| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/14/2010 10:46:58 AM · #1 |
In one of the just-completed challenges, on one of the more abstract entries, I came across the following, thoughtful comment:
I so want to give this a better score, but what is it? The title doesn't help me, Almost looks like its shot through a window with a reflection of the curtain at night with a crazy high ISO.
I mean it when I say this comment is "thoughtful"; the poster when to considerable pains to express his thought process here. But it raises a question in my mind, to wit:
"Just how important is it that we know what an image is "of", anyway?"
I'd say, "Not important at all!" I think many images have the power to move us despite (or perhaps because of, even) their mysteriousness or their opacity. It's honestly not an issue that troubles me when I'm voting; I hardly ever find myself thinking "What is THAT?"; I'm more inclined to just soak in the feelings that "THAT" invokes in me, as it were.
But evidently, others feel differently. How about you? How important is it to YOU, when you're judging, that it's obvious to you what an image is "of"?
R.
Message edited by author 2010-12-14 10:47:32. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 10:58:50 AM · #2 |
To quote Forest Gump, "I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floatin' around accidental-like on a breeze. But I, I think maybe it's both."
For me, "I think maybe it's both." I like the feeling I get when I see an image and that forms my first impression. I take it in a little longer to see if that first impression changes... if I see something new in the image that I didn't see before. Seeing something new can bring heightened interest. And as I take it in a little longer, I start to think about the mystery of what's behind the impressions I've had to that point. What was used to create the image (objects & techniques). Being able to figure out what it is can provide some additional enjoyment. It's fun to be "in the know" or to be able to decipher the structure of the image. But at the same time, I generally don't let the lack of knowing negatively impact my ability to enjoy the image or take away from that first & second impression. I just think it can enhance that first & second impression. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 11:05:56 AM · #3 |
If I find the image of interest and I can't quite figure out what it is, that usually causes me to leave a higher vote. Anything that makes me pause to examine an entry more closely is worth extra pointage.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2010 11:09:24 AM · #4 |
There are a lot of abstract images which appeal to me. Usually, almost by definition, I don't have a clue what the subject is. It's the shapes, textures, tones and patterns which make an abstract "eye-pleasing", or not.
However, some images seem to be gratuitous in their use of some of the characteristics of better abstracts. Adding graininess, electronic noise, blur, tilt, etc..... for the sake of pushing an image into the abstract category seems to be insincere. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 11:18:31 AM · #5 |
Interesting question, Bear. I think it's a matter of experience. The recently completed PH challenge perfectly illustrated that. Many folks expressed that prior to the challenge, they just didn't know "how" to look at an abstract image, and that the challenge had "opened their eyes" and they would never "look at abstract images the same way again".
Appreciating abstract images is a lot more work (and a lot "riskier") than "eye candy". It requires that we open our minds, that we take our time, that we be unafraid to "not know" what something is in order to like it. I see myself in this category. When I first joined DPC, many images I gave low votes for would now probably be images I tried to capture myself. There is a learning curve to appreciating the abstract, which is not the case with pretty and "immediate" pictures. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 11:26:25 AM · #6 |
I think it is important when a challenge has a specified topic. It is hard for me to give a vote higher than 5 to something that doesn't help me relate to the challenge topic.
Tim |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 11:34:34 AM · #7 |
Something I posted in 2006:
Heat is Fuel
My highest rated shot is pretty with a deep depth of field, a chroma with true white/black points and a solid range of tones. The composition is equally simple, ordered as found and familiar from millions of other images like it. The photo carries no particular emotional charge, has no agenda, invites no conceivable controversy. It is, for all intent and purposes, a photo rendering a tangible subject accurately. Its aesthetics, also, are borrowed from the subject. It is a taken photograph of an outer reality.
My best shots either do not receive the same kind of exposure (by display, not by metering), because they have not been spawned in pursuit of a topic but via an inevitable involvement with the nature of a thing, being, location or circumstance.
These are photographs which in themselves are objects and usually rather gritty than pretty, which, I suppose, is commensurate with human experience, the state of affairs or the nature of nature, depending on individual perspective and temperament.
