|
About rozzlyn/Rozzlyn
All photos
24 photos
Hollywood Monsters
2 photos
Nightclubs and Parties
4 photos
Pseudo-Art
9 photos
Pseudo-Art -- Bacon/Boi
1 photo
Pseudo-Art -- Fun At The Supermarket
1 photo
Pseudo-Art -- Inspirations --The Who
1 photo
Self-portraits
8 photos
Photo critiques
136 critiques
Discussions
4 discussions
Journal entries
0 journal entries
|
|
 |
I consider myself the foreman of the "Pseudo-Art" movement. "Pseudo-Art" is best described as "new-wave Dada for smart-asses" or "Pop-art with no point" -- take these assessments as you like. Where past art movements Pseudo-Art gains inspiration from are based in the ridiculously sublime (predominantly Dada and surrealism) or believe all is art, we know better. If you don't get it (and we're not just talking about the art-pieces themselves), the joke's on you.
I normally use a Canon AE-1 Program and Ilford 400 Black-and-White; I've recently been using Kodak Monochrome (boxed and marked as "black & white - develop at any photo processor!") with that camera.
I've also recently "discovered" digital-format photography and Adobe PhotoShop7. My prime digital camera is an Olympus Camedia C-3000 which takes photos at 3.3 mega-pixels which, when printed out on glossy photo-quality paper, said photos can pass for slightlty blurry film photos at the standard 8"x10" and can easily pass for film photos at a smaller size.
Both digital and film photography have their advantages and their disadvantages. Get used to it, purists.
By the way, if I rate you critique down, I honestly mean that it wasn't useful. Yeah, hate the photograph all you like, but please tell me what you hated about it. If you're going to make some snide comment and thumb-down my photo, expect to be rated down. If you accompany your thumb(s)-down with why you think it deserved such a rating, rather than just a one-liner that assures me than you think it's bad, you'll get your comment marked as "useful." Please, please, please present your rating with the intelligence to back it up or you will be treated accordingly.
Also, in protest of Helenistic ideals of beauty, I am no longer critiquing photos of nude women or *any* photos of women in the "Erotic" category, for that matter. Yes, some of my favourite photos on this site are of women but when I see a bad boobie-shot and a bad penis-shot, guess which one gets the lower marks for no other reason than the sex of the subject? Shit, bad boobie-shots get consistently higher marks than the good penis-shots on here and I've decided that this is because there are a truck-load of lamers on here who are afraid that liking a photo of a penis will make them gay. Men are and can be just as beautiful and erotic as women -- and just as photogenic. I would like to see more of that on here. Please pick up a book of work by French photography team Pierre et Gilles ot the photography collection Exposed for some fine examples of erotic photographs with male subjects.
| Photo rating |
224  |
|
| Photo critique rating |
182 |
|
| Overall contributor rating |
406 |
|
Send mail
|
