Photo catagory

[Ultra Magnus]

I just noticed that there isn't a catagory (in the new gallery) for abstracts.. Is there a reason?

Thanks..

[Liz]

I just noticed that there isn't a catagory (in the new gallery) for abstracts.. Is there a reason?

Thanks..

Good question. I think it falls under the "Fine Art" category.
There are abstracts included there. Check it out.

http://gallery.photographyreview.com...=504&password=

Liz

[Ultra Magnus]

What if you don't have the confidence or "ego" for the lack of a better word to consider any of your pictures "fine art"??

[Liz]

What if you don't have the confidence or "ego" for the lack of a better word to consider any of your pictures "fine art"??

Well, if it's not great, you might not get any comments.

Then again, if it's good/great........you may get some comments.

But then again, you will never know if you don't just DO IT!

Just my humble personal opinion. Hopefully Lara of PJ will chime in. I think "Abstract" should be included personally. Good question.

Liz

[Ultra Magnus]

I would like to avoid comments like "what the hell makes you think that's fine art?" Not that anyone would post that, but just thinking that they might be thinking that would keep me from posting one of my photo's in the fine art catagory. I'd like to think that my photos, at least some of them are art, but I don't think I'd call them fine art. Art to me is just an expression of yourself in some medium or another, where fine art means your good enough at it to charge a fair sum of money for it, and poeple would actually want it to display in their homes or so.. Well, that's my take on it anyway..

Thanks for taking the time to reply..

[Liz]

I think you're right on - that "Abstract" could be included. Let's just wait to see what PJ, the Captain of the Ship has to say.



Liz

[Asylum Steve]

Personally, I don't think anyone should take the gallery or the subject categories too seriously. Even the term "gallery" is being used in a very broad and loose way. The new gallery area is simply a nice and covenient venue to share our photos with the pr.com community...

Being an old gallery veteran, I never even considered that the term "fine art" might be intimidating for someone, but I see your point. Perhaps "artistic" or "photo art" might be more member friendly.

IMO, the term fine art covers abstracts, but also agree it might be better to have a seperate category for them. This way folks can experiment and not worry about whether the pics are good enough to be considered "art"...

[Photo-John]

There's no rea reason why there was no "Abstract" gallery. It just didn't occur to me when I was creating the galleries. However, I don't want to go too nuts with the gallery categories. It's bad to get too specific. But you had a positive enough response to your question and "Abstract" is sort of a traditional category. So I have added it:

http://gallery.photographyreview.com...=527&password=

I also had a request for a "Nature" gallery and I am wondering if there should be a separate "Infrared" gallery. Again, we don't want to have too many categories. But those two might be good. Infrared is sort of its own thing, and "Nature" isn't exactly the same as "Landscape" or "Animals".

And how about a "Photojournalism" category? That occurred to me after seeing Sean Dempsey's excellent fire photos.

Thoughts?

[Liz]

Hi John,
I was wondering about combining Nature with Weather. Call it Nature.....and subtitle weather or something like that. Reasons: 1) There are relatively few posts in weather.
2) It would only be adding 2 instead of 3.

At any rate, thanks.

Liz