The sand reclaimeth. (Wonderful photos)

[Locut0s]

http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/the-namib-desert-indoors-12

 

[eldorado99]

Neato!

 

[lxskllr]

Very cool :^)

 

[Born2bwire]

Cool, but I would like to see more shots of the overall area. I believe that pictures like that have been posted before.

 

[Locut0s]

Cool, but I would like to see more shots of the overall area. I believe that pictures like that have been posted before.

Pictures of the overall area might give you some better perspective and info perhaps but these shots are an artistic expression and those would not add anything to that.

 

[Powermoloch]

I believe the sands of time apparently grabbed a hold of that hallway

great pics !

 

[rockyct]

Pictures of the overall area might give you some better perspective and info perhaps but these shots are an artistic expression and those would not add anything to that.

It depends on what the outside looks like. If there was nothing else around it would be quite powerful to see a small empty village covered halfway up by sand.

 

[destrekor]

Those are some great shots! Great use of framing. The lines, colors, and lighting tones... I love it. Some of the shots definitely look very surreal.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Sand and dust, it scares me now as it has before and it will in the future...
Sand and dust, when there is nothing to feed on, even the most humble and friendly become savage predators...
Sand and dust, where all you can do is stop and wait...
Sand and dust, an end with no end...

Ice and water, where new opportunities arise...
Ice and water, what is not present but needed can be created...
Ice and water, where who chose to stop can awaken once again.
Ice and water, where the rebuilding starts...

Until, Sand and dust...




.

 

[Dubb]

Pictures of the overall area might give you some better perspective and info perhaps but these shots are an artistic expression and those would not add anything to that.

Oh please. These shots are not art - they're compelling, but on an artistic level they're barely above any run of the mill ruin porn.

Photographs principally exist to convey information. They may have artistic elements, but there’s something key, about works of genuine artistic accomplishment – a sense of precise crafted structure – of work created from scratch. You can see the craft and connect a set of deliberate actions to the effect is has on people, even if you don’t particularly like it.

Thing is, even stunning photography (think the best photojournalism, the luck-mixed-with-determination iconic photos everyone knows) – doesn’t get there. You can sense a feel for the basic composition, of technical competence…but it doesn’t strike that chord of creation.

There’s something so unbelievably utilitarian about a camera, and about even very good photography. With a camera and photoshop, there’s such a defined set of rules that the latitude for 'art' is unbelievably narrow – There is a very great deal that is entirely out of your hands. The camera takes everything in, leaving only the possibility of editing, either before or after you press the button. And editing isn't art.

In short, I'm really sick of photographers who think they are artists.

 

[zinfamous]

see, see! that's what happens when you don't sweep daily! D:

kind of cool, really. I just watched a slate of Science channel programs involving the Valley of the Kings and Giza, the various details surrounding individual tombs, history, blah blah. I never knew how many times the Sphinx had actually been lost, discovered, lost again, and re-discovered throughout the history of civilization.

Apparently to the ancient Greeks, the sphinx was a head poking out of the desert--no one at that time had any recorded knowledge that it was attached to a lion's body. They speculated about such things, but I suppose the neither the resources or interest was there to actually start investigating these things. I think the Sphinx was even unknown to the New Kingdom of Egyptian Pharoas (the ones that are found in The Valley of the Kings).

I also wonder what sites like the Valley of Kings, which essentially consisted of a village soley dedicated to tomb construction--engineers, masons, embalmers, scribes, priests, artisans--and mountain or canyon-side tombs hollowed out along the entire expanse. It seems that we are currently sitting on top of some 400-500 ft of sand that now covers where the civilization habited--and this isn't just a case of the new folks coming in and building on top of the previous, as often happens.

 

[zinfamous]

stuff

In short, I'm really sick of photographers who think they are artists.

funny. once someone tries to define art or even remove a field from art, is the moment they fail to understand art.

simply put, Burke stated art as that which provokes response--he wrote extinsively about the "sublime" as that which provokes terror, both beautiful and horrible, and elicits the most profound of human emotion.

many, many things can be art. it is the individual who may be too blind to realize how one such piece may indeed be art.

 

[Azraele]

Neat pics.

 

[Greenman]

I'd fire my maid.

 

[Raduque]

Those pics are used in one of the items listed on this page.

http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-series

Really cool webpage too, btw.

 

[lxskllr]

Those pics are used in one of the items listed on this page.

http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-series

Really cool webpage too, btw.

 

[MikeMike]

my thoughts exactly.

 

[Homerboy]

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&...=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1680&bih=894

lots more + outdoor too.

 

[dfuze]

cool pics

 

[Dubb]

funny. once someone tries to define art or even remove a field from art, is the moment they fail to understand art.

That's BS. It represents exactly the kind of unengaged, uncritical pseudo feel-goodery that only denigrates the people who are capable of quality work. The "what is art" debate is obviously a bottomless pit, but to go hands off...that's exactly what's wrong with people who attempt to morph good photography into self-aggrandizing BS, calling it art simply because it has a few artistic components. It's not that they're wrong, it's that they're not even thinking about it.

simply put, Burke stated art as that which provokes response--he wrote extinsively about the "sublime" as that which provokes terror, both beautiful and horrible, and elicits the most profound of human emotion.

many, many things can be art. it is the individual who may be too blind to realize how one such piece may indeed be art.

