The Threats

[LizardKing]

First of all. I really do appreciate your feedback, and I don't want to scare you off or anything. While, I disagree with much you are saying on both process and philosophic levels, please understand that I value your input and feel a healthy debate benefits everyone. So please don't get upset by my reply.

I'm glad to read this. More often than I'd like, people react different when their work is criticized. If I'm to say something, it will always be something constructive... or at least that'll be my intention

Got your point now and really like the idea/concept you're trying to achieve. It's just that, in my opinion, probably there was another composition that would help deliver the message better or more clearly. Door handle and lock are kinda distracting and while they could add to the idea, they cannot be more attracting to the viewer's eyes than the writing itself...

Anyway, have a nice day and keep it up! Photography is all about originality

 

[Kerbouchard]

Yes, it could have been an interesting concept if it had a better framing and a more distinguishable subject.

As it is, it's a bunch of gibberish...both the image and the explanation of the image by the OP.

Poorly executed.

 

[invisible]

For me, it's about the world which we live in, not the one we wish we did: one of compositional conventions, perpetual 'golden hour light'. It's about decay, opinions wanting to be heard, leaving a mark, differing messages by different people. Who left them, what were they thinking and why. It's about the people who came before us, and the people who came after. The attempts we make to cover up these inconveniences with white-wash paint.

Chapeau.

Whenever one tries to share an "unconventional" photograph, less people will make a connection with the image, especially on photo forums (which are the speed-dating version of photographic enjoyment – you have two seconds to make an impression, or else). The good news is that when people do make a connection, that connection can be much stronger than the one they make with conventional material. Just my two cents, of course.

I like the photo. Like someone else said before me, it made me stop and think.

 

[Kerbouchard]

For me, it's about the world which we live in, not the one we wish we did: one of compositional conventions, perpetual 'golden hour light'. It's about decay, opinions wanting to be heard, leaving a mark, differing messages by different people. Who left them, what were they thinking and why. It's about the people who came before us, and the people who came after. The attempts we make to cover up these inconveniences with white-wash paint.

Chapeau.

Whenever one tries to share an "unconventional" photograph, less people will make a connection with the image, especially on photo forums (which are the speed-dating version of photographic enjoyment – you have two seconds to make an impression, or else). The good news is that when people do make a connection, that connection can be much stronger than the one they make with conventional material. Just my two cents, of course.

I like the photo. Like someone else said before me, it made me stop and think.

This is why I hate art crtiics and artists. It is also why I have routinely said that I am not an artist.

My definition of an artist: One who claims that his message is hidden in his work and that you have to be worthy to appreciate it.
My definition of an artist fan: One who claims he can see this hidden message thus proclaiming himself better than those who are around him.
My definition of an artist fan's friend: One who agrees with the fan so that he is also deep.

Basically, what we are left with is a crappy piece, a fan who doesn't know why it's good, but knows that he is supposed to think that it is good so he makes something up to pretend like he understands, and the people who listen to the people who are pretending like they understand agreeing so they can feel like they are part of the 'in' crowd.

I call it the "Ellsworth Toohey effect".

 

[invisible]

This is why I hate art crtiics and artists. It is also why I have routinely said that I am not an artist.

My definition of an artist: One who claims that his message is hidden in his work and that you have to be worthy to appreciate it.
My definition of an artist fan: One who claims he can see this hidden message thus proclaiming himself better than those who are around him.
My definition of an artist fan's friend: One who agrees with the fan so that he is also deep.

Basically, what we are left with is a crappy piece, a fan who doesn't know why it's good, but knows that he is supposed to think that it is good so he makes something up to pretend like he understands, and the people who listen to the people who are pretending like they understand agreeing so they can feel like they are part of the 'in' crowd.

I call it the "Ellsworth Toohey effect".

Good for you :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

 

[Kerbouchard]

This is why I hate art crtiics and artists. It is also why I have routinely said that I am not an artist.

My definition of an artist: One who claims that his message is hidden in his work and that you have to be worthy to appreciate it.
My definition of an artist fan: One who claims he can see this hidden message thus proclaiming himself better than those who are around him.
My definition of an artist fan's friend: One who agrees with the fan so that he is also deep.

