Vindauga

4 Responses to “Family Photos as Art”

1. 1 Dr. Wagner
   October 4, 2006 at 10:24 am

   I feel like they portray personality. Especially Muse. I think they are good as photos, btu I might like them closer up.

2. 2 Hud
   October 5, 2006 at 1:59 am

   I didn’t realize they were in color until I looked at the larger images. I don’t think I know the other dog. I say this because I am more taken with the image of Muse, which makes me think I like the photos because I like the dog. I don’t hate the other picture but, its just a dog to me. I think I agree with Dr. Wagner that they appear to convey some personality but that means I am seriously anthropomorphizing (is that even a word?) a dog that I know nothing about.

3. 3 Roy Adkins
   October 5, 2006 at 8:27 am

   I didn’t think about the lack of color in these color images . . . yeah, maybe I just like them because I like my dogs . . . oh well . . .

4. 4 Hud
   October 5, 2006 at 12:55 pm

   Maybe if you put hats on them or something. Or, maybe a dress. I bet they would be cool then.

   Seriously, they are good pictures. Are we wondering if this would be something that someone would buy or are we wondering if this is some kind of high art? I’m not trying to be pissy. I was just thinking, it doesn’t seem like the average joe on the street is going to care a whit about a collection of portraits, even of people, unless those people are important or important to them. I think the only time I have ever seen it pulled off (and bought) is in those “day in the life off.” But it seems people will buy portraits of the exotic, look at how many folks get into those National Geographic books. Wegman did something different, first by taking so many pcitures of his dogs and then by dressing them up. But the dressing up was super cutsey; my grandmother liked those. So, economically, what is the market for a picture of your dog, even a great picture of your dog? Aqq hell, I don’t know.