Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
For Your Consideration
Wondering if this photo too "strange"
Page 1 of 2 next>
May 24, 2019 22:40:20   #
artBob Loc: Near Chicago
 
I really liked this idea when the view first caught my eye. Later, as I worked on it, I began to understand why, and tried to pp that in. However, I do not want the strangeness of the photo to get in the way of its creating a feeling or thought in the viewer. That's where you can help me out with your response. Hope you have time.


(Download)

Reply
May 25, 2019 12:57:15   #
Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)
 
If it truly satisfies the esthetic of its creator, who cares?
If it is offered for sale in a limited print edition, it’s creator may reach a conclusion re: the posted question.

Dave

Reply
May 25, 2019 13:05:07   #
artBob Loc: Near Chicago
 
Uuglypher wrote:
If it truly satisfies the esthetic of its creator, who cares?
If it is offered for sale in a limited print edition, it’s creator may reach a conclusion re: the posted question.

Dave

This creator cares, believing neither in pandering nor pleasing with just the self. Part of the discipline of Art/Photography is traveling in the groove of sharing new horizons without the work itself being a barrier to that. To do that, I have to listen and then judge the rightness of the comments to make my work even stronger.

Reply
 
 
May 25, 2019 13:33:24   #
dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho
 
artBob wrote:
This creator cares, believing neither in pandering nor pleasing with just the self. Part of the discipline of Art/Photography is traveling in the groove of sharing new horizons without the work itself being a barrier to that. To do that, I have to listen and then judge the rightness of the comments to make my work even stronger.


When I first saw the photo I had a hard time figuring out what it was you were trying to present to us. After looking at it for a few minutes I still have absolutely no idea even what it is. If I have to actually study a photo or other art form to even decide what the artist was trying to present to the viewer it just isn't worth it to me and I move on.

My thinking is that you, just as I have done too, tried to take the photo with an idea in mind of how you wanted it to turn out; a visualization if you will. Many of us try to do that when the photo is more than a snapshot or a record of something happening. Quite a few of mine do not come out as I planned. That is what you may have done, thought of it being an artful photo but it just did not turn out as planned.

Dennis

Reply
May 25, 2019 13:50:59   #
Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)
 
u
artBob wrote:
This creator cares, believing neither in pandering nor pleasing with just the self. Part of the discipline of Art/Photography is traveling in the groove of sharing new horizons without the work itself being a barrier to that. To do that, I have to listen and then judge the rightness of the comments to make my work even stronger.


Sans awareness of the particular new horizon upon which this particular artwork is situated or of which new horizon it is considered by the artist to be exemplary, one finds (I find) it difficult to determine if this artwork is located “in the grove of sharing” as an assisting lubricant or as an obstructive barrier. To do that in the most meaningful, effective manner (beyond satisfying the maker’s esthetic) I suspect observing the work’s success or failure in the art market to be the ultimate index of its putative strength. Every viewer of the image must answer the ultimate, deciding question: “Am I willing to pay for the privilege of hanging this work somewhere in my limited wall space?” ... or, at least, can I understand why an aficionado of the (fill in your chosen name) school of artistic expression would hang it on their wall?

As for your introductory statement, I am confused as regards the semantic role of the conjunction “with”. It confounds what I might otherwise consider to have been a cogent statement.

Dave

Reply
May 25, 2019 13:52:16   #
artBob Loc: Near Chicago
 
dennis2146 wrote:
When I first saw the photo I had a hard time figuring out what it was you were trying to present to us. After looking at it for a few minutes I still have absolutely no idea even what it is. If I have to actually study a photo or other art form to even decide what the artist was trying to present to the viewer it just isn't worth it to me and I move on.

My thinking is that you, just as I have done too, tried to take the photo with an idea in mind of how you wanted it to turn out; a visualization if you will. Many of us try to do that when the photo is more than a snapshot or a record of something happening. Quite a few of mine do not come out as I planned. That is what you may have done, thought of it being an artful photo but it just did not turn out as planned.

