Sunday, 17 January 2010

Geometry

Ceiling shapes, Manila, January 2010

Is shape sufficient to be the subject of a photography and it still be interesting?

Posted by doonster at 12:40

Labels:

3 comments:

  1. Anonymous17 January 2010 at 16:57

    Well, Mark Rothko seems to get by rather well with just solid colors. Then again, he's a painter, I guess.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rothko

    ReplyDelete
  2. doonster17 January 2010 at 17:15

    As did Mondriaan and a host of others, but indeed they weren't photographers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Admin18 January 2010 at 00:48

    I have been following this discussion and think we are getting into some semantic weeds. As to your picture, which by the way, I like very much, it has a subject: ceiling shapes. Photography is, to my way of thinking, nothing but subject. The photographers choices in presenting the subject determine if the picture is abstract, representational, documentary, banal or beautiful.

    ReplyDelete

I like comments, especially constructive ones.
Comments get emailed directly to me before publishing , so if you want to get in touch drop a comment.
All comments moderated by me before being published, keeps the spam at bay.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)