"Photograph things you care about, not what you think others want to see. There is no substitution for passion." —Sarah Rice

― Artistic Expression CritiqueIn Search of a Genre

User avatar
Bob Yankle
Mentoris Peritus
Mentoris Peritus
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:53 pm
Location: Burlington, NC
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: Yes, you can edit but ask me first
Contact:

In Search of a Genre

Post by Bob Yankle » Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:44 pm

Black and White (Inverted)? Check. Abstract? Check. Composite Fantasy? Check. Textured? Check Too busy? Perhap ......

But does it grab your interest(?)..... perhaps the most telling of all. The jury is still out on that one.
Attachments
ShadowLight_ReedyForkRiver_Macphun..jpg

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1841
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:54 pm

I like it. I find it restful, like some old Chinese paintings. It looks like an etching. It looks underwater. If I were into meditation it would be good to meditate on. (Y)
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

User avatar
Duck
Key Founding Member
Key Founding Member
Posts: 2517
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:31 am
Location: Shelton, CT
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by Duck » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:25 pm

Referencing back to some of our earlier discussions, specially those regarding Gursky's Rhein II, all I can say is, "Nope, don't like it." That sounds like a cop out, doesn't it? Personally I hate short, constricted, unexplained comments like this. It's pure subjectivity wrapped in a blanket of perceived negativity. It comes across as blunt head trauma to the artist and leaves little to learn from.

Personally I don't like it because I don't understand it. It disregards many of the standard conventions of composition; no clear subject, nothing for the eye to settle on and comprehend, no clear message of what the image is supposed to be (subject, message or otherwise) or what the artist's intention is. Sure, I can make out recognizable forms, (trees and water) but they are not presented in any logical format. There is no perceptible order to the arrangement of overlapped images and that blending of textures just adds in confusing my eye (brain?) even more as all that texture seems to compete against themselves.

I also don't personally like it because it agitates me. All those factors stated above work to create a certain level of anxiety as I view it, which is counter to what emotion I perceive I should be feeling. In my opinion (and most everyone else's) an image should move the viewer to feel something. This is a given. However, I find that any feeling an image evokes in the viewer should be congruous to the subject matter presented. The mood should fit the image. For me, I have a very personal relationship with wooded areas because of my youth. I find them relaxing, mesmerizing and contemplative. In my world there is no room for anxiety in a wooded area. On the contrary, woods are where I would go to shed anxiety. Therefore this image is counter to my instincts.

Having said that, like Gursky's Rhein II I also have to understand that my sentiments are not the standard of measurement of what is good and what is bad. It's also not a rule on which to measure an artist's talents or abilities. In other words, beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder. It is evident there is a level of both artistic and technical skill at play and my comments should not take away from that. It could simply be an issue of understanding what the artist's intentions were in creating this. Many times I've come to appreciate an image because of the artist's explanation of the piece, and this touches on the earlier discussion about titles. Knowing an artist's intention can often lead to that AHA! moment and suddenly it clicks and an image I didn't get suddenly takes on a new light.

Anyhow, that's my long winded take and explanation. Hope I didn't offend because, as always, it's just my two bits.
"If you didn't learn something new today, you wasted a day."
Image ImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1841
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:35 am

Now isn't that the darnedest thing? I like it. Duck does not. I find it restful. It agitates Duck. Duck sees no composition, no clear subject. I see the whole canvas and feel it needs no clear subject, for me the whole thing is the subject.
I have no idea what to make of that. 8~ (?)
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

User avatar
Duck
Key Founding Member
Key Founding Member
Posts: 2517
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:31 am
Location: Shelton, CT
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by Duck » Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:39 am

Charles Haacker wrote:[...] I have no idea what to make of that. 8~ (?)

I will say, I keep looking at it so it is grabbing my attention.
"If you didn't learn something new today, you wasted a day."
Image ImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1841
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:44 am

Duck wrote:I will say, I keep looking at it so it is grabbing my attention.

As you well know, I have no clue why I like something. I can't analyze it. I love Jackson Pollock. My take on Pollock is that his canvases are to be taken in as a whole. Since they tend to be large that means stepping back. On my laptop I have to decrease the size of posts sometimes to see the whole (as I did with this one). I usually have the magnification at 150% (eyes no s'good no more) but often I "step back" to get the literal whole picture.
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

User avatar
LindaShorey
Mentoris Secundus
Mentoris Secundus
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:50 am
Location: Yakima, WA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by LindaShorey » Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:50 am

Charles Haacker wrote:Now isn't that the darnedest thing? I like it. Duck does not. I find it restful. It agitates Duck. Duck sees no composition, no clear subject. I see the whole canvas and feel it needs no clear subject, for me the whole thing is the subject.
I have no idea what to make of that. 8~ (?)


Similar happened the other day in psjunkie's "Puff." Dave Chinn suggested dramatic, while I was feeling mellow, lol. Having been very active in a large forum for 4+ years, the constant that we could always count on was a wide variety of opinions on nearly every photo offered for feedback.

Regarding the image in this thread, I feel no strong emotion. It's busy and difficult to understand, but I'm more inclined to just move on than take time to figure it out.

As with Chuck's last comment, "I can't analyze it..." I sometimes feel that way: I just want the experience - right brain vs. left brain, I guess? But sometimes the words pour forth as to why or why not.

Great topic for discussion, Bob!
"What's important in a photograph and what isn't." http://photographylife.com/whats-import ... -what-isnt

User avatar
PietFrancke
Mentoris Secundus
Mentoris Secundus
Posts: 1318
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: WV
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by PietFrancke » Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:56 am

I see it as a line b/w line drawing of a reflection of a river/creek. The lower left quadrant is too strong, for me things would benefit from ripples and confusion - the water's surface is not enough apparent. I L O V E your play - I L O V E Duck's reaction! You guys crack me up!!!!

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1841
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:10 am

Charles Haacker wrote:Now isn't that the darnedest thing? I like it. Duck does not. I find it restful. It agitates Duck. Duck sees no composition, no clear subject. I see the whole canvas and feel it needs no clear subject, for me the whole thing is the subject.
I have no idea what to make of that. 8~ (?)
LindaShorey wrote:Similar happened the other day in psjunkie's "Puff." Dave Chinn suggested dramatic, while I was feeling mellow, lol. Having been very active in a large forum for 4+ years, the constant that we could always count on was a wide variety of opinions on nearly every photo offered for feedback.

Regarding the image in this thread, I feel no strong emotion. It's busy and difficult to understand, but I'm more inclined to just move on than take time to figure it out.

As with Chuck's last comment, "I can't analyze it..." I sometimes feel that way: I just want the experience - right brain vs. left brain, I guess? But sometimes the words pour forth as to why or why not.

Great topic for discussion, Bob!

I think it highlights the subjectivity of art appreciation, criticism, critique, analysis, so on. It's probably true of almost everyone. I like something, someone else hates it, many are neutral about it... (?)
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

User avatar
Duck
Key Founding Member
Key Founding Member
Posts: 2517
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:31 am
Location: Shelton, CT
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by Duck » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:47 am

Charles Haacker wrote:[...] I "step back" to get the literal whole picture.

You're right, this could be the case of better looked at large to appreciate it.
"If you didn't learn something new today, you wasted a day."
Image ImageImageImageImage

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests