Discussions about things we experience in a mainly subjective fashion - art, philosophy, politics, religion and so forth - tend not to be that productive, and yet, human perversity being what it is, those are exactly the sort of discussions many of us find most interesting.  It's not something I'm proud to admit, but, when I was younger and still drank quite a bit, I would sometimes find myself striking up conversations with persons I wasn't that taken with, just on the off chance their religious or political beliefs or taste in music might afford me a chance to be a dick for the half hour or so it would generally take 'til they'd decide to leave or kick my ass.  These days I no longer drink like that, and while I like to believe I've become a mellower, more reasonable man than I once was, there's no point in denying that I do on occasion backslide into the less accomodating, slightly more confrontational modes of discourse favored by my youthful self.  A year or so ago a friend of mine, a very nice person who's opinion I value highly, told me my new FB cover photo was, I can't remember her exact words but they were something along the lines of, "Nice, but just a little out of focus."  All she had done was make a polite and accurate but entirely beside the point observation about a photograph I didn't necessarily even like very much, but for some reason that beside-the-pointness instantly snapped me in to this dark, excessively mordant place where I was saying things like, "Out of focus? OMG, thank goodness you caught that for me!" and "I been photomigraffin for 30-some years now and I startin to unnerstan how to frame up a pitcher real purty-like n all, but they ain't learnin me none o' thet Phoca, um... focka,?, er, FOH-cKuss ` (sp?) whatsit 'til next week... "

self portrait with stun gun

inverted interrobang

all images ©2017 by nanatehay

Views: 633

Comment by Safe Bet's Amy on March 3, 2017 at 1:33pm

I think focus is over-rated.  If the first pic was out of focus you'd miss the sexy bra strap (not to mention the fine booty).  Same goes for the pic of the samba dancer.  

On the other hand, II looks much better out of focus.

Comment by JMac1949 Today on March 3, 2017 at 1:40pm

I have to agree with Amy on this post... fine booty indeed.

Comment by Boanerges on March 3, 2017 at 1:47pm

Heh. I feel like I've been out of focus for most of my life.

Anyway, it's amazing what one can produce with a slightly too-slow shutter speed and what I used to think of as a "soft" focus (Vaseline on the lens, anyone?). Not much good for magazine or newspaper use, generally speaking, but terrific for producing art.

Comment by Jonathan Wolfman on March 3, 2017 at 1:58pm

The topmost photo, it might be art, but she'd have to wear the dress w.o displaying the label. ... ... ...

Comment by greenheron on March 3, 2017 at 2:44pm

Intentional lack of focus involves the denial of something. Here’s all you’ll get; can you appreciate the beauty in a glimpse, shrouded by a veil?

Many artists are most comfortable behind a veil, and are surprised by how much our art reveals. An artist I’d never met came into my studio once, took in the space and the work on the walls, then commented that I had a real Emily Dickinson thing going on. How the hell did he know?!

Your portrait with the taser reminds me of Nan Goldin–do you know her work? If not, I think you might like it. 

Comment by koshersalaami on March 3, 2017 at 3:45pm

So if you want out of focus with an IPhone, do you have to either move it while you shoot or find low light? 

Comment by tr ig on March 3, 2017 at 4:04pm

These are camera shots Kosher, big black camera.

Was "La Pistola" art, or shit on a table cloth? Never saw it myself. "What is art" is only superseded in the BIG questions category by "what is the meaning of life."  

Personally, I prefer Will Gentieu in focus. BIG question that comes to mind when viewing that, besides the depth of his persona, the infinitude in his eyeballs ... is that a Stella Artois? Drinking one of those now. 

Comment by koshersalaami on March 3, 2017 at 4:49pm

Tr ig,

Of course they are. However, I'm asking your brother the maven whether he'd have a way of taking a cool shot if he were stuck somewhere with just an IPhone. I don't carry a big black camera. My wife does. 

Comment by nanatehay on March 3, 2017 at 5:34pm

Ain't no reason to be callin' me no maven, Kosh - I put my pants on 2 legs at a time just like the next fella. Regarding cameras vs. smartphones - I no longer have a big black camera (or BBC as it will from henceforth and forever more be known in what passes for my mind), so I'd be thrilled if I was taking pictures these days with an iPhone.  Whichever model you have, I am certain that (unless for some weird reason you own one of the earliest, totally obsolete iFirst editions) it is capable of taking not just nice but very nice indeed, fully HD photographs and probably HD video as well. Four years ago Apple phone cams were routinely 12MP or higher - do you mind if I ask what MP yours is so I can get a shivery rush of vicarious high-res pleasure?

Comment by tr ig on March 3, 2017 at 5:45pm

IPhones rock actually, the camera. Mine is a six, I think, and while I have a really nice BBC, acquired from BBD in Dallas, I never bother with it, although the images are superior still to the phone. Lighting is a thing with the phone. In the direction of the sun is never good. Poor light, even worse, but comparing to digital cameras of ten, twelve years ago, of which I had several, they do a great job. And besides, they are a watch, calculator, alarm clock, and most other devices rolled into one, in my pocket connected to the Gore net. 

Comment

You need to be a member of Our Salon to add comments!

Join Our Salon

NEW BLOG POSTS

Aretha died this morning

Posted by koshersalaami on August 16, 2018 at 8:17am 3 Comments

Uh.... no.

Posted by Safe Bet's Amy on August 15, 2018 at 12:30pm 0 Comments

© 2018   Created by lorianne.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service