As a vehicle autist it was pretty easy to realize none of the vehicles in the images make sense. Theres a sedan with 3 doors on it for example and that weird Tank RHIB boat thing, but ignoring that it is hard to tell.
Sounds like the guy went into a hissy fit cause he wasn't popular anymore and more talented people took his place in the ai scene.
Society needs to have a genuine conversation about ordinary people’s data being stolen for monetary gain and spare me the talk about terms of service… but I doubt that is where any of this will lead.
Sometimes I wonder what Historians are smokin'. The first photo clear shows that the cannon balls in the ditch are above ground while the other balls are on the dirt road. There is a clear lack of balls in the ditch in the first salt print. In the second photo, it looks like the road had seen rain and the road's been compacted. The balls that were on the road now bulk up the ditch further and some of the old balls from the original photo have sunken into the ground further suggesting there has been rain and the silt and dirt are starting to bury the weight. My question is why are there canon balls? I'm not a big history buff and am unfamiliar with the conflict.
This is exactly correct. Whether those cracks being malicious capitalistic or the denial that maybe some people aren't great artists or you aren't as good as you think you are or even that meaning of art has died like religion. Art at its fundamental level is about communication, why an artist chooses to communicate without using words is explained simply by the human joy of creation. It isn't about chasing dopamine highs. Personally, I would be honored if an AI scraped some of my old Flickr gallery as I documented a lot of my work there.
Of course it won't. The ones who are screaming the loudest do so purely from a position of selfishness. They don't care about the whole.
The first thing that should be asked of someone who's vehemently against art is something along these lines. Is photomanipulated work not also art? Do you have an inherent burning hatred for modern artists like Andy Warhol for blatantly cloning existing things like Campbell's Soup cans? There's decades of 'work' that boiled down to copying something directly from somewhere even if it was repurposed into a greater whole.
Hey, Duchamp also rotated it! That's a key feature! (Maybe, I'm far from an expert on Dadaist art or "readymades".)
I find this an interesting question. Duchamp, the man who made the sculpture "The Fountain" ie the urinal and practically established the art of "ready mades" spawned from the art movement of Dadaism. It's the notion that art is simply art because the artists says it is; it exists with no other meaning aside from the cerebral subtext. That subtext being that the object doesn't matter by the idea of it does. This has been expanded on and slightly bastardized by modern artists who have a shitty or infantile grasp of "conceptual art". Heck, I'd respect an artist painting with period blood if it didn't come with a thesis paper of an explanation of meaning behind it. It is the pretentiousness of it that really irks me and probably make Duchamp spin in the grave; hell I'd wager if he attached his corpse to a drill we'd have a hole to the center of the earth by now.
Problem with the modern artist is, most don't know their history. They blindly stand on shoulders of men and women who they do not know their names. How inconsiderate.
The Crimean War was pretty much the Death Throes of the Napoleonic era, and in relation to the photographs it was one of the very first wars to have pictures taken during it. Most Armies were still using Muskets and Cannons, we were still decades out from the mass Adoption of Cartridges and Field Guns at this point.
Ahh, okay, I was just thrown off. The second photo looks like an actual photo scan of the original plate. Silver gelatin was a technology in 1855, yeah, it is harder to tell which one is the original. Logically speaking though, since the photo scan has a different perspective which lends more credence to the cannon balls on the road was taking first and then another photo was taken later on during the conflict. I then agree with the Orsey Museum's stance that it would be terribly impractical to stage the photograph in the middle of open conflict. Plate cameras took time to setup and some times exposures required several minutes to hours of exposure time to get an image. It would be very impractical to stage it for artistic merit without a reason like for propaganda.
There's also stuff like dodging and burning, where during the printing process you use various methods, including literally waving a magic wand (well it is literally a wand but not literally magic) over parts of the print to manipulate the exposure of certain parts (by blocking light selectively). You can go through multiple prints trying to get this right. Each one will be unique, though.
It was art when it was put in an art museum. It was also original when he did that to say something about art itself. It's also not like that's the only thing he ever did or he never did "real" art, but for some reason people remember all the "fuck you art" pieces.
Nevertheless, famous plate users like Civil War photographer Matthew Brady notoriously staged scenes at battlefields, moving around and posing bodies and the like. That sort of fits into your propaganda scenario. At least he had no problems keeping his subjects still once he'd posed them.
But I thought theater kids are artsy and artsy humans are the good guys?
To follow on to AnOminous - the annoyance of plate photography makes it much more likely to stage photos. If you can tell your story just by moving some things around rather than completely tearing down and setting up your gear again, you do that. Brady was also just making shit up sometimes for extra clout. Just business.
Now draw them kissing each other
Absolutely, I was trained with darkroom work at a commercial level and briefly ran a darkroom studio during the transition period between film and digital photography. There are other techniques like sharpening and masking that are now staples in Photoshop that spawned from an analogue technique. The difference is, I don't need to make a copy negative or do intrapositive techniques to create masks, worrying about registration, etc. A computer does it for me now.
