I agree with you. Sorry my post sounded directive rather than consultative. I, too, think that many perspectives make art interesting. My point is that I could not see galleries around here interested in simply pictures of garbage; but I could definitely see interest in landscape images ruined by garbage. The first gallery director I mentioned it to jumped on the idea very quickly (Colorado is probably more environmentally aware than many places). I will try some of the images offered here on her next week.Is this (narrow) restriction not limiting our possibilities, Walter.
I don't think there's just one way of showing our deep miscontent with this maldevelopment in human behaviour.
Posing the ugly next to the beautiful is certainly a way of rousing feelings. Using contrast is a strong means, I'm with you there.
But I would not restrict this thread to just one way of showing things. We all take different views, and each one of these is justified.
And - most important to me - art should be free.
Wherever possible I've tried to give the atrocities I see a "photographic" presentation, having in mind composition, DOF, coulours and the special perspective. Documentary pics of "garbage alone" are not my thing either though I wouldn't consider them unjustiified.
So let's please not have scissors in our heads as to what is good - bad, beautiful - ugly, acceptable or not.
Let's agree to disagree in what we think and what we show.
This has always been the impression cameraderie gave me as "their philosophy".
I think we should not hang this too high and come back to showing what we see.
Thanks. And again, sorry for the misunderstanding, I don't mean to be directive or 'in charge' - I leave that to the Art Director.