This was several years ago. I was visiting photographer Dan McCormack, and he invited me to go out and do some landscape shooting with him. I told him that I didn’t do photography at all any more…I had decided that I was either going to make a total commitment to it or nothing, and I’d chosen nothing. I didn’t even own a camera any more.
He said “Come on, it’ll be fun, I’ll loan you a camera,” and finally I said OK. So we went out, shooting B&W, walking through the woods. At one point I tripped over a root and the shutter was tripped. At the end of the day Dan ran the film and printed some contacts for me. It was as I had thought…I had some pretty but conventional images. You don’t develop an eye in one day. And there was one negative which was just a blur of squiggly lines.
So we fast forward a few months. Dan has an opening in a good gallery, and I go to it, and there on the wall, matted and framed, is my blur. And it looks great.
"...never be an artist", eh? But I guess I'll always be a lousy comedian. Because my first reaction would have been to go up to Dan and (jokingly) say, "Hey, that's MY blur, and I have the stubbed toe to prove it! I demand you give me the credit I'm due... damn, which means I guess I owe you one-tenth of your gallery rental fee. Who should I make the check out to?"
ReplyDeleteThat's funny...that's exactly how I feel about it, too.
ReplyDeleteI so agree with you, Tad. Your friend is the owner because he is the one who saw art in the blur. (This is certainly no legal opinion, just the thoughts of a writer/editor/comic/social worker.) :) Love, Jer
ReplyDelete