| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2010 11:59:23 AM · #1151 |
I saw that a little earlier this morning on Gizmodo, but they did not have a high res version to examine. The claim was that the man getting his shoes shined is the first known photo of a person. Nobody else clearly showed up because it was a 10 minute exposure and the man getting hios shoes done was the only one who was still long enough to register in the image.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2010 12:28:17 PM · #1152 |
Only a few people like Jackson Pollock's work. Lots of people like Norman Rockwell's paintings.
So, sell a painting by Jackson Pollock and then sell a painting by Norman Rockwell... and check the difference in price. Then come back here and we'll discuss further.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2010 12:39:49 PM · #1153 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Only a few people like Jackson Pollock's work. Lots of people like Norman Rockwell's paintings.
So, sell a painting by Jackson Pollock and then sell a painting by Norman Rockwell... and check the difference in price. Then come back here and we'll discuss further. |
Wow, you must be getting some wonderful pictures with that nice camera of yours.
Message edited by author 2010-10-28 13:24:16. |
|
|
|
10/28/2010 12:53:42 PM · #1154 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by violici:
i don't know much about photography, but i always figured "abstract" is something where you have no idea what's going on in the photo, where this one looks like water waves, wonderfully done. |
I think it might help if you realise that of the images celebrated in this thread, even by the eponymous posthumous, most are not abstract. What they do tend to be is less obvious, less explicit, which is not the same thing as abstract. ... |
From Design and Composition: by Nathan Goldstein
Closed Shapes
No matter what the style, the works of most artists show a preference for images either of a sharp-focused and edge-orientated kind, or of a less sharply focused and mass- and field-orientated kind.
The Art Historian Heinrich Wölfflin, in his book Principles of Art History, classifies a number of opposing characteristics that provide useful insights to visual qualities in image making. Among them are the contrasting qualities of "linear" versus "painterly" and "closed" versus "open" shapes.
Wölfflin points out that the linear and closed modes of presentation are given more to facts than to impressions, and to the fixed and explicit, rather than to the moving and metaphorical…
Open Shapes
Artists working in this usually more animated and sensual mode are attracted to the spirit, rather than to the letter of their subject's parts, to the fluid, not the fixed.
Their works show bold moving energies, which for all their contrasts, bring parts together, rather than the more sedate energies of the linear, closed shape mode that is more given to an overall union of clearly defined and somewhat more independently conceived parts. Or, to quote Wölfflin, the painterly approach, "aims at that movement which passes over the sum of things."
In this mode, symmetrical and front-facing arrangements are avoided, and illumination unifies as it bathes forms, as often obscuring as explaining them. Shapes do not enoy the relatively independent identity of the linear mode, but depend on eachother for meaning.
In Wölfflin's words, "as soon as the depreciation of line as boundary takes place, painterly possibilities set in. Then, it is as if at all points everything is enlivened by a mysterious movement"
|
|
|
|
10/28/2010 01:26:28 PM · #1155 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
I saw that a little earlier this morning on Gizmodo, but they did not have a high res version to examine. The claim was that the man getting his shoes shined is the first known photo of a person. Nobody else clearly showed up because it was a 10 minute exposure and the man getting hios shoes done was the only one who was still long enough to register in the image. |
It looks so documentary until you realize all the moving parts are missing. That same camera angle today would probably have a lot of light trails from moving cars. Not the same. |
|
|
|
10/28/2010 02:22:29 PM · #1156 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
 to  by  herfotoman
Thank you very much! Worth a lot. |
|
|
|
10/28/2010 04:27:59 PM · #1157 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Open Shapes
Artists working in this usually more animated and sensual mode are attracted to the spirit, rather than to the letter of their subject's parts, to the fluid, not the fixed.
Their works show bold moving energies, which for all their contrasts, bring parts together, rather than the more sedate energies of the linear, closed shape mode that is more given to an overall union of clearly defined and somewhat more independently conceived parts. Or, to quote Wölfflin, the painterly approach, "aims at that movement which passes over the sum of things."
In this mode, symmetrical and front-facing arrangements are avoided, and illumination unifies as it bathes forms, as often obscuring as explaining them. Shapes do not enoy the relatively independent identity of the linear mode, but depend on eachother for meaning.
In Wölfflin's words, "as soon as the depreciation of line as boundary takes place, painterly possibilities set in. Then, it is as if at all points everything is enlivened by a mysterious movement" |
I'd be interested, zeus, in your view of this in relation to 1185 W. Georgia, an image that you know made a signal and lasting impression on me. It has both edge-oriented properties (at least literally) and also shapes lacking 'relative independent identity', that depend utterly on each other for meaning. Yet it has never seemed to me an abstract work. Its mysterious, confounding first impression gives way to a satisfying unification; just slightly out of easy reach maybe, but unarguably coherent.
