ediesaul

I would classify this photo as a "moment in time," which might serve a sociological purpose in the future, just as a photo of a 1950s soda fountain counter might.

But, just because the photo might end up in a museum with other photos of the early 2000s, is it art?

Certainly it was taken purposefully. For me, "purposefully-taken" does not, per se, make a piece "art."

What do you think?
Do you think that "creative pp " could transform this photo into art? If yes, I don't mind your playing with the photo to demonstrate your point.

Thanks.

(Download)

Bob Yankle Loc: Burlington, NC

Both as photography and as art, I could have wished you'd aimed your camera a bit more to the left so as to give some space for the women to look into. It appears to be truncated - which is too bad, because her face is part of what makes the photo interesting to begin with.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I'm afraid this one doesn't hold my interest, Edie. The woman at the edge of the frame is a distraction, as is the table that needs to be cleaned :)

Maybe a different shot that features the equipment, the architecture or furniture, the mirrors or lighting, the yummy food?

Can you elaborate on your statement regarding purpose?

ediesaul

Thanks, Bob, for this critique. I agree with you.

ediesaul

Thanks, Linda, for your critique. I appreciate it.

I saw some elements that I liked, like the pattern of the floor leading to the cashier; the women back-to-back; the "peep" hole in the chair, also leading to the cashier; the vertical lines on the back of the stools, the upright bottles, and the periphery of the menu, contrasting with the horizontal shelf lines and the diamond floor pattern; the implied relationships, seen and unseen.

So many times I see something and I can't make it come to fruition. Bob Yankle gave me a good point for composition; not that I could have maneuvered, but, in a perfect world, he is absolutely right. Soon, my copy of Peterson's book will arrive and I will concentrate on that, but, in the meantime, I'm still shooting.

So, I saw these elements, and I reminded myself that I did not contribute to the Eggleston thread. If I had, I would have kept the photo in color, which is very nice, but my preference is black-and-white and I converted the photo.

Did I answer your question?

P.S. I also liked the busyness of the mess in the foreground which contrasts to the smoothness of the foreground woman's sweater.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Do you interpret this image is art? Ultimately, art is based on the creator's intention, and is not defined by popularity or mass appeal.

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

This is about all my artist brain can come up with at the moment.

(Download)

ediesaul

I don't know.

I look at the photo, and keep seeing more that I like. There are groups of threes, for example. Did I "see" an image instinctively?

My definition of art has more to do with the emotion an image evokes. When I took the photo, I was "moved" by the geometric forms. If no-one else is, perhaps it is failed "art." I'm not so egoistic to say, "Well, if I like it, that's all that's important." (Unless I'm speaking to my husband, of course. :roll: )

NJFrank Loc: New Jersey

Edie, you never know. It might land in a museum as lfe in 2015. I think you are right about it being better in B/W. I so like the messy table. To me it is part of the surroundings. But the woman to me is not necessary. She has to go. Lol

ediesaul

Frank, I like your version. You kept the 3 backs. I also now see the back-to-back chairs. I also like the emphasis on the menu. Thanks for playing.

What was your intention with the crop?
Do you think the result makes the photo "art"?
Do you like the photo?

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

The foreground woman was not working for me, neither was the space right of the ketchup bottle.
Well it can be framed or not, and hung on the wall, you tell me.
Yes

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thanks Edie, you did answer my question.

I love Frank's version! I can't believe how much more appealing the image is for me without the woman. And Frank's pp gives a gritty, sort of surreal feel I find very appropriate for the scene. Without seeing exactly side by side, it seems Frank's has more contrast, as well, which I think helps define the chairs and other elements.

With all the recent topics in FYC that have discussed "is this art?" and "what is art" to a depth far beyond what I imagined would be possible - lol - rook2c4's statement resonates most for me: "Ultimately, art is based on the creator's intention, and is not defined by popularity or mass appeal."

We just always have to remember that what we see as the photographer, and what appeals to us most, may not be perceived as interesting or compelling to others - by virtue of our varied education, experiences and interests. MinnieV saw something in one of the "street photography" winners (St3v3M's topic the other day) that I would have never thought of! And once I read her comments, I had a new appreciation for the image.

ediesaul

Thanks, NJFrank. Frank2013 did exactly that in his version.

ediesaul

I would not hang such a photo on my wall.

ediesaul

I agree. Frank's version is superior to the original. What I felt instinctively, he was able to produce in the photo. I don't have enough experience yet, and am very grateful to see improvements.