The Unbearable Lightness of Being a Flower
- Thread starter Rob MacKillop
- Start date
Tom Dunne
Well-Known Member
Presumably I can have a go at it too Rob
Superb photography.
I am a fan of many of Uta Barth's photographs and for some reason this reminds me of some of her work. This has it's very own beauty and the treatment you have given to it is gentle and most suitable.
There are imperfect aspects here that actually make the image.
Love this to bits.
Superb photography.
I am a fan of many of Uta Barth's photographs and for some reason this reminds me of some of her work. This has it's very own beauty and the treatment you have given to it is gentle and most suitable.
There are imperfect aspects here that actually make the image.
Love this to bits.
Chris Dodkin
West Coast Correspondent
Lovely stuff Rob - wish I could shoot this kind of thing, but I just don't see it the way you do
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Chris - there are these drugs...
Tom - Yes, you can have a go, by all means. I had to look Uta Barth up on Google Images. Another one ripping me off! When will they stop!!
Tom - Yes, you can have a go, by all means. I had to look Uta Barth up on Google Images. Another one ripping me off! When will they stop!!
Tom Dinning
Well-Known Member
Hi Rob.
I've had my breakfast but haven't had any coffee yet. I'm also recovering from a head cold I collected in Bali.
Stand back. This could hurt.
A pleasant enough scene, seemingly casually snapped, although the overall effect leads me to believe the casualness was intentional, as one might glimpse something that reminds them of another time. I'm assuming this isn't an old shot but has had a hammer taken to it to give the impression of such. One might mistake this photo as a copy of a print found in a bottom drawer under the newspaper lining. The question raised would be "why is it there". Many people have left their grubby finger marks around the edges. Children, possibly. So this might be a child's first attempts at photography, an image worth preserving.
As a single image, yours shows great skill at presenting a possible story link. These types of photographs are in vogue at the moment with the flexibility of digital processing allowing just about anything. These types of photographs serve little purpose other than to demonstrate the editing skills of the photographer or to act as a visual stimulus to a storyline. They might hold a short interest to the viewer as a technical point of interest but little else. The true value of a photo lies in its content and form, not in it's ability to look old and worn, unless it is a photo of interest that is old and worn.
I'm assuming you had a bit of fun with this, Rob. And so you should, but don't hold to strongly to the technique used. A good photo doesn't need to be run through the wash.
I've had my breakfast but haven't had any coffee yet. I'm also recovering from a head cold I collected in Bali.
Stand back. This could hurt.
A pleasant enough scene, seemingly casually snapped, although the overall effect leads me to believe the casualness was intentional, as one might glimpse something that reminds them of another time. I'm assuming this isn't an old shot but has had a hammer taken to it to give the impression of such. One might mistake this photo as a copy of a print found in a bottom drawer under the newspaper lining. The question raised would be "why is it there". Many people have left their grubby finger marks around the edges. Children, possibly. So this might be a child's first attempts at photography, an image worth preserving.
As a single image, yours shows great skill at presenting a possible story link. These types of photographs are in vogue at the moment with the flexibility of digital processing allowing just about anything. These types of photographs serve little purpose other than to demonstrate the editing skills of the photographer or to act as a visual stimulus to a storyline. They might hold a short interest to the viewer as a technical point of interest but little else. The true value of a photo lies in its content and form, not in it's ability to look old and worn, unless it is a photo of interest that is old and worn.
I'm assuming you had a bit of fun with this, Rob. And so you should, but don't hold to strongly to the technique used. A good photo doesn't need to be run through the wash.
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Thanks, Tom. I knew you'd love it. Don't be afraid to let it out.
Tom Dinning
Well-Known Member
I love my wife and dark chocolate, Rob. That's where I draw the line.
Brian Moore
Moderator
I like the Chinese plastic lens style distortion.
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Cheers, Brian, it's strange that Sigma don't advertise that their amazing camera can imitate a Chinese plastic lens Big selling point, I'd say. 
Big selling point, I'd say.
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
OK. The painted picture on the wall is of flowers in full bloom. The real flowers are in a photographic frame. The real flowers are torn between the natural cycle of life and death (they are leaning towards the light for sustenance), and being frozen in time through art. They want to escape the false world of art, yet know that something of them will live on through it. It is the dilemma of the artist. But already it is too late. The real flowers are not real - they are part of a photograph depicting the dialogue between real life and art(ificial) life.
Tom Dinning, the processing should be seen in this light.
Tom Dinning, the processing should be seen in this light.
Tom Dinning
Well-Known Member
I never would have guessed, Rob. I get the concept and it's one worth pursuing. I still don't see how stressing the image in the way you have here makes the concept any clearer. As it is presented here, there is insufficient detail in the picture frame to say what is there, even a hint, or is it my poor eyesight. A clarification of that part of the image might have enlightened me.
