This Photo is Worth a Second Look

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

02/13/2006 01:22:55 PM · #1

'on the web'

When I look at this photograph coldly (utterly detached), this is what I come away with:

� no, it ain't sexy
� no, it ain't no sweet, no cliché and no aww-so-hallmark-cutie
� no, it ain't no sentiment, no commodity (as a popular print for sale), no easy genre.

What it is, without having to argue a difficult point, is an image

� which embellishes nothing, especially no aesthetic preference, no concept or notion
� which alludes not, suggests not and makes no reference to any thing or idea outside of itself
� which is what it is without pretense, claims to meaning or symbolist properties

There is, decidedly, nothing personally expressive about such an image. There is no message, no hint or complaint, no personal laundry. The author remains appropriately invisible behind the abstraction, the mystery of objects captured here, which are trouvée, found and serve not as means for an intended purpose or effect outside of one that existed naturally and prior to being photographed.

What we have here is a mystery, an esoteric document, if you like, which not only invites us, as viewers, to study it but which, probably, mystified its author in the first place, prompting the photograph.

A photo such as this, I believe, should not conform to any set notions of composition/tastes/appetites and technical conventions that apply to so much we consume and try to recreate. It should instead be executed according to its own dictates, so that we may be able to discover things that are new, uncharted or simply phenomenal, no matter how modest a thing it may appear to be. This has been done here, superbly, and without any traceable interference of ego, as far as I can see, and this, my people, is why I feel

it deserves a 10.

Message edited by author 2006-02-13 13:37:32.

DanSig

02/13/2006 01:27:27 PM · #2

so what photo deserves a 10 based on your what you just said ?

fotomann_forever

02/13/2006 01:28:28 PM · #3

I'm still trying to figure out what was said ...

CEJ

Canon EOS-40D

02/13/2006 01:31:09 PM · #4

which shot is being referred to here or is this like a rhetorical question which we should all already know the answer?

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

02/13/2006 01:33:17 PM · #5

Originally posted by DanSig:

so what photo deserves a 10 based on your what you just said ?

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

02/13/2006 01:34:17 PM · #6

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Originally posted by DanSig:
so what photo deserves a 10 based on your what you just said ?

Bingo!!

� which embellishes nothing, especially no aesthetic preference, no concept or notion
� which alludes not, suggests not and makes no reference to any thing or idea outside of itself
� which is what it is without pretense, claims to meaning or symbolist properties

WaysOfSeeing

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/13/2006 01:35:03 PM · #7

It's like reading Roland Barthes and Walter Benjamin all over again...:)

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

02/13/2006 01:45:32 PM · #8

If I ever went for my PhD in psychology, zeuszen would be my subject on which I based my thesis. Hands down. I'd win awards.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

02/13/2006 01:48:51 PM · #9

Someone did offer zeuszen translations a while back... ;o)

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

02/13/2006 01:52:07 PM · #10

Originally posted by Artyste:

If I ever went for my PhD in psychology, zeuszen would be my subject on which I based my thesis. Hands down. I'd win awards.

I'd buy a copy of that thesis to go in my collection with the ones on Norman Bates and Ted Kaczinsky. ;-)

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

02/13/2006 01:53:56 PM · #11

So, if I understand what you're saying just a bit, are you saying that the beauty and joy of participating in someone's discovery of this one little thing is what it's all about for you?

esdarby

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/13/2006 02:02:16 PM · #12

great, now i have to get out the dictionary.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

02/13/2006 02:16:02 PM · #13

Edit:Ahhhh! Now I see the image he was referencing. Both image and response are a very pure take on things. When I saw that image...I wondered "where's the splash?"..."why isn't there a waterdrop stuck in the web, with a reversed flower showing throught it???"..."Where's the orange...where's the blue??? "where's the veil?".............

(BTW...a joke. It's my first view)

I agree there's great beauty in it's lack of pretense...

Message edited by author 2006-02-13 15:49:06.

bledford

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

02/13/2006 02:34:13 PM · #14

I read it very simply and clearly as saying that photography can be a form of expression, without the photo itself being the source of meaning for anything. The expression is in and of itself, the subject of the photo and the meaning behind the composition.

Looking at the item caught in the spider web evokes what? Not much. But that's the point. A more colorful, macro-style view on the same subject could evoke 'struggle', 'death', 'hopelessness' and so on. But meaning so many things ultimately dilutes the true meaning into nothing. So the very attempt to capture meaning might be the cause of meaningless photos.

So, in contrast, the type of photography Zues describes seeks to capture nothing and in so doing portrays the expression of meaning itself. It is without concept. It is above concept and beyond illustration of thought. It is just depiction, for good or bad, happy or sad.

Or so I think.

bledford

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

02/13/2006 02:38:14 PM · #15

Perhaps some examples of this type of photograph?

