Photographer: Vik Muniz

[Dchemist]

I had a chance to see an image by Vik Muniz (www.vikmuniz.net) that was fascinating. He constructs images for his photos from materials - junk for example. They are surreal. Have a look at his website - and watch some of the videos on how he works - I found it fascinating. Dennis

[JWright]

I HATE web sites with those itsy-cute little gimmicks... What's with that stupid little arrow running up and down the left side of the page with the cursor? What's wrong with a simple "back" button?

[Picture North Carolina]

I HATE web sites with those itsy-cute little gimmicks... What's with that stupid little arrow running up and down the left side of the page with the cursor? What's wrong with a simple "back" button?

Exactly. I was on the site for about 30 seconds, found the navigation horrible and the SLLLOOOOOWWWWW loading / rendering flash irritating so I clicked off. Established photographers with already-known-names can get away with this crap, but photographers who are in the process of establishing themselves should NEVER create websites that discourage people from viewing them.

[Barb42]

In a number of images he is 'borrowing' figures and drawings from well known artworks and including those in his image collection of 'junk' . And I think I am being kind in using the term 'borrowing'. I am no expert but it was painful obvious to even me. Unfortunately, he is more mimic than creative. Even his self portraits are mimics - one a rather poor copy of Chuck Close's style.

[Dchemist]

Hi Barb, I am not sure that he compares to Close (http://www.chuckclose.coe.uh.edu/life/index.html). Closes images seem to me to be more paintings than photos albeit some are abstract. Muniz images are photographs of contructions that on the surface represent something that the eye interprates and in reality they are something very different. Its interesting to see how "photography' can cover quite a spectrum. Dennis

[Croasdail]

Thanks for sharing. It is good to see something a little different, not the run of the mile looks all the same stuff you see so often. Can't say I love the abstract, but I am learning to appreciate it more. The mind numbing dribble of everything safe shots gets tiring. And I am mostly speaking of the crapolla I am producing. Cheers.

[B3SEO]

Exactly. I was on the site for about 30 seconds, found the navigation horrible and the SLLLOOOOOWWWWW loading / rendering flash irritating so I clicked off. Established photographers with already-known-names can get away with this crap, but photographers who are in the process of establishing themselves should NEVER create websites that discourage people from viewing them.

Man, you got that right. Most people who develop a web site that is like this design it for themselves, and not for the reader. I find it irritating.

[Croasdail]

BTW.... which version are you all looking at. I am looking at the high res site and all images and pages are coming up in under 1 second. I know we are getting a tad impatient as a society expecting everything now, but to me that is reasonable speed. Is it much slower on your systems?

[Picture North Carolina]

BTW.... which version are you all looking at. I am looking at the high res site and all images and pages are coming up in under 1 second. I know we are getting a tad impatient as a society expecting everything now, but to me that is reasonable speed. Is it much slower on your systems?

I don't know about others, but if you read my post you will see I was not critical of slow loading graphics. I was critical of slow loading, rendering, playing, irritating, frustrating, and user-unfriendly flash scripting. The site turned me away so I simply clicked it off.

And yes, it is about speed. In web design communities, a stat has been floating around for years. And that is when a person goes to a website you have 7 seconds to grab their attention, to make them want to go deeper.

Haven't you ever wondered why the "big boys" don't mess around? Open another browser right now. Go straight to amazon.com, or ebay.com and what do you see? One thing you don't see is a bunch of time wasting flash crap floating around the screen. When you go to either of these sites the first thing you see is products for sale... something to make you want to go deeper. On ebay, the first thing that grabs your attention (intentionally!) is Cool Deals. Why? So you curioiusly click to see what the cool deal is.

Yes, there is no doubt that photography is art. On the other hand, the business of photography isn't art, it's business! And, as you say, if your potential customer is "impatient" you can react to it either of two ways. You can either lecture them about their impatience or you can get to the point and sell them your product. It's your choice. /Dan

[Barb42]

Dchemist, Chuck Close is a painter who uses photographs as source material. His photos are interesting because of how they are used and are published more as an afterthought due to his success as a painter. It would seem from my readings that some photographers mistake his 'photorealistic' works as actual photographs, but they are really amazing paintings. That aside, what I am saying is that Vik is not original in the sense that he heavily borrows someone else's actual work and embeds it in his. Most of the image (the drawings) are actually lifted from well known images. I just don't see much individual creativity on his part in his work. But that is just my opinion and it would be a strong reason not to anything from him. Most collectors are looking for the unique, not the copy. His work would be a bad investment. But then, I am also not a fan of Andy Warhol for the same reason.