The real difference between these two kinds of images, to me, lies in the amount of heat (a form of energy) they pack. The pretty ones are, of course, comforting to those who seek comfort. The gritty ones will appeal to the few to whom heat is fuel. [2006]
On the other hand,  hahn23 makes a good point, when he considers the sincerity, or lack of it, of an image. Only we know, how a shot sits with us, if our senses were engaged during its making or if we twisted it to appear like something else, and that, I believe, carries over via the image to the discriminating viewer. It is not an admirable trait to fool anyone, but to fool oneself?
|
|
|
|
12/14/2010 11:35:06 AM · #8 |
Scary stuff, Robert.
You know I'm with you - being obscure or obtuse is, of itself, no more (or less) than a quality of gesture or presentation - the lure of the veil, as it were. It's an important quality that may well enhance the experience of seeing an image, which is pretty much synonymous with improving the image. Artists, certainly, have been chopping their ears off and all sorts, from Altimera to breakfast time, for the principle of the image's independence from whatever it may or may not contain and portray.
A big part of the common perception of photographs, though, is that they should be 'of' something. Let's face it, it's probably the reason why most people buy cameras and/or take them along on holiday etc - almost certainly why that Hasselblad got dragged up to the moon.
It's a giant step for the mass of mankind, and a frightening one for a lot of the individuals therein, to leave the safe footing of the object-preposition-subject parameter.
Obscurantism is suspect because it has an ism on the end. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 12:06:39 PM · #9 |
| IF the image moves us, then no, it doesn't matter at all. Impact of color or motion or line or flow can stand by themselves, just for the pleasure. But when there's not enough visual impact, all we're left with is "what is it?" Sometimes that mystery adds value. All too often it doesn't. If the puzzle doesn't draw us in, it's just a blob. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 12:21:29 PM · #10 |
Puppy Bear...my daughter asked me last night, "Is there anything in this world that does not have a definition?"
As a structured person, I confess that I like the comfort of definitions. I confess it! I do!
But, when weighing an image, I strongly consider the space the image creates for me far more than I weigh the actual subject matter itself. However, sometimes knowing what the subject matter is adds to the "WOW" factor of the artist's transformation of that object into ART.
Well, that's my two cents...I'm going to give my daughter your email address for further discussion so I can take a NAP instead of exhausting my beleaguered brain with such taxing matters! ;-P |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 12:29:34 PM · #11 |
Well, since I'm the guy who made the comment, I may as well chime in.
In this case, Horizon line
For the purpose of this challenge, "horizon" is defined as "the line at which the sky and Earth appear to meet". Your challenge is to capture an image of which the horizon line is a dominant component.
Now, It has been snowing here, I don't have a car, and I dragged my frozen self on two separate days by bicycle to the location where I had a horizon line for which to use and meet the challenge. I felt the challenge was specific in strongly encouraging the use of an actual horizon and having gone through a great deal of effort in creating my own image I felt that a shot of curtains through a window was essentially a DNMC since I did not see any horizon line as a dominant component. I revisit the image and feel the same.
Man its true what the Dutch say: "The one who sticks his head up gets the scythe!"
I'll stick with "Great image!" comments from now on Bear :)
 |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 01:32:40 PM · #12 |
I am not the type of person to analyze things as life goes by, so I had to think a bit about this question.
How important is it that others understand what my image is "of":
I have submitted some "irreverent" entries to challenges, like a cloudy pothole in the "clouds" challenge. After thinking about it, my personal practice is: the more I like my shot, the less I worry about the chance of it not being understood by others. I am still a rank beginner, and want to submit to plenty challenges so I can learn from it, and I therefore do lots of things for the first time, and not too well either. So then I feel bad if my bad shots are not clear enough for others to follow.
How important is it that I understand entries when voting?
It really works the other way round for me. If I can easily see what the picture is, and it misses the challenge idea, then I mark it down. So not understanding is not a DNMC for me, or a lower score. Looking at the thumbnails when not voting in challenges, I find that I'm opening the not-so-obvious entries much more than the ones where my brain thinks it understands all. I know I should open all entries, but life gets in the way. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 01:37:56 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by amsterdamman:
Man its true what the Dutch say: "The one who sticks his head up gets the scythe!"