I would suggest that few if any would have read the picture as you intended. If that was your intention, ie, for us to interpret the image in that way, I suggest you have failed. This doesn't mean that the idea is a bad one or the picture is a bad one. It just means we didn't get it. If that matters to you then rethink the approach. If it doesn't matter to you the tell us to fuck off. I suggest that since you shared the picture and the idea with us that it does matter to some extent. This is the failure of using other humans as benchmarks for your own success. We sometimes miss the point, don't give a shit or give an entirely different shit.
The logic is beyond me as to why we spend a lot of dollars on gear that makes our photos look like someone stood on them. Surely there are clearer ways of getting the idea across.
I would suggest that few if any would have read the picture as you intended. If that was your intention, ie, for us to interpret the image in that way, I suggest you have failed. This doesn't mean that the idea is a bad one or the picture is a bad one. It just means we didn't get it. If that matters to you then rethink the approach. If it doesn't matter to you the tell us to fuck off. I suggest that since you shared the picture and the idea with us that it does matter to some extent. This is the failure of using other humans as benchmarks for your own success. We sometimes miss the point, don't give a shit or give an entirely different shit.
The logic is beyond me as to why we spend a lot of dollars on gear that makes our photos look like someone stood on them. Surely there are clearer ways of getting the idea across.
Ivar Dahl-Larsen
Well-Known Member
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Seeing the blooming flowers in the picture frame is irrelevant. It's the frame that counts. It symbolises something captured. The real flowers don't want that, and, failing to realise they are already in a frame, try to escape. They are doomed to failure. The artificial stressing adds to the conceit that the reality is not what we see. In other words, the stressing is part of the joke.
As to not understanding the image on first viewing, that doesn't worry me, as I rarely understand anything at all, even after contemplating it for a while. But it has led to this discussion, and that is part of the whole.
As to not understanding the image on first viewing, that doesn't worry me, as I rarely understand anything at all, even after contemplating it for a while. But it has led to this discussion, and that is part of the whole.
Tom Dinning
Well-Known Member
I'm still with you, Rob.
Interpretive art is a challenge from both sides. We don't have the good fortune to know what you are thinking, nor you us. The frustration will come when the artist can't express himself fully, when the viewer doesn't have the language to translate, or when the artist is saying one thing and the viewer is saying something else. This sort of confusion can come with all sorts of photography but especially those which need to me interpreted.
For my own personal stuff I don't give two hoots what people get out of my photographs. They invariably never see them anyway. They are often a reflection of my innermost thoughts. Quite often the words don't seem to match the image except for me. I can see that might be the case for you as well.
From another perspective there are those who do want critical analysis of their images and if interpretation is a part of that, the photographer must consider different approaches if the message they proclaim isn't getting through. It also, as you say, requires a second look by the viewer, often after having a conversation with the photographer as has been the case here.
Your photograph is much easier to interpret now we have had this conversation. As with the written word, clear and precise syntax is often the best approach so as to avoid obfuscation. The same applies to photography.
Interpretive art is a challenge from both sides. We don't have the good fortune to know what you are thinking, nor you us. The frustration will come when the artist can't express himself fully, when the viewer doesn't have the language to translate, or when the artist is saying one thing and the viewer is saying something else. This sort of confusion can come with all sorts of photography but especially those which need to me interpreted.
For my own personal stuff I don't give two hoots what people get out of my photographs. They invariably never see them anyway. They are often a reflection of my innermost thoughts. Quite often the words don't seem to match the image except for me. I can see that might be the case for you as well.
From another perspective there are those who do want critical analysis of their images and if interpretation is a part of that, the photographer must consider different approaches if the message they proclaim isn't getting through. It also, as you say, requires a second look by the viewer, often after having a conversation with the photographer as has been the case here.
Your photograph is much easier to interpret now we have had this conversation. As with the written word, clear and precise syntax is often the best approach so as to avoid obfuscation. The same applies to photography.
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
I think that's all fair comment, Tom. Thanks for taking it seriously. It's forever work in progress. A dialogue, for whoever wants to converse, verbally, pictorially, or otherwise.
Pete Askew
Admin
I have come to this image late and have made the 'mistake' of reading the comments first and so it is now difficult for me to go back to my first impression. I did see a relationship between the flowers and the painting but not as you describe Rob. What appealed most visually though was the dark frame and the dark shadow. The texture seems to give an illusion of looking into a display case and so makes me curious about what is outside the frame: a homely scene or a deathbed.
An interesting image and an interesting discussion (despite the unnecessary expletives - and that's not me being prudish, just respectful of external readers).
An interesting image and an interesting discussion (despite the unnecessary expletives - and that's not me being prudish, just respectful of external readers).
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Good observations, Pete. I see what you mean about the display case. Interesting.
Similar threads
