This is something that interested me. No PS collaging. Breaking composition "rules" on purpose. If it is Art, it should get a response like Steve Martin said Art should: "Huh? Wow?" Actually, I'm interested in ANY responses.
Suggested Presences
I am absolutely certain there is art in this photo, Bob. But MY eye does not detect it.
"You can't depend on your eyes,
when your imagination is out of focus."
--Mark Twain
I like this photograph. There is art there - or an aesthetic if you wish - an off-center cross to be precise, comprised of leading lines between the ceramic head and the table/chair and a line at right angles to that that traces through the border between the types of vegetation. If I was a painter painting this scene, that cross would be my first pencil trace.
Nice one.
BHC
Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA
There is always a picture within a picture:
artBob wrote:
This is something that interested me. No PS collaging. Breaking composition "rules" on purpose. If it is Art, it should get a response like Steve Martin said Art should: "Huh? Wow?" Actually, I'm interested in ANY responses.
Art, A foto in this style should be creating a tension that should tear us apart as we view it. But I sense no tension at all. To me there is no subject, or its too weak to draw me to it. Green is a weak, cold color. It needs a complimentary color to make it come alive.
Art, lets do this. Since you are sensing some sort of art here, why don't you pretend this is not your image, and give it an honest critique.
I'm interested in what I'm missing. Be generous to yourself and convince us of the strength of this image.
Tell us, why at an art auction, people should be throwing money at it.
Is there anybody here that would pay Art, $100 to hang it on their wall?
SS
The responses have been very helpful, even fun (Danilo's). I like that some found room in the piece for their own contributions (musickna and mogul). Sharpshooter's reply is great (even though he can't spell complementary) because he tells me his criteria for good art and challenges me. MisterWilson has found the essence. Thank you all.
We shoot something because it grabs us in some way, and here is what I wrestled with: "What's the story behind this mystery?" (All of this is in my yard, but I just "saw" this aspect when I let the dog out.) The work is more contemplative/mysterious than lively/dynamic. Within that framework, here are some of the things I did: no horizon (point of view) for vagueness/mystery; objects extremely separated in space and meaning (Inca ceramic head, coke, brown bottle); depth of field (had to hold steady at 1/13 to get 11) so no focus on a single point); the joy of all those lovely leaves (although green in not a favorite color). Of course very little of those things was thought about when I first started shooting--the idea, vague at first, refines the technique for me, which then clarifies the idea.
So, thanks again everyone. If you'd like to see some more photos, go to
http://www.robertstanleyart.com/Photos
artBob wrote:
We shoot something because it grabs us in some way, and here is what I wrestled with: "What's the story behind this mystery?" (All of this is in my yard, but I just "saw" this aspect when I let the dog out.) The work is more contemplative/mysterious than lively/dynamic. Within that framework, here are some of the things I did: no horizon (point of view) for vagueness/mystery; objects extremely separated in space and meaning (Inca ceramic head, coke, brown bottle); depth of field (had to hold steady at 1/13 to get 11) so no focus on a single point); the joy of all those lovely leaves (although green in not a favorite color). Of course very little of those things was thought about when I first started shooting--the idea, vague at first, refines the technique for me, which then clarifies the idea.
So, thanks again everyone. If you'd like to see some more photos, go to
http://www.robertstanleyart.com/Photos br br We shoot something because it grabs us in ... (
show quote)
It is precisely the qualities you describe here that attracted me to this picture. SharpShooter asks whether we would like to have this hanging on our walls. I would. I find the image to be deeply contemplative. The aesthetic SharpShooter is describing is the conventional photographic aesthetic - the principles followed by those winning photography competitions and selling prints commercially. Your picture, on the other hand, I could easily see hanging in an art museum as a product, say, of the Dusseldorf school of photography - check out
this image by Thomas Struth for example.
I had need hardly add that my sympathies and tastes are wholly with the 'Art' photograhy crowd. I find most commercial and conventional popular photography dull, I relish a trip to an art museum's photography galleries.
(I wrote this before I checked out your website. You are obviously well aware of everything I allude to. :) )
artBob wrote:
This is something that interested me. No PS collaging. Breaking composition "rules" on purpose. If it is Art, it should get a response like Steve Martin said Art should: "Huh? Wow?" Actually, I'm interested in ANY responses.
As a long time art aficionado I am torn between two subjects and I find it unsettling.
artBob wrote:
This is something that interested me. No PS collaging. Breaking composition "rules" on purpose. If it is Art, it should get a response like Steve Martin said Art should: "Huh? Wow?" Actually, I'm interested in ANY responses.
I'm afraid it's all in your eyes Bob.
Forget all the rules. Ultimately, if you take the picture and you like it that is all that matters. I have seen so much "art" that pure crap.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.