I know it's bad form to ask someone to lecture on their own work, but I'm Australian so bad form is 'no worries' for me. |
|
|
|
10/28/2010 05:56:53 PM · #1158 |
Originally posted by violici:
Originally posted by Melethia:
  Ursula
And in a Free Study, no less! |
That is a wonderful "abstract" photo, if it's considered abstract. i don't know much about photography, but i always figured "abstract" is something where you have no idea what's going on in the photo, where this one looks like water waves, wonderfully done. |
It might help to consider the root meaning of the word "abstract"; it's a verb, and it means "to reduce to essentials", basically. You can find other meanings now, of course, but that's where it comes from. So, for example, I occasionally earn extra money by abstracting books; the abstracts are 3-page summaries of the book (usually educational-type books) and are used as tools to help people decide which books will be most useful for their purposes. "Cliff's Notes", if you encountered those in school, are also abstracts.
So to "abstract" something is to reduce it to its essentials, to strip away the superfluous and focus on the essence of the thing. In that sense, Ursula's wave image is a pure abstraction, it conveys extremely well the essential power and thrust of the moving water that is the wave. It's worth remembering, for another example, that the cubists (Picasso et al) were considered abstract artists even though objects in their images are "recognizable" and can have "values" assigned to them in terms of real-life correlations.
It's a modern conceit, and one with which I do not agree, to consider a thing "not abstract" if it is recognizable. I think that's ridiculous. Most of the Posthumous winners qualify as "abstractions" in my world, although I am pretty sure that's not a criterion Don's applying when he chooses them.
R. |
|
|
|
10/28/2010 05:58:11 PM · #1159 |
> Paul ( ubique):
No, I've never thought of this image as an abstract either, probably partly because I know the processing came as a direct and simple consequence of the take. The magic, if there is any, comes from the exposure, the light ("illumination as it bathes forms"). I exposed for the extreme highlights and let the rest go to hell, which, through my window, would make it a reductive work.
The shot may not fit Wölflin's definition like a shoe, but I think the image goes more readily for the "open form" camp, when we consider what exactly it is we are left looking at.
While the builders of "1185 W. Georgia" have provided a well-delineated subject for anyone to photograph, the image is clearly not about that, since every visual element supporting the notion of a building has either been subordinated to other areas of interest or it has been entirely eliminated.
So, in my view, it represents an "open form" as it invites contemplation of the least familiar rather than one of mundane fact and explicit (outer) reality.
I could go on and try to say this better, but I'm out of wine and right smack inside outer reality at the point of writing...
Message edited by author 2010-10-28 23:19:25.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2010 12:20:17 AM · #1160 |
Dreams
Welcome to my Dream Gallery!
Here are the top floor photos:
 by Rmac
 by ubique
 by  2mccs
 by pixelpig
 by clive_patric_nolan
But don't miss these gems on the first floor!
 by vawendy
 by bspurgeon
 by hojop25
 by violici
 by snaffles
 by Tobi
 by otto22
 by franktheyank
 by BrianR
And even the lobby is adorned with beauty:
 by Marfun
 by nightpixels
 by bvy
 by Yo_Spiff
 by dahlin
 by coryboehne
 by crik
 by colorcarnival
Message edited by author 2010-11-01 00:23:38. |
|
|
|
11/01/2010 12:21:58 AM · #1161 |
Wow, that was a fast post-challenge update!!
Thanks Don, quite the honor to be included here. |
|
|
|
11/01/2010 12:23:54 AM · #1162 |
| Thanks Don, I am honored. |
|
|
|
11/01/2010 12:24:11 AM · #1163 |
| Yes thank you Don, much appreciated :-) |
|
|
|
11/01/2010 12:24:39 AM · #1164 |
|
|
|
11/01/2010 12:32:42 AM · #1165 |
Most Under Appreciated IMHO (aka MUAIMHOs)
Dreams III
Honourable Mention to
which only missed out on a MUAIMHO b/c it faired well in voting.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2010 12:36:20 AM · #1166 |
|
|
|
11/01/2010 12:44:17 AM · #1167 |
| Don/Vlado, thank you, much appreciated! |
|
|
|
11/01/2010 12:49:56 AM · #1168 |
| Thanks Don..! |
|
|
|
11/01/2010 12:53:10 AM · #1169 |
|
|
|
11/01/2010 02:37:30 AM · #1170 |
| wow, i'm not sure what being on the first floor means and how many floors u have but i cant believe i'm included, yay so exciting!!! |
|
|
|
11/01/2010 04:05:36 AM · #1171 |
I just have to include Aunt Minnie here.
 |
|
|
|
11/01/2010 09:58:07 AM · #1172 |
Thanks Don and Vlado for the mentions. Much appreciated!
|
|
|
|
11/01/2010 10:55:05 AM · #1173 |
|
|
|
11/01/2010 05:01:32 PM · #1174 |
| Thanks for the mention vlado and thanks for including me in your multi story art gallery, Don, along with such wonderful company. It's a great view from the top floor and i've enjoyed leaning out the window, bottle of champagne in hand, watching the riots and explosions in the streets below. |
|
|
|
11/01/2010 08:59:48 PM · #1175 |
| Thanks Don and Vlado for the mention. There were a lot of great dream shots. It is an honor to be in such good company. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 05:39:49 PM EDT.
to 
