Girl

I think more people on here spend too much time wanting to make the photograph theirs (or not) than ever speaking to the merits of what's before them. "I would have liked more space to the right, less contrast, in color and not black & white, in black in white not color..."I think the image would be stronger if he was an employee, and if that was more obvious, because than you would understand his role in the image as a service worker, and the driving force of it all, these Western beauty ideals," as if the photographer made a decision not based on the viewer's likes and dislikes. Folks, it's not yours to speculate on the want but what's in front of you. I find there is more time spent bashing ("I completely agree there's no relationship between the two," Say what...based on your judgment that is based on the triangles in the Raft of the Medusa. Given the direction Gericault's work was taking after that painting was accomplished, had he been made that painting earlier, on this forum he'd of either been totally panned for so-so work, or booted for suggestive work, or more likely, just ignored. Genius is sometimes not realized immediately by an artist. Sometimes it takes time. Jenko based more of her critique on not liking the bourgeoisie (this is the correct spelling) potential of the lady based solely on the issue of a short, tight skirt, blonde representing Western beauty ideals. Come on, tell me how this has squat to do with direction, geometrics, line, value, contrast or any other criteria for determining the value of a work. This was not an artwork where the artist could place everyone in an "ideal," provide the perfect lighting, drama, or place the most dramatic point at the apex of the triangle. It's a street shot, for HCB's sake. It's not terribly successful, but there are elements that could have been addressed and left Andy out of the equation completely, left some idealistic Romantic ideal back in 1830.

I've see stuff posted by Rick58 that was quite simple, quite plain but marvelously executed and ignored time after time. Maybe he's not in the club, maybe he's also seen as a Bourgeoisie pig because he's a white male, non-Asian, who makes more than minimum wage...most of you need to engage your brain before your fingers touch the keyboard. What a giggle.

Well, I wasn't going to come back to this thread, but since you've decided to continue the discussion and make me the center of it ...

First off, I was not bashing anyone. Not amoliter, not his image, and certainly not the woman in the photograph. I usually comment when amoliter posts, and I read his blog sometimes. I have appreciated some of his images in the past and I make an effort to take his intent into consideration. I never called anyone bourgeois, let alone used the word "pig." I was referring to the rituals on the sign.

I'm interested in women's issues, so that is part of my experience. It's going to shape how I interpret something. The hair salon is a bourgeois experience for most American women. It's conventional, middle-class. Most people I know do not have a celebrity stylist come to their homes--they go the salon. I go to the salon. I have no problem admitting it is one of my bourgeois rituals.

The woman does fit the ideal for Western beauty. I'm not saying she's a bad person for it. She's lucky! The idea that America admires shapely blondes in tight clothing is nothing new. And yes, it ties into western beauty ideals. I think it would be interesting if the guy were an employee because then one would see a relationship between her, the sign, and the man.

As far as The Raft of Medusa goes, I admit I chose a random example. My point was that I felt amoliter was placing too much importance on geometrical shapes to carry the entire image. The image would be stronger, imo, if there was also some meaning to be derived from the scene, or at least a lingering emotional resonance. He placed a great deal of emphasis on the shapes being what he felt was part of the image's success. What he felt made it classic street photography. My critique of that is the fact that shapes themselves are not enough, at least not in a scene where there are human beings. HCB does have strong geometrical design at play, but there is always something more ... There's humanity and emotion.

And if you truly respect amoliter's vision, and you think people spend too much time trying to make it their own, than why did you butcher it with your sliced revision and take out all of the elements he finds the most important?

Lastly, I was simply giving my interpretation. If you disagree with it, than you do. I don't really care. We all come to an image with our own experiences. I would hope a critique forum would be open to discussing our interpretations as well as what is before us in an image. Because the maker isn't always conscious of everything. And the intent is only one part of the experience. I'm grateful when a poster takes the time to try and interpret an image or make technical suggestions. I'm curious as to what they see, because I know it's different from what I see. They are a different person with different experiences. According to you, no one should interpret anything. I disagree.

As far as the "club" goes, I don't understand where you are coming from or going with that.

I truly did not mean to offend anyone. I apologize if my posts were somehow offensive or bashing.
 
At this point, the discussion is revealing more of our biases and perceptions, than it does of Andrew's intent or ability at capturing "street". But I do agree with ceeboy, that we should take some of the energy invested in this thread, and spread it out to people like Rick who posts interesting (but not necessarily controversial) images. Oh, and I missed the memo about the club. Can someone forward me the rules and membership criteria? I'd like to know what I'm missing if I don't ever find the magic door in.
 
But I do agree with ceeboy, that we should take some of the energy invested in this thread, and spread it out to people like Rick who posts interesting (but not necessarily controversial) images.

Like...like...like.
 
I'm grateful when a poster takes the time to try and interpret an image or make technical suggestions. I'm curious as to what they see, because I know it's different from what I see. They are a different person with different experiences. According to you, no one should interpret anything. I disagree.

In the case of amolitor's image, I don't think there is anything to "interpret", and as far as making technical suggestions, it is very difficult to foresee technical problems when grabbing a quick shot. We just take it as it appears, like it or not. MHO.
 
Wow, thanks guys. Someone does actually see my posts :lol:. Other then a handfull of still lifes, my stuff is usually considered "record" shots and probably not all that interesting. But I try to take them a step further and make them technically pleasing to the eye. If I miss the bulls eye, I'd like to know how to improve it.

CB gave me a very good critque to my last WOW Chew. He just mentioned he would have liked to have seen a little more room on the right side of the frame due to the leaning building. I explained that I saw what he was talking about, but unfortunately, there was no more room to give. Perfect critque for me. I personally am not looking for at'ta boys, but honest, non belittling critque that will help me see things I may have missed.

It's all too easy to get lost behind a PC monitor and forget that you're attacking a person, not just a screen name, and the phrase "get tough skin" should never have to enter into the critque. I try to treat folks on here as if I'm sitting across the table from them and if I wouldn't say something to them face to face, I won't say it here.
 
Last edited:
Rick, your on-line demeanor puts you in the "good people" camp. Now we'll need to gang up on your artistic vision, just so that you can feel appreciated. :lol:
 
If everyone is done discussing Andy's image, are we done here? :)

The points people have raised about how their biases enter their assessments of photographs are interesting, but it's a discussion for another thread. Just don't want to see this flare up again, and Andy's been uninvolved for the last...couple of pages, I think. :lol:
 

Most reactions

Back
Top