I'd kind of question the idea that notions of the sublime from the mid 18th century are relevant to contemporary culture beyond a historical footnote. Times are different now, art and culture are different now. The psychological implications of the sublime were refined into science decades ago.

Think of it this way - These days we're surrounded by extremely competent, even stunning, impact generating photography. Whole industries are built around using such photos to sell you shit. TV. Billboards. Magazines. Ads.

I'm not comfortable with the idea that we're THAT surrounded by art. If you are, I feel sorry for you.

What we should be doing is calling photography what it is - an occasionally creative pursuit within a very defined set of boundaries. In other words, a design discipline. Doing so would remove a lot of the self aggrandizing BS that has clung to photography for years and skyrocketed with the DSLR. Tossing the platitudes would leave things at a much more critically engaged level - is it quality work or not? Why?

 

[destrekor]

That's BS. It represents exactly the kind of unengaged, uncritical pseudo feel-goodery that only denigrates the people who are capable of quality work. The "what is art" debate is obviously a bottomless pit, but to go hands off...that's exactly what's wrong with people who attempt to morph good photography into self-aggrandizing BS, calling it art simply because it has a few artistic components. It's not that they're wrong, it's that they're not even thinking about it.



I'd kind of question the idea that notions of the sublime from the mid 18th century are relevant to contemporary culture beyond a historical footnote. Times are different now, art and culture are different now. The psychological implications of the sublime were refined into science decades ago.

Think of it this way - These days we're surrounded by extremely competent, even stunning, impact generating photography. Whole industries are built around using such photos to sell you shit. TV. Billboards. Magazines. Ads.

I'm not comfortable with the idea that we're THAT surrounded by art. If you are, I feel sorry for you.

What we should be doing is calling photography what it is - an occasionally creative pursuit within a very defined set of boundaries. In other words, a design discipline. Doing so would remove a lot of the self aggrandizing BS that has clung to photography for years and skyrocketed with the DSLR. Tossing the platitudes would leave things at a much more critically engaged level - is it quality work or not? Why?

So, you are arguing that no photography is art.

Right....

 

[foghorn67]

Oh please. These shots are not art - they're compelling, but on an artistic level they're barely above any run of the mill ruin porn.

Photographs principally exist to convey information. They may have artistic elements, but there’s something key, about works of genuine artistic accomplishment – a sense of precise crafted structure – of work created from scratch. You can see the craft and connect a set of deliberate actions to the effect is has on people, even if you don’t particularly like it.

Thing is, even stunning photography (think the best photojournalism, the luck-mixed-with-determination iconic photos everyone knows) – doesn’t get there. You can sense a feel for the basic composition, of technical competence…but it doesn’t strike that chord of creation.

There’s something so unbelievably utilitarian about a camera, and about even very good photography. With a camera and photoshop, there’s such a defined set of rules that the latitude for 'art' is unbelievably narrow – There is a very great deal that is entirely out of your hands. The camera takes everything in, leaving only the possibility of editing, either before or after you press the button. And editing isn't art.

In short, I'm really sick of photographers who think they are artists.

lol fail.

 

[thepd7]

Oh please. These shots are not art - they're compelling, but on an artistic level they're barely above any run of the mill ruin porn.

Photographs principally exist to convey information. They may have artistic elements, but there’s something key, about works of genuine artistic accomplishment – a sense of precise crafted structure – of work created from scratch. You can see the craft and connect a set of deliberate actions to the effect is has on people, even if you don’t particularly like it.

Thing is, even stunning photography (think the best photojournalism, the luck-mixed-with-determination iconic photos everyone knows) – doesn’t get there. You can sense a feel for the basic composition, of technical competence…but it doesn’t strike that chord of creation.

There’s something so unbelievably utilitarian about a camera, and about even very good photography. With a camera and photoshop, there’s such a defined set of rules that the latitude for 'art' is unbelievably narrow – There is a very great deal that is entirely out of your hands. The camera takes everything in, leaving only the possibility of editing, either before or after you press the button. And editing isn't art.

In short, I'm really sick of photographers who think they are artists.

haha you are pretty funny. I'm going to bet you're a painter.

You do realize that as a painter you are just editing the canvas right? and editing isn't art?

 

[Dubb]

haha you are pretty funny. I'm going to bet you're a painter.

I'm in architecture and design. I haven't painted anything since high school art class. I also don't argue that what I do is art, because I've thought about it enough to know better.

I've been getting into photography lately, and it's the encounters with other photographers who think having an f/1.4 lens makes them an artist that have set me on edge. There's just so much BS posturing it makes me sick.

The next time someone refers to “creamy bokeh”, I’m checking their name against the sex offender registry. If I don’t find it already on there, I’m submitting it. I don’t care, there has to be a way.

You do realize that as a painter you are just editing the canvas right? and editing isn't art?

I feel like I'm arguing with a three year old.

So, you are arguing that no photography is art.

Right....

Go back and read what I've written again - that's not what I'm arguing at all.

I'm arguing that with conventional photography, there is very little latitude for art. Not that it doesn't happen, it's just unbelievably rare in contemporary society.

How many photos have you seen of antelope canyon? every last one of them is a very striking, moving, beautiful picture. They're easy to take - you don't have to know anything about photography, composition, or lighting because nature has done it all for you. You just have to point and press a button.

is that art? No way in hell.

Why can't good photos simply be good photos? why do they have to be art?

 

[Homerboy]

@Dubb: What if you took a picture then edited it (heavily) in PS or something? Is that art?