Dennis
When I first saw the photo I had a hard time figur... (show quote)

Thank you for your comments. I think you may be right, and will chew on it.

Reply
May 25, 2019 14:09:58   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
It's visually curious but beyond that I wouldn't even be looking for any story-telling, beyond the fact that it's a mixture of interior v exterior, and a mixture of bright v dark.

Reply
 
 
May 25, 2019 14:29:53   #
artBob Loc: Near Chicago
 
Uuglypher wrote:
u

Sans awareness of the particular new horizon upon which this particular artwork is situated or of which new horizon it is considered by the artist to be exemplary, one finds (I find) it difficult to determine if this artwork is located “in the grove of sharing” as an assisting lubricant or as an obstructive barrier. To do that in the most meaningful, effective manner (beyond satisfying the maker’s esthetic) I suspect observing the work’s success or failure in the art market to be the ultimate index of its putative strength. Every viewer of the image must answer the ultimate, deciding question: “Am I willing to pay for the privilege of hanging this work somewhere in my limited wall space?” ... or, at least, can I understand why an aficionado of the (fill in your chosen name) school of artistic expression would hang it on their wall?

As for your introductory statement, I am confused as regards the semantic role of the conjunction “with”. It confounds what I might otherwise consider to have been a cogent statement.

Dave
u br br Sans awareness of the particular new hori... (show quote)

Wordification epitomized.

I'm aware of all that you said, having myself been in the art market since the 1960s. Also taught. You appear to be one of those banes of a class, a disruptor for the sake of disruption. I hope I am wrong. While I do not care what you think at this point, I have a statement for the sake of anyone else:

Please disregard this exchange.
I am trying something new, and want to know how others respond, both those familiar with the market and those that are "just" human beings. Repeating my philosophy: yes, a creator has to follow his own ideas and techniques, but they should include how the work affects others, to get beyond self-pleasing and perhaps delusional, efforts. Feel free to comment. Stating where you come from would help. I definitely appreciate your time and your experience.

Reply
May 25, 2019 14:32:43   #
artBob Loc: Near Chicago
 
R.G. wrote:
It's visually curious but beyond that I wouldn't even be looking for any story-telling, beyond the fact that it's a mixture of interior v exterior, and a mixture of bright v dark.

I'm glad you caught the contrasts you mention. They, and the irregular composition are metaphors. Two problems in the piece. Is the first-seeing engaging enough for the viewer to stay long enough and make it personal? Is the metaphor for something in the human condition reachable, or just too personal to me?

Thank you.

Reply
May 25, 2019 15:03:02   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
artBob wrote:
I'm glad you caught the contrasts you mention. They, and the irregular composition are metaphors. Two problems in the piece. Is the first-seeing engaging enough for the viewer to stay long enough and make it personal? Is the metaphor for something in the human condition reachable, or just too personal to me?

Thank you.


The first problem I see is that interior v exterior is too common an experience for us to read any significance into. For example, standing inside looking out through a window will never be seen as a meaningful or "representative" experience. Ditto for seeing reflections in mirrors (as far as everyday situations go).

The second problem I see is that the idea isn't going to work unless the ingredients are strongly symbolic, and by that I mean that they would have to be symbolic enough to not require any explanation. That way the meaning would sneak up on us at a subconscious level. I would say that's not going to happen with your image. It does have visual interest and starkness but the story-telling that you're hoping for isn't going to happen for.... well, I would say just about everybody except yourself, and even then that's only because you have insider information.

Perhaps the use of more traditional symbolism might help. For example the view through the window could be a soft image of a flying bird or some such.... which takes us into the realm of traditional fantasy art. Maybe that's one way of assessing that sort of image. Nobody's going to care that it's an image of an actual reality, and its potential effectiveness can be gauged by asking the question "Would this work as a drawing or painting?".

