First of all, i-m sorry for not being so active in the past few weeks, but i-ve been a bit busy and didnt have much time to spend here on dA, so thank you all for the lovely comments/critiques and for faving my work
Now, i have to warn you, this is going to be a pretty long journal, filled with my own frustrations, so those whom i-m going to bore eventually, i-m sorry for that, but i have to write this
So, i signed up for a photography/art course which should prepare me for getting admitted in an Art University in Bucharest, where i would be studying photography for 3 years

now, i can say that i-m slightly downhearted by all that happened there, except for meeting some really beautiful/interesting/open-minded people (some are here on dA too), i knew that i would receive critique for what i do, i know my pictures arent that great, but well, i cant accept that landscape pictures arent considered art pictures, at least from what the teachers there say, that they are commercial/"plain beautiful" photos and dont have a "story" i cant accept that, i mean thats why i started doing photography in the first place, i love nature, i-m trying to be better, i know that my style isnt unique, and i accept that, it will eventually be more "personal" with the passing of time and the more i travel, but i dont know why ordinary pictures, that record something shocking are considered art, and pictures that have maybe more to say in my opinion (and im not talking about my own here, i saw a lot of great pictures who were eventually trashed by others) are just overlooked because they-re not in the "genre"
I first read a journal made by

who asked
the question Are landscape photos art? or are they not? so i ask of you to tell me your honest opinion about that, i would appreciate it so much..
[link] <<<

Daca esti roman si vrei sa vezi cati romani sunt pe deviant, intra pe site si vezi daca esti pe lista, daca nu adauga-ti username-ul acolo

sa ne gasim mai usor

Features August 2009