I'll stick with "Great image!" comments from now on Bear :) |
I did not intend it to be that way. I was at pains to point out that your comment was a "thoughtful" one. Yet it illustrated for me an interesting perceptual question: "Just how important is it to us to be able to categorize, characterize, locate in time-and-space, the "subjects" of the images we view?
Speaking for myself only, I find the *concept* "horizon" every bit as engaging as the *subject* "horizon"... But I certainly resepct the opinions of others who do not feel the same.
R. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 02:06:54 PM · #14 |
I don't need to know, sometimes I don't want to know...
Pass me the blue pill, please... |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 02:20:55 PM · #15 |
Photography seems to be riding two horses; it is of INTEREST how or of what the picture was taken, but its IMPORT is entirely other.
Now that I think about it the challenge topic becomes more and more irrelevant (if you have a scale for irrelevancies) to the IMPORT of a picture. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 03:49:09 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by atupdate:
I think it is important when a challenge has a specified topic. It is hard for me to give a vote higher than 5 to something that doesn't help me relate to the challenge topic.
Tim |
Although I agree (strongly) that there needs to be a connection of the image to the challenge topic (otherwise why have a topic?), I don't think that we necessarily need to know what an image is of in order to relate it to the topic.
Now, you might ask, what about when the topic specifies a subject (like last week's Horizon Line, or something like "Pencil" for instance)? I would maintain that if the abstract image manages to generate a connection, then it fits. That represents a pretty strong challenge, but it's not an insurmountable obstacle.
So, IMO, in the ind it is up to the individual voter to judge how strongly (or not) the abstract image generates a connection to the challenge, and how that should affect their vote. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 03:58:59 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by atupdate:
I think it is important when a challenge has a specified topic. It is hard for me to give a vote higher than 5 to something that doesn't help me relate to the challenge topic.
Tim |
Although I agree (strongly) that there needs to be a connection of the image to the challenge topic (otherwise why have a topic?)...
in the ind it is up to the individual voter to judge how strongly (or not) the abstract image generates a connection to the challenge, and how that should affect their vote. |
If it were understood that topically limited challenges existed for the creative benefit of the photographer entering a challenge, the voter would not be placed in the impossible position of being encouraged to judge something he cannot know.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2010 04:04:59 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by atupdate:
I think it is important when a challenge has a specified topic. It is hard for me to give a vote higher than 5 to something that doesn't help me relate to the challenge topic.
Tim |
Although I agree (strongly) that there needs to be a connection of the image to the challenge topic (otherwise why have a topic?)...
in the ind it is up to the individual voter to judge how strongly (or not) the abstract image generates a connection to the challenge, and how that should affect their vote. |
If it were understood that topically limited challenges existed for the creative benefit of the photographer entering a challenge, the voter would not be placed in the impossible position of being encouraged to judge something he cannot know. |
Ah, but (s)he can! In my humble opinion, the important thing is the *communication* that takes place between the photographer and viewer. If the image successfully connects with the viewer and creates an impression that relates to the challenge topic, the photographer has been successful. Whether this connection is direct, or indirect as through an abstract image, is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 04:35:55 PM · #19 |
 zeuszen wrote
"If it were understood that topically limited challenges existed for the creative benefit of the photographer entering a challenge, the voter would not be placed in the impossible position of being encouraged to judge something he cannot know."
Text of the day. Let us ponder. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 04:42:07 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by atupdate:
I think it is important when a challenge has a specified topic. It is hard for me to give a vote higher than 5 to something that doesn't help me relate to the challenge topic.
Tim |
Although I agree (strongly) that there needs to be a connection of the image to the challenge topic (otherwise why have a topic?)...
in the ind it is up to the individual voter to judge how strongly (or not) the abstract image generates a connection to the challenge, and how that should affect their vote. |
If it were understood that topically limited challenges existed for the creative benefit of the photographer entering a challenge, the voter would not be placed in the impossible position of being encouraged to judge something he cannot know. |
Ah, but (s)he can! In my humble opinion, the important thing is the *communication* that takes place between the photographer and viewer. If the image successfully connects with the viewer and creates an impression that relates to the challenge topic, the photographer has been successful. Whether this connection is direct, or indirect as through an abstract image, is irrelevant. |
This sort of reminds me of the game of baseball where the pitcher gets credit for the win whether he drives home the winning run or not, which in most cases is not. The photographer isn't the only one playing the game. The rest of the team (i.e. the viewers) need to do their part as well. If the viewers cannot see the connection then it could just as easily be the result of their own failures.
