Life is full of surprises. I had one, which I'll share with you, this week.
What do you think of this:
How would you describe what is composed and depicted here?
Is it beauty? Is it devoid of that quality?
My reason for asking is because, out of the blue, I found this image I'd taken of Magenta to be at the heart of a conversation by a group of photographers this week on a site where I have one of my oldest portfolio collections.
As I've noted in my contribution to this posting, I was a little surprised at the choice of this image - it was the only one in the gallery collection I hadn't forwarded for peer review, as I didn't feel it was as strong as the other work, but this is the image they chose to review. The anonymous group of photographers who commenced the discussion began by stating the theme of the composition was a "beautiful subject", but they had no more to say about the "strong" lighting or Magenta's pose, leaving this to others.
Again, as I've noted in my comments there, this was an experimental shot, and we obtained an image we found more satisfying:
What stunned me was the amount of negative comments made regarding the image selected for review. Yes, there's certainly room for improvement, I freely admit, but is it as entirely devoid of artistry as some state - were we totally missing the mark? I'd be interested to hear from a wider circle of artists and photographers about how they would approach such an image (both in terms of composition and critique), so please feel free to pitch in with some considered thoughts.
Many thanks.
Images: The Disrobing, Adorned and Satin. Model: Magenta. Images by Howard Nowlan.
The second image is a more "expected" beauty, but the first is very dynamic. The tension in Magenta's back hints at some strong emotional state; whether ecstatic or distressed is not clear, and that contributes to the image's power.
ReplyDeleteAs a musician, I am often surprised at audience comments. Sometimes when I think I've played very well, brought the house down etc., I get no feedback; but other times when I think I've blown it I get all kinds of good comments.
And we never can tell what people will latch on to. L. Frank Baum wanted to continue to tell The Great American Fairy Tale and write other books that weren't about Dorothy and Oz, but his audience immediately and permanently latched onto The Wizard of Oz and insisted on "the further adventures of Dorothy and Oz friends." Arthur Conan Doyle regarded Sherlock Holmes stories as "hack work," but what else do we remember from his pen? Composer Gustav Holst wrote a lot of good music, but is mostly remembered for one composition, The Planets--a great piece but certainly not the only great one he wrote.
I have come to conclude that either we artists are not always the best judges of our work--or the audience (whether pros, as in your discussion, or "other") merely fastens onto something for no particular reason. We just never can tell.
Many thanks for those very true insights. Unbearable Lightness also wanted to comment, but couldn't get past a password glitch, so here's her thoughts:
ReplyDeleteAt first I was puzzled by the image up for discussion. I almost saw a papoose on her back, then I realized her back was to the right of where my eye was drawn. The photo made me think. Then I looked at the second image, which is almost a cliche. I see so many of these back images! It's nice, but...I prefer the image up for discussion. It is unique. Technically, it looks like a Victorian photo. That adds to the mystery it presents.
This summer someone told me, when I asked why he collects Edward Weston's work, that he prefers Weston because he is the thinking man's photographer. I also love Edward Weston. Perhaps your image fulfills the need of those who like our art to be challenging and surprising.