[magkelly]

Francesca Woodman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This woman's work is much lauded but honestly it does very little for me. I'm completely ambivalent. I'm just curious. Do you know her work and if so do you like it or not and why? Her work left me very uninspired. Apparently I'm in the minority?

[patrick9]

Not me. Her work is not my style. I am working hard to not have blurred images. She on the other hand seemed to like to incorporate blurr into the shot.

[MRRiley]

Just another case where someone thought her bland work was "artistic" and "full of meaning" so she gained critical aclaim. I've seen much much better on Flickr, not to mention this forum.

[autumnbringer]

Just another case where someone thought her bland work was "artistic" and "full of meaning" so she gained critical aclaim. I've seen much much better on Flickr, not to mention this forum.

Art is subjective and all - so typically I'm pretty indifferent about the fact that people love work that I don't care for (add Francesca Woodman's work to the list) - but just some of the descriptions of her photos even on Wikipedia just absolutely killed me. I clicked the first few and didn't see anything great so I then read the descriptions and only clicked the ones that looked like they could seem interesting.

There's this one: "Sloan appears as the artist's doppelganger... as an angelic figure hanging from the doorway of a Roman palazzo" - that sounds pretty darn fascinating! Click the image and what do you get? A picture of a girl (whose face is behind her arm) wearing a shirt that's too big for her, holding herself up on the frame of a doorway inside a very much regular looking house. Oh that's nice I gue- wait, where's the Roman palazzo part come in? How about the angelic figure? Why exactly is she a doppelganger and not just herself? I want my money back, Wikipedia and Flickr - and random description writer person!!