Reply
May 25, 2019 15:04:42   #
artBob Loc: Near Chicago
 
R.G. wrote:
The first problem I see is that interior v exterior is too common an experience for us to read any significance into. For example, standing inside looking out through a window will never be seen as a meaningful or "representative" experience. Ditto for seeing reflections in mirrors (as far as everyday situations go).

The second problem I see is that the idea isn't going to work unless the ingredients are strongly symbolic, and by that I mean that they would have to be symbolic enough to not require any explanation. That way the meaning would sneak up on us at a subconscious level. I would say that's not going to happen with your image. It does have visual interest and starkness but the story-telling that you're hoping for isn't going to happen for.... well, I would say just about everybody except yourself, and even then that's only because you have insider information.

Perhaps the use of more traditional symbolism might help. For example the view through the window could be a soft image of a flying bird or some such.... which takes us into the realm of traditional fantasy art. Maybe that's one way of assessing that sort of image. Nobody's going to care that it's an image of an actual reality, and its potential effectiveness can be gauged by asking the question "Would this work as a drawing or painting?".
The first problem I see is that interior v exterio... (show quote)

👍

Reply
 
 
May 25, 2019 15:58:38   #
Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)
 
[quote=artBob]Wordification epitomized.

Hello, artbob,
I am disappointed, artbob, that you deigned not to respond to my explicit points. I am also disappointed, having taught for over thirty years, to be characterized “...a (bane) of (your) class” who disrupts “...for the sake of disruption”. My problem, it seems, is lack of fluency in artspeak,, that communication mode employed by those who wish that those more objectively oriented were less objective and more....more...obtusely and fuzzily subjective.

If, however. you really want objective, here goes:
This image appears to me as the result of an accidental tripping of the shutter of a camera suspended by its strap over one’s shoulder as one happens to be passing a mirror (in a dark room) reflecting part of a window view of the out-of-doors. I see: presentation of a purely accidental composition, lack of focus of the reflected, but focus on the reflector....and disregard for tonal rendition...in sum, technical, compositional, and impact all in the “wanting” realm.

I’ve heard the axiom from some that every image must have a “story”. Is the story I recounted in the previous paragraph intended to be perceived?

Or...if the image is, indeed, reflective (no pun intended) of your artistic intent, it would be more-than-helpful to be informed of the specifics of that intent. Or, should we acceed to the otherwise justifiable conclusion that it is an unintended accident waiting for others to provide exculpation?

Lacking that, I am left with the “story” that I read in the image, or with the necessity of gaining a far greater comprehension of artspeak that I might be able to provide what you seek in a more ... comprehendible ... lexicon.

Having taught for over thirty years.It is disappointing to be characterized as a “bane” and purposeful disruptor of (your) class. Happily, in all those years, class banes and disrupters were rare; in fact , I can recall the names of the four that there were. The disciplines I taught (Anatomical Pathology, Systemic Pathology, and Pathology of Infectious , Non-infectious Diseases, and Diseases of Free-living Wildlife) were all based on objective visual interpretation of actual biological subjects and specimens or of photographic images thereof. Accuracy of visual perception of the obvious and, more important, of the less-than-obvious features of the subjects was of prime significance, and of no lesser significance was objective description of one’s observations and of conclusions (anatomical and disease diagnoses) drawn therefrom.
Also, since 1965, I taught photography to clinical and pathology residents via classes, seminars, and interactive workshops.

That, artbob, is “where I’m coming from” if that be of any helpful illumination.

Rest assured, artbob, that were I more aware...or simply aware...of your intent when you visualized and exposed your posted image, I would likely be able to respond in a more helpful manner to your evident quandary.

I am curious about how you characterize the the significance of “those familiar with the market” and those “that are ””just””human beings”.

What is the “new” thing you are trying?

How does the image “affect” you, regardless of whether pleasing or displeasing?

With best regards, and no disruptive intent...

Dave

Reply
May 25, 2019 17:16:03   #
artBob Loc: Near Chicago
 
[quote=Uuglypher]
artBob wrote:
Wordification epitomized.

