Fantastic insect and spider photographs.

[Moltar]

I stumbled across a piece on this art student who's taking macros of wild inverts. Somehow he lucked his way into an MSNBC feature.

Check it out. The pics are great!

 

[Nerri1029]

Simply amazing shots

 

[night4now]

And

He got to hang out with Al Roker! Lucky!!!

but really, those are amazing... :worship:

 

[Moltar]

If anybody here has a flickr account could you PM him and invite him to come join us here at AB? Even if he isn't specifically interested in arachnids I think he'd dig it here because of his obvious interest in bugs in general.

 

[WelshTan]

amazing photos.... breathtaking quality and detail

 

[PinkZebraBooty]

Amazing!! I would contact him, but I don't have a flickher... flikerr... flkicur...flickherbic account.

 

[Mad Hatter]

Hey Moltar! Those are awesome! Thanks for sharing!

:clap:

 

[Pulk]

Amazing!! I would contact him, but I don't have a flickher... flikerr... flkicur...flickherbic account.

It's just "flickr" (no e).

I was introduced to his photostream a while back, and I still feel the same about it: technically impressive, but a stunning lack of artistic merit.

 

[Henry Kane]

It's just "flickr" (no e).

I was introduced to his photostream a while back, and I still feel the same about it: technically impressive, but a stunning lack of artistic merit.

Wouldn't merit be subjective? Or, are you defining merit as an absolute?
What key, meritable elements are missing?

 

[Pulk]

He has very, very, very uninteresting composition. (and that's the only way to inject art into this specific medium)

 

[Henry Kane]

He has very, very, very uninteresting composition. (and that's the only way to inject art into this specific medium)

But you do agree that this is subjective, right? The only reason I ask is because your initial post seems to be more of an absolute statement, leading me to wonder if there is a standard of artistic photography I am not aware of.

Personally, I found them pretty interesting, in which case, an artistic element does exist in them... but you know, the whole eye of the beholder thing...

I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it or anything. It would be lamer of everybody saw the pictures the same. The way the phrase seemed to come across just made me wonder.

 

[PinkZebraBooty]

It's just "flickr" (no e).

Yes, thank you. Your Stanford education is apparent. My misspelling was what we call a joke.

 

[arachnorama]

That's just beautiful.

 

[Pulk]

But you do agree that this is subjective, right? The only reason I ask is because your initial post seems to be more of an absolute statement, leading me to wonder if there is a standard of artistic photography I am not aware of.

Many aspects of art can be objectively evaluated. You can look at the distribution of elements within the frame and discuss how interesting the composition is, or specific effects caused by certain facts about the arrangement.
You can use words like "beautiful"/"ugly" to get at more eye-of-the-beholder qualities, but I think it's reasonable to say the composition "isn't artistically good" if it's boring or awkward.

Personally, I found them pretty interesting, in which case, an artistic element does exist in them... but you know, the whole eye of the beholder thing...

Of course the subject matter and technical presentation of it is fascinating -- I really enjoyed looking at a lot of his photos. But that's separate from artistic merit.

Yes, thank you. Your Stanford education is apparent. My misspelling was what we call a joke.

I guess it could have been funny if the site used a spelling that actually had more letters than the standard spelling.

They didn't discuss humor in your psychology class?

 

[PinkZebraBooty]

Many aspects of art can be objectively evaluated. You can look at the distribution of elements within the frame and discuss how interesting the composition is, or specific effects caused by certain facts about the arrangement.
You can use words like "beautiful"/"ugly" to get at more eye-of-the-beholder qualities, but I think it's reasonable to say the composition "isn't artistically good" if it's boring or awkward.
Of course the subject matter and technical presentation of it is fascinating -- I really enjoyed looking at a lot of his photos. But that's separate from artistic merit.
I guess it could have been funny if the site used a spelling that actually had more letters than the standard spelling.
They didn't discuss humor in your psychology class?

Dr. J. Evans Prichard, I presume?

[YOUTUBE]tpeLSMKNFO4&[/YOUTUBE]