DjFenzl

02/13/2006 02:48:59 PM · #16

my take on "Art" no matter what style it is presented in, is that it should evoke some kind of emothion. If ther is no emothional connection to the picture at all then there is usually very little interest.

zeuszen - the picture is abstract and there are some interesting lines in the photo however for me there was little emotional connection of any kind. When I try and think of words to connect me to the picture there are very few.

bledford - personally I don't think those pictures are the same. The words that come to mind for all the images is loneliness and emptiness. For the first three I also feel abandonment and despair in them. They represent something I can relate to in some small way.

skewsme

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens

02/13/2006 02:57:16 PM · #17

I happen to like encrypted poems, as well as minimalism, and while I appreciate the anti-aesthetic filter, the problem is that the criteria that zeuszen put forth can be applied to almost any understated, underrated photo here.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

02/13/2006 04:12:52 PM · #18

Originally posted by Megatherian:

Much 'art' will evoke emotion, some forms of art stimulate awareness without involving the heart strings, some forms of art 'preach' dissociation, detachment and does so by substituting an emptiness for sorrow, joy, grief or jealousy... and, perhaps, what you say you expect from a made piece still holds true when we consider how such an emptiness can affect us...

And when we speak of words, what do we have, what are we confronted with when the words connect as parts do to a whole as a chair, say, would consist of a back, four legs and a seat -when the words are not about something external but simply function to create an organism or object as opposed to a meaning or a symbol for something other than itself?

And what emotional connection do we have with the universe, the world, reality?

pawdrix

Nikon D700

02/13/2006 04:15:01 PM · #19

I compliment Zeus for looking. He saw more there then the average viewer as the voting would indicate...

I tend to keep in mind that voting on hundreds and hundreds of images can be a drag and I myself never/rarely give things their proper due. Sad on my part, admittedly.

The image in my view is well worth the notice and the point he is making and the other images in this thread brought up to support what he's saying I'm also happy to have seen.

I would be curious if he's deconstructing a bit and the photographer was simply capturing an abstract form without much more intent at all.

...but I won't ask.

(Where are the water drops?)

Message edited by author 2006-02-13 16:21:44.

ubique

Olympus PEN-F

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko

02/13/2006 04:36:36 PM · #20

Originally posted by zeuszen:

... And when we speak of words, what do we have, what are we confronted with when the words connect as parts do to a whole as a chair, say, would consist of a back, four legs and a seat -when the words are not about something external but simply function to create an organism or object as opposed to a meaning or a symbol for something other than itself? ...

So what kind of book might be produced by this process? Would it be readable? Would it have any literary value, or would it be a solely artistic work? Would it perhaps be one of those impenetrable stream-of-consciousness novels that are occasionally and briefly celebrated?

obsidian

Nikon D80

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Nikon

02/13/2006 04:42:14 PM · #21

While I see where zeuszen is coming from and agree that the image is a joy into and unto itself, my only question is how it fits into the notion of being abstract - i.e. it is not possible to determine what it was/is.

In this sense, I do not believe it is abstract per se and therefore may not be entirely conformant to the spirit of the challenge. In the context of the challenge, therefore, I would have to say that the image did not meet the criteria defined.

As an image it is a real joy, almost something that one could meditate to as it has no ego and imparts no ego: it transcends the moment while capturing the essence of it. And there is no narrative, implicit or explicit.

Just a thought or two...

Carl

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

02/13/2006 05:33:10 PM · #22

Originally posted by zeuszen:

And what emotional connection do we have with the universe, the world, reality?

And is this question your major point? That as an abstract piece it's not only what the photographer has created, but what the viewer brings to the viewing experience? For instance, I could interpret SueMack's photograph almost as a musical note (dried grass) on a staff of music (spider's web).

However, I'm not sure I agree completely that "on the Web" is totally void of some kind of alluding to, other than it's random creation by the wind. It seemed obvious to me that this was a spiders web that had caught dried grass blown in the wind to create a new pattern of line and shape.

02/13/2006 08:49:10 PM · #23

Originally posted by ubique:

Originally posted by zeuszen:
... And when we speak of words, what do we have, what are we confronted with when the words connect as parts do to a whole as a chair, say, would consist of a back, four legs and a seat -when the words are not about something external but simply function to create an organism or object as opposed to a meaning or a symbol for something other than itself? ...

So what kind of book might be produced by this process? Would it be readable? Would it have any literary value, or would it be a solely artistic work? Would it perhaps be one of those impenetrable stream-of-consciousness novels that are occasionally and briefly celebrated?

I think there is (now) a sizable body of poetry generated in this way. In the xxth century we have the so-called progressive poetry of Olson (Charles) and his American contemporaries. In prose, we have Gertrude Stein, who, I believe is readable, albeit not by everyone.

None of these writers were or are popular at any time (neither was Pound and objectivism), but I think we won't argue that each one of them remained tremendously influential in his/her field, although stylistically inimitable.

Stream-of-consciousness, in contrast, was an excursion, barely literary, a short-lived hypothesis, which never produced one notable work.