Hello, artbob,
I am disappointed, artbob, that you deigned not to respond to my explicit points. I am also disappointed, having taught for over thirty years, to be characterized “...a (bane) of (your) class” who disrupts “...for the sake of disruption”. My problem, it seems, is lack of fluency in artspeak,, that communication mode employed by those who wish that those more objectively oriented were less objective and more....more...obtusely and fuzzily subjective.

If, however. you really want objective, here goes:
This image appears to me as the result of an accidental tripping of the shutter of a camera suspended by its strap over one’s shoulder as one happens to be passing a mirror (in a dark room) reflecting part of a window view of the out-of-doors. I see: presentation of a purely accidental composition, lack of focus of the reflected, but focus on the reflector....and disregard for tonal rendition...in sum, technical, compositional, and impact all in the “wanting” realm.

I’ve heard the axiom from some that every image must have a “story”. Is the story I recounted in the previous paragraph intended to be perceived?

Or...if the image is, indeed, reflective (no pun intended) of your artistic intent, it would be more-than-helpful to be informed of the specifics of that intent. Or, should we acceed to the otherwise justifiable conclusion that it is an unintended accident waiting for others to provide exculpation?

Lacking that, I am left with the “story” that I read in the image, or with the necessity of gaining a far greater comprehension of artspeak that I might be able to provide what you seek in a more ... comprehendible ... lexicon.

Having taught for over thirty years.It is disappointing to be characterized as a “bane” and purposeful disruptor of (your) class. Happily, in all those years, class banes and disrupters were rare; in fact , I can recall the names of the four that there were. The disciplines I taught (Anatomical Pathology, Systemic Pathology, and Pathology of Infectious , Non-infectious Diseases, and Diseases of Free-living Wildlife) were all based on objective visual interpretation of actual biological subjects and specimens or of photographic images thereof. Accuracy of visual perception of the obvious and, more important, of the less-than-obvious features of the subjects was of prime significance, and of no lesser significance was objective description of one’s observations and of conclusions (anatomical and disease diagnoses) drawn therefrom.
Also, since 1965, I taught photography to clinical and pathology residents via classes, seminars, and interactive workshops.

That, artbob, is “where I’m coming from” if that be of any helpful illumination.

Rest assured, artbob, that were I more aware...or simply aware...of your intent when you visualized and exposed your posted image, I would likely be able to respond in a more helpful manner to your evident quandary.

I am curious about how you characterize the the significance of “those familiar with the market” and those “that are ””just””human beings”.

What is the “new” thing you are trying?

How does the image “affect” you, regardless of whether pleasing or displeasing?

With best regards, and no disruptive intent...

Dave
Wordification epitomized. br br Hello, artbob, ... (show quote)

[*** for those who may want to see just the reasons for and techniques used in making this image, please scroll down to the *** below.]

There are tidbits in your response that might be of interest to folks. If the discussion gets expanded, I will not feel it is "hijacked," since an intense discussion often leads to new associations.

Just to get what I see as less important aspects out of the way, Uuglypher's accusing me of not responding to his "explicit questions," I could find none. The whole post he refers to seemed wrapped in snark.

There are, however, explicit points made by him in the post I now respond to, and, not for his sake, but for the sake of others who might sincerely try to understand, I will try to respond.

A good point is that where he is coming from is stated, once past the qualifications and experience: "Accuracy of visual perception of the obvious and, more important, of the less-than-obvious features of the subjects was of prime significance..." That explains his response, and, of course, is fine. Quite understandable why my photo doesn't work for him, since obvious identification is very hard, although I thought figuring that out eventually would not hurt the photo's statement.

His "I am curious about how you characterize the the significance of 'those familiar with the market' and those “that are 'just' human beings” leads me to think "defensiveness there." I think it is quite obvious that I meant that both expert and lay opinions were welcome--as is always the case when something is shown to the general public. I respect both as an artist, for they indeed teach something about my communication.