[Croasdail]

I don't know about others, but if you read my post you will see I was not critical of slow loading graphics. I was critical of slow loading, rendering, playing, irritating, frustrating, and user-unfriendly flash scripting. The site turned me away so I simply clicked it off.

And yes, it is about speed. In web design communities, a stat has been floating around for years. And that is when a person goes to a website you have 7 seconds to grab their attention, to make them want to go deeper.

Haven't you ever wondered why the "big boys" don't mess around? Open another browser right now. Go straight to amazon.com, or ebay.com and what do you see? One thing you don't see is a bunch of time wasting flash crap floating around the screen. When you go to either of these sites the first thing you see is products for sale... something to make you want to go deeper. On ebay, the first thing that grabs your attention (intentionally!) is Cool Deals. Why? So you curioiusly click to see what the cool deal is.

Yes, there is no doubt that photography is art. On the other hand, the business of photography isn't art, it's business! And, as you say, if your potential customer is "impatient" you can react to it either of two ways. You can either lecture them about their impatience or you can get to the point and sell them your product. It's your choice. /Dan


But looking at this photographers work, it is not the type of transactional product you are comparing it to with Amazon or the like. Amazon and the others are selling products that are pure commodities. It's about transactional speed, not presentation. A Sony or a Canon is the same product regardless of where you buy it. Art on the other hand is supposed to be unique, different. If you looking for cookie cutter copies of others work, Amazon is an ideal forum for that kind of transaction. But if you intend to stand out as a photographer and not just be another photographer x on the web (billions and billions of those and counting), then the quality of the presentation rather then the speed of presentation is paramount. If you want a quick and Amazonish experience, then the wire services or the many stock sites will do.

I would hope that a 1 or 2 second delay would not be too long of a time to keep people from experiencing something new or unique. Experiencing photography should not be reducing it down to how fast you can click-click-click. Anyway. Different ways for different people. Thats the great thing about opinions, everyone has one, and one doesn't make the other wrong, and visa-versa.

BTW... took a look at your site, you have some nice shots there. Cheers.

[Picture North Carolina]

But looking at this photographers work, it is not the type of transactional product you are comparing it to with Amazon or the like. Amazon and the others are selling products that are pure commodities. It's about transactional speed, not presentation. A Sony or a Canon is the same product regardless of where you buy it. Art on the other hand is supposed to be unique, different. If you looking for cookie cutter copies of others work, Amazon is an ideal forum for that kind of transaction. But if you intend to stand out as a photographer and not just be another photographer x on the web (billions and billions of those and counting), then the quality of the presentation rather then the speed of presentation is paramount. If you want a quick and Amazonish experience, then the wire services or the many stock sites will do.

I would hope that a 1 or 2 second delay would not be too long of a time to keep people from experiencing something new or unique. Experiencing photography should not be reducing it down to how fast you can click-click-click. Anyway. Different ways for different people. Thats the great thing about opinions, everyone has one, and one doesn't make the other wrong, and visa-versa.

BTW... took a look at your site, you have some nice shots there. Cheers.

First, thanks for the compliment. I also try to look at the work of people who take the time to make quality / helpful posts on potn, but you have no link to a gallery in your sig. :(

One thing I want to make clear, tho, especially because we are discussing a website - It's not really "my site." I'm hosted on pbase. I wish I had time to put up a website of my own, but my own personal wishes and needs are pushed to the bottom of the list below everybody elses. Plus, I'm still searching for a good website script, paid or free. The pre-configured scripts such as coppermine, etc. just don't look good to me.

As to the subject at hand, I'm going to have to agree with you here, at least partially. You make a good point. But it's not an insignificant 1 or 2 second delay that bothered me about the site, it was the package and "presentation" overall: slow flash, poorly implemented navigation, etc. And you're right - presentation is an important aspect of a good marketing campaign, no matter the product. It's just that I maintain a presentation can be made that is good, attractive but at the same time also incorporates highly-important elements such as speed, user friendliness, intuitive interfaces, etc. Cheers back at ya'. /Dan