You say "whimsical"?

<p>Perhaps for elucidating the concept of "whimsy" in general, one may invoke other art forms besides photography, such as Don McLean's <a href="

the Amazon,"</strong></em></a> where "the prophylactics prowl" and "the pax vobiscum" bite. If that isn't whimsy, I don't know what is.</p>

<p>I think that whimsy can also involve some degree of incongruity, as you (I believe) correctly say, Arthur.</p>

<p>"The Kodachromes come out and drink their blood," says Don McLean (link above or <a href="

).</p>

<p>I am not frightened by such chromes, Didier, even though you understandably say that "'<em>capricieux; fantastique, absurde, étrange, saugrenu, insolite'</em> sound like strong words whereas there seem to be a consensus about lightness when it comes to whimsical things."</p>

<p>There is something light, is there not, about Kodachromes that drink blood? Can anyone take such a nonsensical image seriously enough to tremble?</p>

<p>"Playful nonsensicality" would be my attempt at a definition for "whimsy," although I doubt that such a definition would be all-inclusive. The realm of the whimsical is quite elusive, not inclusive.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Didier, thanks for looking at and commenting the examples. I agree that member photos are of value as examples on a photography site and in reference to the OP and hopefully you have incited others to do so or to comment those so placed, as does sometimes occur.</p>

<p>The McLaughlin image creates whimsy in my mind as I am a bit of a nut for identity and heritage, but I agree that it does not do that for most. I cite it as an example of the viewer participation in the perception of whimsy as a consequence of his or her own mindset. Thanks to the moderator (and Fred, if the two are not synonymous) for rectifying my action of placing a non-member photo directly on the site.</p>

<p>Arthur, the two are not synonymous. :-)</p>

<p>"Don McLean (...) If that isn't whimsy, I don't know what is". Me too, both...<br>

"The realm of the whimsical is quite elusive" "perception of whimsy as a consequence of his or her own mindset". In summary, the monthly contest will tell more about the voters, than about the photos. Too bad the vote is anonymous...</p>

<p>One thing to consider with regard to the contests, Didier, is whether or how much the voting will be influenced by the viewer seeing the theme well realized. My suspicion would be that the viewer's liking the photo (and in many instances that will mean reminding the viewer of what he's already seen a million other times) will be the decider more than its fulfilling the theme well. I think we might learn more about viewers' tastes than we would about whimsy in particular.</p>

<p>Monthly contest success often responds to trends (which can also include those types of photos seen a million times). Good whimsical photography mostly rejects trends or clichés. In "migratory intention" or "free flight" I had little in the way of trends to rely on. </p>

<p>Fred, yes, we are going to have a good survey of Photonet's members private dreams.<br /> "I had little in the way of trends to rely on" yes Arthur, but is there anything from the mind that comes <em>ex nihilo</em>?<br>

My turn to expose myself. Can this photo qualify as whimsical?</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>In summary, the monthly contest will tell more about the voters, than about the photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Couldn't be more accurate and better said as commentary on "contests" in general, Didier.</p>

<p>Looking at former winners of contests of this sort will give you an indication whether it's worth your time.</p>

<p>And yes, your photo of the "Winking Wall" qualifies as whimsical in my opinion, but it will require the title to be included in order to override its subtlety.</p>

<p>Tim, "commentary on "contests" in general," yes;<br>

"whether it's worth your time": ~yes, but as long as I keep it short;<br>

"it will require the title to be included": I see, then it is not a proper one, imho a good photo should not need a title.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"....is there anything from the mind that comes <em>ex nihilo</em>?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That, Didier, is I guess impossible ("en partant de rien" or "out of nothing'), although I am sure one or more philosophers might be able to provide a counter argument of some sort. Following trends is but one source of inspiration. I generally prefer the others.</p>

<p>Your interesting photo - Quite whimsical presented without a title. With the title I feel it is whimsical overshadowed by humorous title.</p>

<p>I feel that my own examples would have been better without titles, even whimsical ones. I personally enjoy being directional in creating some images (moving things around, adding or subtracting things, modifying or waiting for lighting effects, etc.) as that is a process of creation, but once the latter is realised too much direction of thoughts by titles is I think (usually) often counterproductive to the viewer's experience.</p>

<p>I think, most often, the problem with titles on photos has nothing at all to do with an inherent problem of titling photos. It has to do with them simply being add-ons, or last minute quick thrill appendages or not being given the same degree of depth and consideration as the photo itself. If one were to put as much creativity and/or mystique into their photo titles as they did to their photo itself, a title could simply function as part and parcel of the overall experience. No photo must be limited to expressing itself completely without a title. That would be a rule as restrictive as any other rule imposed on photographers, like the rule of thirds or the rule that a photo is best as it comes out of the camera. If the "wink" does not come through as literally in the photo and a title can get us there, be suggestive enough, there's no reason why the photo should be redone to show the wink more clearly or should stay as it is but not get the title "Wink." I think the photo of the building could stand on its own without the title and I think the title gives it something as well and I don't think the fact that the title adds something in any way detracts from the photo. </p>

<p>Would just the name of the contest subject title "Whimsical" drive home enough to the viewer the brick wall image as being as such if it didn't even have a title?</p>

<p>What if the brick wall image was viewed outside the association of a particularly titled contest and on its own without a suggestive title (maybe Brick Wall #3). Would it still be seen as an image of whimsy?</p>

<p>On first view I couldn't tell what those slits in the brick wall were or if even it was a brick wall or a small model. Was wondering if those slits were windows or if they were drawn in by some graffiti artist?</p>

<p>It's an interesting visual concept on human visual communication that doesn't get discussed often here.</p>

<p>Actually, this photo is part of one of my "windows" portfolio on Photonet in which I have dumped a few ones that I think could stand out for whatever reason to ~regular visitors (I know that this is not the way serious photographers should show their work). So in the same bag as other unrelated photos, I feared that it would be too much abstraction to go from the real thing (see below a sister tower) to this sample, without some explanation. Initially I was attracted by the bricks (I love bricks), and then I added a few arrow slits to indicate the scale, and then I saw the face. I guess that's how miracles, or faces on the moon, happen. At the time I did not know yet that I was hit by mild whimsicalitis, and I still cannot remember when, during this life, I was primed for such an hallucination.<br /> Now, within the next contest, with the equivalent of a label saying:"warning, those photos are intended to be whimsical, please set you OS accordingly", I think now that explanations in titles should be avoided. However, things are different for titles that are ~<em>aide-mémoires</em>, like PC desktop icons, etc.</p><div></div>

<p>I think a contest theme like "whimsical" is something different from a photo title given by the photographer.</p>

<p><em>"Can this photo qualify as whimsical?"</em><em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>If whimsy is to play any part at all in this then I would more likely consider it to be a document recording a part of a building whose construction perhaps involved whimsical decision on the part of the bricklayer/architect. Of course there may not, at the time of building, have been any whimsical reasoning behind the type and placement of the window slits.</p>

<p>In which case it, perhaps, becomes just a photo of a wall.</p>

<p>Let me turn your question around a little and ask "Can <strong><em>any</em></strong> photo qualify as whimsical?" A photograph is a record and can indeed be a record of something whimsical but that doesn't make the photo itself whimsical. In your example I could agree that the photo is a whimsical one<strong><em> in your collection of photos</em></strong> if at the time you took it you were intending to take photos of other things and took this one as a capricious, or indeed, whimsical deviation from your other work.</p>

<p>Of course I was not really going to add anything to this thread but came here on a, you guessed it, w...</p>

<p>The theme of the contest is "whimsical" which doesn't specify whether the photo or the subject is to be so.</p>

<p>Photos are more than recordings, in that the elements to be framed are chosen as is the context and periphery which is omitted. That imprints a decision on the photo that often makes it much more than a recording. The way non-whimsical subjects can comprise a whimsical photo would be through perspective, juxtaposition, altered context, and so many other photographic considerations that go into the making of a photo.</p>

The opposite of "whimsical" is to analyse something to death.

<p>If anything this interesting discussion is showing all the variables involved that affect perception and thus limit the effectiveness and meaningfulness of evaluating a photo by means of a contest.</p>

<p>Like the point about referring to other photos in a photographer's gallery taken of the same subject to help communicate one photo which is not conducive to single photo contest entries. The photo must stand on its own with or without a title to explain what it is. It almost requires the photographer to choose images more from a selling point in order to win a contest, the worst motivation for creating an image.</p>

<p>I guess you all can gather what I feel about photo contests. Even though I'ld like to win, I know it's like playing the lottery while displaying your soul for scrutiny by strangers you know nothing about.</p>

<p>"Can <strong><em>any</em></strong> photo qualify as whimsical?"<br>

I think this is a good question, I would say yes if it is an intention shared by addresses. This can also be said of any work of art (not mentioning my stuff!).<br>

Think of Magritte "Ceci n'est pas une pipe", I am saying: this is no longer a wall (this is a face), and, since I am not too sure of this fact, I have added a footnote-title to drive the point home.<br>

"The way non-whimsical subjects can comprise a whimsical photo would be through perspective, ..." and just framing.<br>

"limit the effectiveness and meaningfulness of evaluating a photo by means of a contest", "displaying your soul for scrutiny by strangers you know nothing about"<br>

yes, but it is just a game, and it takes only a few clics.</p>

<p>And what do you expect to get for your few clicks, Didier? Just curious.</p>

<p>I'm not trying to discourage you from entering a photo contest. I'm just relating new information that's new to me as a way of thinking out loud on what I've observed from this discussion which is more than I expected.</p>

<p>" what do you expect to get for your few clicks"<br />Money, glory, women, and thus increased participation of my genes in the next generation</p>

<p>That was a nice whimsical riposte, Didier.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The opposite of "whimsical" is to analyse something to death.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think so, Q.G. We are perhaps analyzing "whimsical" to death, but I am not at all sure that the analytical and the whimsical are opposites.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Thank you Lannie, that was my point: "mild or harmless nonsense" + "good balance between reality and fantasy".</p>

<p>The entire motivation of this thread requires analysis of the word "whimsical" due to the "lost in translation" aspect of Didier's understanding of the English meaning as it translates to French at the same time be communicated in a photo.</p>

<p>That's 3 languages attempting to communicate one word...English, French and Photography. Analysis is unavoidable.</p>