The "What is the “new” thing you are trying?" seems strange, since he admits the photo does not look like "regular" photos. However, and also answering his "This image appears to me as the result of an accidental tripping of the shutter of a camera suspended by its strap over one’s shoulder as one happens to be passing a mirror (in a dark room) reflecting part of a window view of the out-of-doors. I see: presentation of a purely accidental composition, lack of focus of the reflected, but focus on the reflector....and disregard for tonal rendition..."--here is how the image and my intent merged:

*** "Accidental" it was not. I first saw the image while in the bathroom, got an idea to somehow explore the immediacy (something certain) of the physical (mirror) with the just as real but out of reach reflection. That type of idea/feeling I have been going after in my work for many years. The various aspects seem unlimited, worthy of wonder and thought continually. [website: robertstanleyart.com] So, I grabbed my iPhone, and took several shots, moving the spot meter around, trying to approximate the contrasts while keeping some of the wall and not totally blowing out the reflection. [see attached]

After that, it was an hour's work or so to crop, remove and reintroduce noise, adjust the darks, sharpen a few things. burn a few, dodge the left side of the mirror frame to give some idea of the "reality" for those who wanted or needed it and to, hopefully, give a nod to good balanced composition although putting the only recognizable area way off to the right (our perceptions, flawed even as they are, leave us) was the "new" and iffy thing I was doing. Many of the steps were repeated/adjusted.

So, that's it folks! How this photo came to be. It appears to not be very successful, although if a juried exhibit called "Really Out There" is announced, I may submit it. Personally, I like it a lot intellectually; esthetically, not as much.

Feel free to question or comment. UHH is mostly a great place to share and learn.


(Download)

Reply
May 25, 2019 18:14:10   #
Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)
 
Thanks, artbob,

Your last five paragraphs were, indeed, interesting and helpfully illuminating. My initial response would have been, and, I suspect, that of others will be better informed and as a result, more cogent and helpful to you
had they been informed as those last five paragraphs have made possible.

In the interest of comity I shall ignore the snarkitude (yes, a neologism; you read it here first!) of your initial comments.

In the spirit of improved communication I would urge you to consider presenting your personal thoughts on the topic of “Artspeak”. Some of the most informative and interesting discourses on the topic that I have heard came from the mouths of accomplished, highly successful artists, as well as from more than a few teachers and curators of art. There are, of course, a number of prideful artists who are deeply offended by the very concept of “Artspeak” and by the mere speaking of the word.

Just a thought.

Best regards,
Dave

Reply
May 25, 2019 19:29:51   #
artBob Loc: Near Chicago
 
Uuglypher wrote:
Thanks, artbob,

Your last five paragraphs were, indeed, interesting and helpfully illuminating. My initial response would have been, and, I suspect, that of others will be better informed and as a result, more cogent and helpful to you
had they been informed as those last five paragraphs have made possible.

In the interest of comity I shall ignore the snarkitude (yes, a neologism; you read it here first!) of your initial comments.

In the spirit of improved communication I would urge you to consider presenting your personal thoughts on the topic of “Artspeak”. Some of the most informative and interesting discourses on the topic that I have heard came from the mouths of accomplished, highly successful artists, as well as from more than a few teachers and curators of art. There are, of course, a number of prideful artists who are deeply offended by the very concept of “Artspeak” and by the mere speaking of the word.

Just a thought.

Best regards,
Dave
Thanks, artbob, br br Your last five paragraphs w... (show quote)

Dave, let me know please what "Artspeak" means to you. It is indeed a general problem, one I covered in my Art Appreciation courses. I'd gladly discuss the issue, starting with "in general" if you do not have a specific angle. I'd start a new discussion, or contribute to one you would start.

By the way, please don't be offended that I didn't give the why's and wherefores of that photo. I purposely wanted lay and expert opinion untainted and direct.
Bob

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
For Your Consideration
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.