| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/13/2004 06:48:27 PM · #1 |
Decided not to enter at the last second.
Edit: Deleted because of lack of interest.
Forming a face with details of building used as eyes. Also took one in negative mode to give a more alien feeling. Would this have received more then a "4" or "5" ? Would it have fit the challenge?
Message edited by author 2004-05-17 20:22:25. |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 07:04:26 PM · #2 |
| I would have rated it about an 8. I really like the illusion of it having a face. |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 07:09:14 PM · #3 |
I really like the negative one. I think some of the more literal minded would say "I can see what that is" (I saw a lot of those comments), but I would've given it a 7 or 8.
[/url] |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 07:11:16 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by toddhead:
I would have rated it about an 8. I really like the illusion of it having a face. |
I seem to find faces everywhere.
 |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 07:14:09 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Originally posted by toddhead:
I would have rated it about an 8. I really like the illusion of it having a face. |
I seem to find faces everywhere.
|
LOL you'd do great on a Rosharsch Ink blot test! ;-)
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 08:55:20 PM · #6 |
| How ironic then that you don't show your face in your Profile. |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 09:13:30 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
How ironic then that you don't show your face in your Profile. |
Actually I had it up there for a couple of months, but it's time to evoke the power of "Maneki Neko", "Jiao Chie Mau" or the "lucky cat" because my scores have not been up to par :(
My next challenge entries will use the principals of "Feng Shui" :P
Message edited by author 2004-05-13 21:25:02.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 09:23:06 PM · #8 |
LOL.. maybe i should try that myself :)
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 09:40:16 PM · #9 |
i think you should have posted. i mentioned in another thread that the definition of abstrat is not "if its recognizable, its not abstract" as the DPC stated in their snippet. an abstract is about dissociation of ideas from objects. creating a face from non-face elements, is exactly an abstraction. i sometimes wish the DPC would not "lead" the challenge by using such terminologies.
great idea jovi...next time ACT ON IT!! ;)
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 09:49:04 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by the-O-ster:
i think you should have posted. i mentioned in another thread that the definition of abstrat is not "if its recognizable, its not abstract" as the DPC stated in their snippet. an abstract is about dissociation of ideas from objects. creating a face from non-face elements, is exactly an abstraction. i sometimes wish the DPC would not "lead" the challenge by using such terminologies.
great idea jovi...next time ACT ON IT!! ;) |
I submitted the challenge, so I'm the guilty party. There are two camps on abstracts. I belong to both of them ;)
The reason I added that snippet to the definition (which definitely bit me with my own entry), is that many people call photos abstract where the object is more recognizable as the object than it is for the features they are using in the abstraction. For example, if someone takes a picture of a clay roof, they may call it an abstraction, but if the first thing that smacks me in the face when I look at it is that it's a roof, then it doesn't work as an abstract.
I have to see the abstract qualities first. Then I agree it doesn't matter if I recognize the object.
Take my entry. I got comments from people that said that since my title told them what it was, it was no longer an abstract. Certainly I think it's recognizable. But what it actually is, isn't the first thing you see and thus I think this qualifies as an abstract, even in a strict sense.
However, what my definition prevented, is entry of photos like jsetzler offered examples of, which were nice photos, but they were abstract concepts, but not abstract pictures. Many were more examples of surrealism than abstract (if interested I recommend going back and finding some of the original abstract threads when the challenge started).
While I felt the same frustration and limitations of the abstract challenge, having a narrow and strict definition, in my opinion, forced people to stretch themselves while shooting, and that's a good thing.
Regards--Neil |
|
|
|
05/13/2004 10:30:05 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
...I have to see the abstract qualities first. Then I agree it doesn't matter if I recognize the object... |
Sometimes the unique strength, the transport of an abstract may be found in a kind of poised confusion between the abstraction of an object and the object itself, whether the perceived object is a tangible one or, perhaps, rendered suggestively, i.e.:
|
|
|
|
05/13/2004 10:38:49 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
While I felt the same frustration and limitations of the abstract challenge, having a narrow and strict definition, in my opinion, forced people to stretch themselves while shooting, and that's a good thing.
Regards--Neil |
point well taken. i generally agree that sometimes you need to force people to try new things before you give them free range. i have used/seen this in design classes - don't know why it flew completely over my head here :)
i think its also one of those terms that has a general "popular" definition, that is not necessarily the "textbook" def.
-O.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 09:00:40 AM EDT.
