Discussion in 'General Critical Analysis' started by newrmdmike, Jun 24, 2007.
i like how the man is a little out of focous
I know the shot isn't technically great, I think we can all agree on that yes? But with all of that aside, I love the shot. There is something about it that really speaks to me, something about it kicks major ass man.
I like it. I think it should be speaking a message... the man is blurry because we like privacy in the bathroom.
I think this is a lovley picture, I like all the detail in it and how it seems to want to share something... and like art should do... everyone comes up with their own explaination. But I wonder what yours was??? I would love to hear the story behind this picture.
I love all the detail the crisp black and white brings out.
thankyou trenton, but what you said cracked me up . . . whats not technically great about it? also though i wasn't aware that good photographs resulted from successfully following rules. i don't mean this as a smart-ace or anything, but really think its something that should be discussed, and is something we can learn from. just because someone said you can't have an out of focus subject in the foreground doesn't mean there can't be good photographs with that.
and nomade, should intentions be be taken into consideration? is that really important when considering a work for critique? and do you mean none of those items are in the photograph as a interesting object, or did you mean intentional? i also don't understand what you mean by parts of him are more obvious. he seems entirely obvious to me, and pretty equally blurred.
i don't think it hurts giving an explanation, so here goes. This is an editorial shot of a man who builds recycled homes, 70% of the materials is headed to landfills. this home he built has a studio with great skylights, i took this directly under the skylights. One of the requirements to live in this house or to lease it is that you be a working artist. Hence the toilet, which ironically was also headed to the landfill, then refired to make it warp and crack. the artist is the head of a universities ceramics dept. the warped boards are a good backdrop bc of texture etc, but mostly because he readily can get warped boards for free. They also are a reflection of the artist leasing the place, behind the siding is big mirrors . . . the leasing artist didn't like it, so they covered them up. if you have 10,000 imprefect anythings then you have a cool pattern you can make. the floor is in small segments because a lumber company gave him the 1-2 ft scraps from when they have 12ft lengths of something and cut off two feet to accomadate a order for 10ft segments.
the house is detached from the studio and is a treehouse, i have pictures of it in another thread somewhere.
i like it even though it was an accident, i agree with whoever said that it was good till you found out it was an accident, because, yah, its nice to have a photo turn out the way you planned instead of pass off a mistake as art, but i still like it because you wouldnt expect an object so close to the other elements to be out of focus when everything else is, so thats cool to me.. i like how raw it looks too
i hate to pull a max bloom but you guys are ridiculous if you like something until you learn something about it, and feel differently afterwards. THAT TOTALLY GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING you should take into account when critiquing something. so if you liked Pollock and then realized he was splattering paint on canvas would you stop liking his work?
first i don't recall saying this is art. SECONDLY, i saw he was out of focus in the viewfinder, and just went with it . . . i realized what was going on before it became a negative, although i don't think it would matter. if you guys don't take advantage of something you see, whether its in the viewfinder or on a negative . . . please tell me why.
I'm going to ask that those of you who can't help but critique text go back and critique the photograph, because your not making statements that are dealing with THE FINISHED WORK. we aren't here to discuss how this image came about, but the image itself.
yea i think it is a good photo. I havent read any text about it, I dont know where any text about that photo is. Where is it? But I think it is a dope (cool) ((nice)) picture. but one question, why is the guy out of focus. hahahahah just jokin. I like it. Obviously makes people think and question, and that's what good photos do. word
i removed the text because it to greatly affected peoples critiques. . . but since someone asked to explain i did.
I hate to pull a Max Bloom, but I love it. It's got great texture. Definitely print material.
and max, so you know . . . i really loved pulling that max bloom.
and thanks man, do you any comments on photos not following rules? you pull quotes and text and stuff quite often, but i also think you gather from them that rules aren't end all solutions to photography and you certainly know that following the rule of thirds, having classic composition etc doesnt mean a good photograph . . . and that breaking those things doesn't mean a bad one.
someone around here had an ansel adams quote that said something like there are no rules to making good photographs, only good photographs.
also . . . do you think the text an artist provides with a work in regards to how it was created should be valid in its critique? (aside from your text indicated you completely missed your intended mark) or is the thing i should be taking away from this critique thread that you shouldn't say squat about your photo unless its absolutely necessary?
I know some authors who at readings have people pull outlandish meanings out of their text that could only come from absolute genius or a subconscious level. they choose to acknowledge it as intentional and that you not say "oh no, thats coincidence"
what do you guys think about that?
Newrmdmike, for the record: I know that a shot doesn't have to follow the rules to be good. In my first post, I didn't really demonstrate how I feel accurately at all...
A shot doesn't have to follow the 'rules of photography' to be good. The rules are there, I think, as a general guideline, and not some holy doctrine that shall always result in top-quality results or anything like that. I love it when photographers break free from the shackles that these 'guidelines' sometimes impose, it's awesome to see shots like yours out there, most people would have deleted that after they took it and not even seen what beauty lies in your shot. My brother (much older, and been taking pictures longer than I, I've been at it a good four months HAHA), said it quite well a month or so ago, "Rules? There are no rules for history. I take a picture of where I've been, what I've done, what I've seen. Jay, you can't tell me what I've seen hasn't happened if there is a picture. Pictures aren't art, they're history. History follows no guide."
man trenton, the last few sentances are really interesting to me. . . because photos can totally mis-construe history i think, i know. not in a literal sense, but in a journalistic sense and in how people will regard those events in the future. magnum photos website has some interesting quotes from various photogs of theirs on this, and its evident in their photos that they show a truth, but also not the truth. (if that makes sense)
by the way, this conversation needs to be in a seperate thread, so if we want to keep at it pm me and we'll start another thread, but i'd like to follow the new critique guidlines.
Separate names with a comma.