Message edited by author 2010-12-14 16:43:26. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 05:10:19 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by amsterdamman:
Man its true what the Dutch say: "The one who sticks his head up gets the scythe!"
I'll stick with "Great image!" comments from now on Bear :) |
I did not intend it to be that way. I was at pains to point out that your comment was a "thoughtful" one. Yet it illustrated for me an interesting perceptual question: "Just how important is it to us to be able to categorize, characterize, locate in time-and-space, the "subjects" of the images we view?
Speaking for myself only, I find the *concept* "horizon" every bit as engaging as the *subject* "horizon"... But I certainly resepct the opinions of others who do not feel the same.
R. |
Perhaps I am missing the gist of the comment, but when addressing the issue of concept, is it not of some significance that the concept be perceptible to its' intended audience. Imagerie in a subject challenge surely cannot operate in a vacuum and both the concept and subject ought to be discernable... in the broadest of senses.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 05:13:34 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by yanko:
...the pitcher gets credit for the win whether he drives home the winning run or not, which in most cases is not. The photographer isn't the only one playing the game. The rest of the team (i.e. the viewers) need to do their part as well. If the viewers cannot see the connection then it could just as easily be the result of their own failures. |
Yes, that's the worm.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2010 05:34:17 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Perhaps I am missing the gist of the comment, but when addressing the issue of concept, is it not of some significance that the concept be perceptible to its' intended audience. Imagerie in a subject challenge surely cannot operate in a vacuum and both the concept and subject ought to be discernable... in the broadest of senses.
Ray |
From the standpoint of winning ribbons at DPC, absolutely: if the "abstract image" doesn't seem to the viewer to embody the topic, conceptually, you will have a problem.
In the particular instance, the image DID have a discernible "horizon" within its iconography, so that wasn't the issue. The question I'm probing is, simply, how important is it to YOU (each of you reading this, individually) that you be able, when viewing the image, to decode the raw material of which the image is constructed; i.e. "That's a tree, that's a cliff-edge, over there, that's a bird!", or do you operate at a more abstract level where you can think (or feel) something like "This image makes me feel like I'm rushing headlong over a cliff in the middle of the night, unable to stop myself, about to fall beneath the event horizon and vanish utterly."
I'm in the latter group; I don't much care if that's an actual cliff, or the back of a sofa; the edge is where I live and experience, and any edge will do me, metaphorically.
R. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 05:47:08 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by tnun:
zeuszen wrote
"If it were understood that topically limited challenges existed for the creative benefit of the photographer entering a challenge, the voter would not be placed in the impossible position of being encouraged to judge something he cannot know."
Text of the day. Let us ponder. |
If it were up to me I would restructure the challenges into two groups. Every week you would have commercial and art challenges to choose from but you could only enter challenges from one group per week. Separating them out like that would hopefully over time encourage the type of understanding zeus speaks of. |
|
|
|
12/14/2010 06:36:43 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In the particular instance, the image DID have a discernible "horizon" within its iconography, so that wasn't the issue. The question I'm probing is, simply, how important is it to YOU (each of you reading this, individually) that you be able, when viewing the image, to decode the raw material of which the image is constructed; i.e. "That's a tree, that's a cliff-edge, over there, that's a bird!", or do you operate at a more abstract level where you can think (or feel) something like "This image makes me feel like I'm rushing headlong over a cliff in the middle of the night, unable to stop myself, about to fall beneath the event horizon and vanish utterly."R. |
The trouble got a phd for something along those lines.
Although now that I read back, it would seem that she identifies different strategies in perceiving an image, between those who are trained in visual art and those who are not. Laymen look for depicted things, while the art crew are looking at pictorial elements (lines, planes, colours, conjunctions and so on). Emotions aren't covered, possibly because they make for messy science. |
|
