|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/10/2016 02:16:58 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
The composition that is more photographic in nature succeeds or fails to get the viewer to linger according to the strength of its abstract qualities. IMO, of course. |
Thanks for a perceptive analysis. |
|
|
|
01/12/2016 05:52:24 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Wendy, looking longer at images here will often help understand or appreciate them more. So please do. But go to any museum and watch the viewers... you will notice there, as well, that the process of viewing art is very different for different folks.. some people study and others take in a whole exhibit in a short period. Some people bring friends and talk. Some talk about what they're viewing. Some people need to see a show more than once or twice to feel they get the most out of it. But exposure is key, however you need to do that for yourself to expand beyond what you know is what will make you a better artist. That's my two cents, maybe not worth more than that but I offer it to you and others here. |
Sounds like an interesting experiment. I do need to go see more art. But people watching would be interesting. It would be fun to ask questions: what did they see? Why did they stop at that one? Why did they basically skip the other? And find out how they're looking. |
|
|
|
01/12/2016 05:56:46 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
How do we get our viewers to linger longer? It's a good question, worthy of further study. I'm making a new years resolution to go back over my old notes on the process of human vision & study it again.
It's interesting, how human vision works. The process of seeing is not optimized for art appreciation, but instead for high-speed sorting of visual information. We want to know right away can I eat this? or is it going to try to eat me? So to speak. This high-speed sorting means we mostly see according to what we have seen before, or what we expect to see. My first rule of getting the viewer to linger longer is to interrupt this high-speed sorting process with something in the composition.
In other words, a surprise.
Something to cause a viewer to stop & start over.
The process of high-speed sorting depends on pattern recognition. This is how we see faces in clouds, or rocks. If no pattern is there, the process of sight will create one. We get patterns by finding the edges of things, to be able to see things as separate from their background.
My second rule is to create an opportunity for viewer participation. This is the charm of a good abstract. It interrupts the process of pattern recognition. If the edges, forms, & tones are interesting, we will look again. We will find--or create--a recognizable pattern. This moment of finding a pattern is the moment in which the viewer participates in creating the composition (I love this). If it's repeatable, the viewer will look again & again. If the viewer can't find a pattern, the composition fails for that viewer & they don't look again.
The composition that is more photographic in nature succeeds or fails to get the viewer to linger according to the strength of its abstract qualities. IMO, of course. |
Viewer participation is what I go for. More and more I want the photo to tell a story. I'm trying to come up with something for minimalism, and everything of which I'm thinking is just sounding too boring. But when it's minimal, it's hard to say something. Perhaps I need to think more of sight, not story.
A surprise is also something about which I think. (it rather ponderous trying to not end sentences with prepositions...) Anyway, what's surprising to me isn't all that surprising to Don, for instance. Unexpected, is the word I use a little more often. |
|
|
|
01/13/2016 02:37:49 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by mariuca:
You said Wendy:
You need to have some sort of lure; something to draw people in and make them want to look more.
But it's surely NOT the eye candy - with very few exceptions in which the general taste coincides with a search of a deeper meaning (see some of Andrew Wyeth work for instance).
I remember reading a post where [user]youspiff[/user]  Yo_Spiff said that the most constructive comment that he ever had was in form of a question: "why are you showing this to me". Just perfect. It must be a reason why we show a picture when we post it here or anywhere.
I did what you encouraged us to do and voted on the "all is calm" challenge - had every good intention to make comments and I did for the 3 first images and then I got so boredâ€Â¦.
Why is it that in some challenges there are great images and in the others there are just devoiced-of-meaning sunsets and such, more often than not just meeting the challenge. |
Time to come back to this topic Wendy.
I still ask myself why some challenges get marvelous photographs and others get really boring or uninspiring ones. |
|
|
|
01/17/2016 06:57:16 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by mariuca:
Originally posted by mariuca:
You said Wendy:
You need to have some sort of lure; something to draw people in and make them want to look more.
But it's surely NOT the eye candy - with very few exceptions in which the general taste coincides with a search of a deeper meaning (see some of Andrew Wyeth work for instance).
I remember reading a post where [user]youspiff[/user] Yo_Spiff said that the most constructive comment that he ever had was in form of a question: "why are you showing this to me". Just perfect. It must be a reason why we show a picture when we post it here or anywhere.
I did what you encouraged us to do and voted on the "all is calm" challenge - had every good intention to make comments and I did for the 3 first images and then I got so boredâ€Â¦.
Why is it that in some challenges there are great images and in the others there are just devoiced-of-meaning sunsets and such, more often than not just meeting the challenge. |
Time to come back to this topic Wendy.
I still ask myself why some challenges get marvelous photographs and others get really boring or uninspiring ones. |
I think it's the fact that it's so hard to be unique in some challenges. Some are so locked down that you have to go really far outside of the box to get anything new. While others have a lot more latitude. I know I'm not crazy about really struggling to figure out where in the heck the box IS while voting. I like an entry that's sitting outside of the box peering in a bit. I'm relieved that the box is still there. But who wants a picture of a box? :)
But seriously -- haven't you seen some challenges where you can guess the content of 98% of the entries, simply because there's really not much you can do with it? Every once in awhile we get surprised. But not often.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/22/2025 12:07:02 PM  |
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: 07/22/2025 12:07:02 PM EDT.
|
