Personally I think it does not make sense to seperate the two. I prefer the blog being a subsection of the ‘portfolio’ or the other way round. The artist and the artwork belong together. If I read a photogs’ blog, I want to see pictures. If I see the pics, perhaps I would like to read the posts. Just my view of course.
“A picture is what it is, and I’ve never noticed that it helps to talk about them, or answer specific questions about them, much less volunteer information in words. It wouldn’t make any sense to explain them. Kind of diminishes them. People always want to know when something was taken, where it was taken, and, God knows, why it was taken. It gets really ridiculous. I mean, they’re right there, whatever they are.” – William Eggleston
Not sure what you are trying to say with your responses.
It is fairly obvious to me that 1) if someone is writing about taking pictures (blog), we might like to see the photos (gallery) 2) if someone publishes photos (gallery), we might like to know more about the person (blog). Not saying it has to be that way, but it is an obvious consideration. Nor have I said that the blog has to explain the photos in the portfolio.
Suggest you think about that a little bit before throwing non-answers and quotations around (besides, it would be trivial to find an opposite quotation about “context is everything”).
nice work stud!
Comment by Nick — 7/28/2007 @ 1:08 pm
… but you’re diluting the brand. Why another site?
Comment by Dirk — 7/29/2007 @ 2:26 pm
I wanted to be able to give someone a Portfolio site to look at when asked for one. The Blog will stay, no doubt.
Comment by John — 7/29/2007 @ 3:35 pm
Personally I think it does not make sense to seperate the two. I prefer the blog being a subsection of the ‘portfolio’ or the other way round. The artist and the artwork belong together. If I read a photogs’ blog, I want to see pictures. If I see the pics, perhaps I would like to read the posts. Just my view of course.
Comment by Dirk — 7/30/2007 @ 11:01 am
The portfolio site is for looking at photographs. No captions, no commentary, no discussion.
Comment by Mark James Adams — 7/30/2007 @ 8:16 pm
“A picture is what it is, and I’ve never noticed that it helps to talk about them, or answer specific questions about them, much less volunteer information in words. It wouldn’t make any sense to explain them. Kind of diminishes them. People always want to know when something was taken, where it was taken, and, God knows, why it was taken. It gets really ridiculous. I mean, they’re right there, whatever they are.” – William Eggleston
Comment by Mark James Adams — 7/30/2007 @ 8:17 pm
Not sure what you are trying to say with your responses.
It is fairly obvious to me that 1) if someone is writing about taking pictures (blog), we might like to see the photos (gallery) 2) if someone publishes photos (gallery), we might like to know more about the person (blog). Not saying it has to be that way, but it is an obvious consideration. Nor have I said that the blog has to explain the photos in the portfolio.
Suggest you think about that a little bit before throwing non-answers and quotations around (besides, it would be trivial to find an opposite quotation about “context is everything”).
Comment by Dirk — 7/31/2007 @ 1:57 pm