Faith

[PixelRabbit]

I think it is best to not lead anyone on this one so I'm going to keep my own thoughts to myself for now, but would love to hear yours on this one!
Thanks for taking a look

 

[Derrel]

This earns a big + in my book!

 

[The_Traveler]

telephone pole didn't get knocked down by the storm?

If you mean this to be a cross, my reaction is different.
To be successful shots that are meant to refer to a symbol need the symbol to be reinforced with content. Thus the presence of the symbol has some specific meaning.
Otherwise, it's just picture of a symbol.
Here is cross and snow. I don't get the connection.

 

[Dagwood56]

This one isn't really working for me. Perhaps if the shadow of the pole was more vertical and the snow a bit softer?

 

[Rick58]

Sorry Pix, this one isn't hitting the mark for me either. Of course I get the title / cross thing, but the processing is kind'a odd

 

[IByte]

I think it is best to not lead anyone on this one so I'm going to keep my own thoughts to myself for now, but would love to hear yours on this one!
Thanks for taking a look

http://www.flickr.com/photos/judi_smelko/12571236904/

That cross is looking pretty ominous Bunny. Were we watching the Passion?

 

[PixelRabbit]

This earns a big + in my book!

I think it is best to not lead anyone on this one so I'm going to keep my own thoughts to myself for now, but would love to hear yours on this one!
Thanks for taking a look

That cross is looking pretty ominous Bunny. Were we watching the Passion?

Thanks guys

telephone pole didn't get knocked down by the storm?

If you mean this to be a cross, my reaction is different.
To be successful shots that are meant to refer to a symbol need the symbol to be reinforced with content. Thus the presence of the symbol has some specific meaning.
Otherwise, it's just picture of a symbol.
Here is cross and snow. I don't get the connection.

This one isn't really working for me. Perhaps if the shadow of the pole was more vertical and the snow a bit softer?

Sorry Pix, this one isn't hitting the mark for me either. Of course I get the title / cross thing, but the processing is kind'a odd

Thanks so much for your thoughts all!
I expected this one to be challenged since it leaves so much up for interpretation imho. To me this image is quite powerful, I'm a little disappointed that others aren't getting something out of it but that's ok, I will learn

Lew, this part:
"To be successful shots that are meant to refer to a symbol need the symbol to be reinforced with content. Thus the presence of the symbol has some specific meaning."

I feel that this is reinforced by content, I agree that a symbol alone with no other content in the frame (ie. cross on a white or black background) is almost always (never say never) nothing more than an image of the symbol, I don't feel that is the case here, there is a lot of content other than the symbol as well as lights and darks that contribute.

A few of my thoughts about the image:

To me the sky is very symbolic of heaven, here it is dark and almost looks fake/photoshopped in (it isn't, all adjustments I made are global and nothing was done to the sky other than a red filter).

The position and angle of the cross makes it look like it is being carried or yielded ahead of someone.

It is a barren and harsh scene, times when faith are important.

 

[jenko]

I think it is an interesting image. Many renditions of "faith" are sunny and happy and well, sort of expected. This has more of a "dark night of the soul" feeling, which is much more complex and ambiguous.

My only criticism is the spots (?) on the sensor in the background. Maybe clean them up a bit or process the sky so they are less visible.

 

[pixmedic]

I TOTALLY understand what you were driving at Pix!

 

[The_Traveler]

I enjoy paintings from Classical and Renaissance periods, even though their content was strongly religious because the actual work was very fine and, to a good degree, stood on its own apart from the symbolism. In your photo, it is the symbols that carry the heavy load and the detail is not explicit in the symbols but only in your own mind.

to exaggerate to make a point:

If I showed you this picture below and entitled it 'healing', the connection between the image and my idea of the photo might be tenuous. The viewers could see the eye and see the claws but where do they fit in the author's concept of the image?
If I then explained that this was a picture of a polar bear caught in a terrible snow storm who was hiding one eye against the snow with his paw that had been injured in a fight, I could explain the content of the image but the image itself is so in-explicit that it fails.

Any number of lines can be constructed to fit a set of points but it is up to the artist to place those points in their work so that the shape of the line is understandable, if not explicit.

 

[jenko]

I enjoy paintings from Classical and Renaissance periods, even though their content was strongly religious because the actual work was very fine and, to a good degree, stood on its own apart from the symbolism. In your photo, it is the symbols that carry the heavy load and the detail is not explicit in the symbols but only in your own mind.

See, I think that is precisely what makes it interesting. The symbol becomes both a metaphor and a literal sign. The cross, religiously, represents atonement and the burden of humanity's sins. The barrenness of the landscape coupled with just the shadow of this heavy load (religiously speaking) suggests a spiritual struggle to me, perhaps one who is in less than ideal circumstances and feels their faith receding. And faith is always in the mind. It's not something we can physically touch, see, taste, or smell. But this image gives me a sense of how it feels to have faith looming over one's shoulder when the future, or what appears ahead, feels meaningless. The dark night of the soul is a very real psychological condition. Many saints, and even Mother Teresa, experienced it for years on end.

 

[The_Traveler]

Without discussing religion, this is an interesting example of people letting their own belief system overwhelm their visual objectivity. Another example is when people with new babies love any picture of a baby and particularly love any picture of their own child because it evokes their own emotional triggers.

This looks to me like the shadow of a telephone pole and, without the title, that would be how I classified the picture.

For me, who has no emotional response to crosses or any religious symbol, after reading the title, this is just a try that doesn't work. There seems to be no objective representative of any 'story' and the explanation by PR and jenko is based on concepts that they carry with them. Wikipedia has an article about this Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

[The_Traveler]

An interesting example of Pareidolia - This is a false perception of imagery due to what is theorized as the human mind's over-sensitivity to perceiving patterns, particularly the pattern of a human face, in otherwise random phenomena.

 

[PixelRabbit]

Lew, for me hitting emotional triggers is the whole point, it's not always about a pretty picture that serves it all up for the viewer to consume visually, I call that eye candy, this is not eye candy I think of it as moreso...say.... mind candy.

It is logical that it doesn't resonate with someone who is not triggered by religious imagery or concepts, it isn't everyone's cup of tea.

The link you provided is a good read, thanks for sharing. This is quite akin to when you buy a white car, you suddenly see white cars everywhere! It is quite fascinating how our consciousness changes with our experience. I'm not sure if you are posting that as a way to discredit what Jenko and I are saying but honestly I just see another way to hit those triggers in some people with my art, those who are conscious and receptive to the "idea".

 

[astroNikon]

I can see the emotional trigger
but as I was staring at it for a few seconds it started looking like a electric/light pole as I first saw what looks like a cross member support on the right.


fyi, I like white cars .. bought my first one in 1987. :mrgreen: they've been all over the place since !!