Basically, what we are left with is a crappy piece, a fan who doesn't know why it's good, but knows that he is supposed to think that it is good so he makes something up to pretend like he understands, and the people who listen to the people who are pretending like they understand agreeing so they can feel like they are part of the 'in' crowd.

I call it the "Ellsworth Toohey effect".

Good for you :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Just curious, but you do understand all the reasons this is bad, right? I mean, seriously, you can't possibly think that because one has to spend several minutes trying to desipher the content of the photo that it makes it deep because you spent more than a few seconds on it?

Did it ever cross your mind that you have to spend several minutes to desipher it because it was poorly executed rather than just because it was deep?

Sure, if you think about anything long enough, you can come up with some sort of hidden meaning, but this one isn't it.

The OP saw some grafitti, took a barely recognizable snapshot of it, and is now proclaiming it some deep study of humanity. Honestly, I hope this entire thread is a late April Fools Joke.

 

[invisible]

Just curious, but you do understand all the reasons this is bad, right? I mean, seriously, you can't possibly think that because one has to spend several minutes trying to desipher the content of the photo that it makes it deep because you spent more than a few seconds on it?

Did it ever cross your mind that you have to spend several minutes to desipher it because it was poorly executed rather than just because it was deep?

Sure, if you think about anything long enough, you can come up with some sort of hidden meaning, but this one isn't it.

The OP saw some grafitti, took a barely recognizable snapshot of it, and is now proclaiming it some deep study of humanity. Honestly, I hope this entire thread is a late April Fools Joke.

I started typing an answer but realized that I work tomorrow morning and need to turn in. Hopefully someone else will find the time to answer – otherwise I'll make sure to drop by again tomorrow and resume this conversation. In the meantime, I suggest you forget about this particular image for a moment and re-read the thread. You'll find out that no one said there was a hidden meaning or that you had to spend several minutes deciphering anything.

As an aside, it might be just me but I think it's disrespectful to refer to someone else's creative work as an "April Fools Joke", "poorly executed" (when you don't understand what they were trying to execute), "a crappy piece", etc. If you want to destroy an image, it's alright – just do it with class.

See ya tomorrow.

 

[Ernicus]

I figured it out, it was dark and he had his camera on him so he snapped a shot while fumbling with his keys to find the keyhole to get inside. Then decided to keep the pic.

oh, wait, that's not it, there is no keyhole. Dammit.

seriously though, after reading the entire thread, again...mostly 'cause I'm bored....I then looked back at the picture...and I'm sorry, it's just a pic of a door. There certainly is more profound graffitti somewhere that can illustrate the effect desired. This just isn't it.

...or I'm just not deep enough.

 

[Jaemie]

Whatever happened to "live and let live"? Whether one likes or dislikes this image, or any image, maintaining a cordial dialogue is surely the rule here. Am I wrong? Frankly, I'm rather astonished at the number of rude, aggressive, and even hostile posts on this forum. Granted, only a few people cross the line, but it's surprising, and even sad, to see on a forum devoted to photography; I expected a more mature and civil discourse when I joined.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Just curious, but you do understand all the reasons this is bad, right? I mean, seriously, you can't possibly think that because one has to spend several minutes trying to desipher the content of the photo that it makes it deep because you spent more than a few seconds on it?

Did it ever cross your mind that you have to spend several minutes to desipher it because it was poorly executed rather than just because it was deep?

Sure, if you think about anything long enough, you can come up with some sort of hidden meaning, but this one isn't it.

The OP saw some grafitti, took a barely recognizable snapshot of it, and is now proclaiming it some deep study of humanity. Honestly, I hope this entire thread is a late April Fools Joke.

I started typing an answer but realized that I work tomorrow morning and need to turn in. Hopefully someone else will find the time to answer – otherwise I'll make sure to drop by again tomorrow and resume this conversation. In the meantime, I suggest you forget about this particular image for a moment and re-read the thread. You'll find out that no one said there was a hidden meaning or that you had to spend several minutes deciphering anything.

