i had a fairly good idea what to expect. And you know what? When i was there...i took a picture of them.

[Dice]

Sept 21, 2014 8:25:11 GMT 1 eschiff said:

anbesivam1 that's actually some good points i hadn't thought of...i still stand by my position that the photos of the pieces do justice in this case (ie when i went to the exhibition there were no revelations...i thought the work looked good in pics and they looked good there) but i agree it wasn't a completely formed argument but more of a late night rant

I still think people should go to the exhibition and see it if possible, but every thread reading 'you have to see it in person' just irks me. I mean, people say that for iconic buildings as well but when i saw the sydney opera house, or the Eiffel Tower, or the Empire State Building i had a fairly good idea what to expect. And you know what? When i was there...i took a picture of them.

However I think you do have to see the Empire State in person, photos simply do not do it justice.

[Deleted]

Sept 21, 2014 9:14:32 GMT 1 Dice said:

Sept 21, 2014 8:25:11 GMT 1 eschiff said:

anbesivam1 that's actually some good points i hadn't thought of...i still stand by my position that the photos of the pieces do justice in this case (ie when i went to the exhibition there were no revelations...i thought the work looked good in pics and they looked good there) but i agree it wasn't a completely formed argument but more of a late night rant

I still think people should go to the exhibition and see it if possible, but every thread reading 'you have to see it in person' just irks me. I mean, people say that for iconic buildings as well but when i saw the sydney opera house, or the Eiffel Tower, or the Empire State Building i had a fairly good idea what to expect. And you know what? When i was there...i took a picture of them.

However I think you do have to see the Empire State in person, photos simply do not do it justice.

I think I've only ever thought that way about three buildings...

... The first time I saw the NY twin towers. I lay down at the bottom of one and looked up. I actually got vertigo looking upwards. Couldn't believe how tall they were, with the exoskeleton beautifully crafted. Now we know how that design was unable to withstand the evil thrown against it.

.. The other was the Taj Mahal. Quite simply the most beautiful building I have ever seen. Unfortunately made even more stark by the contrast with its surroundings.

Blimey, a Sunday morning post of contrasts! Have a good day everyone.

[mandingo]

Sept 21, 2014 9:14:32 GMT 1 Dice said:

Sept 21, 2014 8:25:11 GMT 1 eschiff said:

anbesivam1 that's actually some good points i hadn't thought of...i still stand by my position that the photos of the pieces do justice in this case (ie when i went to the exhibition there were no revelations...i thought the work looked good in pics and they looked good there) but i agree it wasn't a completely formed argument but more of a late night rant

I still think people should go to the exhibition and see it if possible, but every thread reading 'you have to see it in person' just irks me. I mean, people say that for iconic buildings as well but when i saw the sydney opera house, or the Eiffel Tower, or the Empire State Building i had a fairly good idea what to expect. And you know what? When i was there...i took a picture of them.

However I think you do have to see the Empire State in person, photos simply do not do it justice.

Can I state also that the photos of girls on tinder absolutely do not represent what turns up on your doorstep fact !

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using proboards

[Dibbs 45]

[chads007]

was about to post that, great mini doc