Is that the big double-decker Harris Teeter in Ballston?

Is that the big double-decker Harris Teeter in Ballston?

Looks like the one on Lee Highway (Harrison St, if I'm not mistaken.)

I love pictures of ordinary things taking from interesting angles. Where is she standing to get that view of the store? Do Harris Teeters have some kind of walkway up there?

I've gotten good with knowing that I'll never have a shot up on the DCist site, even non-POtD. Because I don't get comments on my Flickr photos that suggest my work looks like some famous photographer's. No biggie.

I thought it was the Ballston one at first, too, but the layout is wrong. the deli is where the beer should be!

- the english major

"Really, reminiscent of Gursky? In the same way a urinal in a public restroom is reminiscent of Duchamp? In the same way any picture taken in Yosemite is reminiscent of Ansel Adams? What a ludicrous comparison, and a bad photo."

If you ever went to art school, which Im sure you did based on your genius comment, then you know that there are proper and improper ways to critique art. Neither which use the words "ludicrous", "bad", or "crap".
Have the balls to sign your name to a comment like that, or at least the link to your flickr account so we can check your amazing body of work.
I bet you totally got off using the names Gursky, Duchamp and Adams in the same sentence, didn't you?

I didn't use the word "crap". Ah, "proper" and "improper" ways of critiquing art. Hilarious. I'm sure, given your insistence that someone be able to make better art to critique it, that you went to art school as well.

How's this: Comparing this photo to Gursky is "ludicrous" because (a) it's not technically as good, and (b) it's too close to the same subject to be considering anything but a copy. "Reminiscent" in terms of art should, in my opinion, refer to the thought processes that went into it. You know, the more important part of the art creation.

This piece, I would argue, is only art in its context as part of the photographer's photo-a-day project. It is a technically "bad" photo on its own (i.e. separated from that project) because of the railings in the foreground, what I assume is an unintentional lack of sharpness, and what is essentially a purposeless void in the upper third of the frame.

I can't sign my name because of DCist's silly restrictions. I see you didn't either.

I chose to use Gursky, Duchamp and Adams because I felt they illustrated my point best, not because I "get off" on it. Gursky because he was raised in the OP, Duchamp because of his use of easily replicated found objects (realizing that technical competence does not define art, but ideas do), and Adams because his subjects, if not his technical competence, are easily replicated.

This is probably a more thorough response than a random corner of the internet warrants, but I didn't feel you deserved to have an insulting last word.

I liked #5's comments, whether or not he "got off" on mentioning 3 famous artists. (Why would that matter? People aren't going to post unless they're passionate, or "getting off")(or bored)

It was a good point that sometimes it's a stretch to say a photo evokes a famous work based on simplistic commonalities - his funny examples summed up the criticism better than I can.

99% of Flickr sites are by amateurs. They are no less valuable for it, but any similarieties to "great works" are probably unintentional, or the result of genius. Who cares. It's still valuable to point out similarities - I had never heard of Gursky, but thanks to DCist I've googled him and learned some cool stuff.

I'm really surprised snarky poster #12 thinks saying it's a "bad photo" violates the proper way to critique art ... "If you ever went to art school"

Sheesh!

Anyways, I enjoyed seeing a shot of Harris Teeter, great photo or not. I enjoyed the ref to Gursky, appropriate or not. And I loved #5's comments. #5, you rock!

The funny thing, is that commenter #12 wasnt necessarily disagreeing with commenter #5, it seems that he or she was simply critiquing the critique.

Commenter #12 here, this is the last of it, promise.
Like someonelse said, Its not that I necessarily disagree with poster #5, its the delivery of the critique I have a problem with.
Behind every peice of art is a person. And whether or not that person is a professional or amateur, they still open themselves up to critcism. So, if you're going to critique something, why not do it constructively? Back up your comments with something of use to the artist. (which #5 ulimately did)
Thats awesome that someone was turned on to Gursky today, but try checking out the profile of the photographer featured. She has a great blog that features her love of photography. Right on.
Sorry for the snarkiness.

God damn, it's readily apparent that D.C. really needs to get fucked, or fucked up. I'm looking at you, [5]...

i wonder if i posted a printout of this thread onto a giant piece of cardboard and put the cardboard in a cool blue-ish, red-ish light, whether i could say that that was art.

because i think it would be pretty cool.

also, total props to erin for agreeing with commentator #5. that's hot.

-bill