As an aside, it might be just me but I think it's disrespectful to refer to someone else's creative work as an "April Fools Joke", "poorly executed" (when you don't understand what they were trying to execute), "a crappy piece", etc. If you want to destroy an image, it's alright – just do it with class.

See ya tomorrow.

Good morning...

My comment that included the words "crappy piece" weren't necessarily directed at this OP or this photo. It was more of an 'in general' reference to some of the 'fine art' world and societies 'misunderstood artists'.

The 'poorly executed' and 'snapshot' comment references were, however directed at this photo.

Looking at it this morning, I do see that a bit more thought went into it than first met the eye. I can see how he attempted to use the frame of the door and the contrasting colors, dividing the middle of the frame to show a difference between the graffitti on the wall vs the graffitti on the door. So, based on what looks like somewhat intentional framing, I will withdrawl my 'snapshop' comment.

I do still think it is poorly executed. The biggest thing missing is some sort of identifiable message that is obviously trying to be supressed. That would make this 'concept' work. It seems like the hands have nothing to do with the message and, yet, they are the most distinguishable part of the image, aside from the lock and handle.

Here is how I would describe a successful rendition of the shot. Two different surfaces divided down the middle, much like the OP has. Identifiable, opposite messages on each side that looks like they were different ages and different times. Then, a poorly attempted coverup of the offending message, complete with identifiable brush strokes and a slightly different shade. I might even throw in a 'Wet Paint' sign so that the viewer knows the one message was left intentionally.

Also, for the thread title, 'The Threats', imo, the title would be much more accurate if this was on the outside of a door, perhaps an apartment door with 4 locks on it, rather than the inside of the door. If taken from the other side of the door, we could imagine a family locking themselves in their apartment to escape the 'threats' and 'reality' of the outside world. Instead, we can clearly see the latch release, which makes me think it was taken inside a restroom.

I don't think the concept is bad, and I think with the right subject matter, it could even make a compelling photo. I just think the example posted here misses on so many levels that, yes, I use the term poorly executed.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Why is it NOT possible that something COULD have a deeper meaning than what one person, a few people, or even most of the people miss?
Why does something become a bunch of crap, simply because one doesn't understand it? Or can't, or doesn't want to?

Why can't concepts simply be beyond you? Insulting and putting it down says more about you than it does the art.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Why is it NOT possible that something COULD have a deeper meaning than what one person, a few people, or even most of the people miss?
Why does something become a bunch of crap, simply because one doesn't understand it? Or can't, or doesn't want to?

I am sure that there are some cases where that is exactly the case.

 

[KenC]

I really get what you're doing here - a lot of mine are about obscured or partial messages - and the image is a pretty good one, IMO. I'm not sure why it caused such a stir on here; usually if viewers don't like an image they just move on and if they do like it, they just comment and don't argue with those having different opinions.

Anyhow, back to the image - I think the door and the handle/lock really do add something, but I would crop a little on the bottom and maybe almost a quarter of the frame on the left. This would make the writing more prominent, put the handle and lock in a stronger position and remove the part of the door that is kind of flat and doesn't add much. I'm often suggesting cropping to people and don't usually act on advice on cropping from others, so take this with as many grains of salt as you want - this is just the way it strikes me at this moment.

 

[sleist]

I will decline to crit this shot for now, but would like to mention that the level of detail visible is very "monitor dependent". The posting of this shot in a smallish version that does not allow the option for larger, more detailed viewing doesn't help any (I'll partly blame the forum's random photo handling behavior, which frankly sucks). Looking at this on my crappy work monitor gives me more contrast that allows for seeing the details better than my higher quality (albeit not-perfect) home monitor. Go figure. Perhaps better processing would have helped? Can't say.

If a person feels strongly about the message in his work, he/she should work harder at making certain it's seen in the best possible light. I don't get the feeling this was done here and some of the negative reaction might be the result of that.

My 2 cents

 

[Galderon]

I don't care for it. It's booring and I don't see any meaning behind it. It's a door, with a bent in bit at the bottom. It looks like one of those pictures you'd take if you had a lawsuit against the person who made the door. Your deeper meaner is a really long stretch, when the graffitti is barely visible and a composition that looks like your camera accidently went off. I'm sorry I just don't see it.