[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.