Photo of the Week - #50 8/29/22

[samstevens]

• Photo of the Week is a member-run feature.
  
• The photo is posted anonymously. If photographers wish, they may identify themselves in a comment.
  
• This is not my photo.
  
• Comment on and discuss the photo or any aspect of it in whatever way you choose.
  
• If you wish to submit a photo, please PM me with either an embedded photo or a link to one. Include a title if you want one to appear. It will go into the pool and eventually be posted as a Photo of the Week.
  

* * *

 

[Leslie Reid]

I opened up the thread, saw the image, and have been grinning ever since. I like it a lot.

 

I like how the image is centered on the nose.

I like how the face glows against the dark background.

I like how the sharpness of the face contrasts with the out-of-focus cars.

I like the audacity and creativity it took to come up with the idea.

I like the quirky strangeness of the whole thing.

 

Bravo! And thanks for making me smile—I needed that.

[michaellinder]

A flight of fancy, to be sure. My first impression was that the face is the screen at a drive-in movie theater. Otherwise, I ditto Leslie.

[AlanKlein]

Reminds me of those photos where the question is asked, what am I?

 

OK a parking lot at a museum.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

Fun image. Flattened field probably due to a longer lens, and the looming presence of a very monumental head that speaks of either a dim past or dystopian future. Yep like it.

[Sanford]

Drive-in church?

[Supriyo]

It’s quirky, with dense vegetation and mysterious mask-like face superimposed with a foreground of urban character, a complete opposite. I love it.

 

As for the imaginative part, it appears that a bunch of cars (with occupants inside) are being guided into a new and unknown realm or Sphere of indoctrination, while the all-pervasive face looms over. Nothing escapes it’s eyes. It’s a one-way ticket … to nirvana or hell, you tell me.

[Ricochetrider]

OK this is a ton of fun. I especially like that no hmans appear in the photo... Since first seeing this yeaterday, I've rhought of several ways to imagine whats really happening, but rather than spoil it, I'm going to just let my imagination run away with itself over this cool & imaginative photo.

 

Nicely seen and shot.

[je ne regrette rien]

It is very interesting how a photo, which most of the time is an arbitrary depiction of reality, or an arbitrary depiction of imagined reality, based on many, or few, real elements, can raise such different reactions, associations or questions. The author probably hasn’t imagined any of those when choosing the picture.

 

Once again I see the confirmation of a saying by Bruno Munari, an Italian graphic designer:

 

"Everyone sees what they know" .

 

This means that all of us observe the world, and a photograph, and are aware of it on the basis of the background of culture, knowledge and experience we have accumulated in our lives. On this background we form our opinions, make judgements, and shape our lives.

 

There are appreciations which appear subjective, such as Leslie Reid’s, who voices very nice remarks, including his smile. Michael Linder associates the picture with a drive-in movie theater. Alan brings up the idea of museum, which brings us closer to the essence of this picture, as well as Barry Fisher, mentioning the “monumental head” and the past or dystopian future. I think this is very appropriate to scratch the surface of this photo. Sanford mentions the sacred, which is part of the story. This is definitely part of the story, as we will see.

 

Supriyo’s reading is also very interesting, he mentions quirkiness, as well as an interesting reference to a “sphere of indoctrination”, just like the description of the Big Brother on the screens of Orwell’s 1984. Ricochetrider declares he has fun and is unwilling to constrain his imagination.

 

Ludmilla’s comment rather addresses technique adopted to convey the visual message, the out-of-focus foreground, which she believes is not appropriate. She recognises that there is a story told, communicated by the upper part of the photograph, while “the phrases spoken in the lower part are just a jumble of words”.

 

In this respect placing the focus on the head or statue and keeping the foreground out of focus seems absolutely essential to separate the different planes in the picture and establishing a differentiated relationship between these two parts.

 

The questions raised by this picture are probably of two kinds:

1. What is this picture as such? What are the elements in the frame communicating? More of graphic, metaphoric message.
   
2. If this is a document of something real, what does it document? What kind of message about reality does this message want to convey? More of a document.
   

The comments provided mainly concern questions of the first kind. It is exciting to read the different ideas, which come up. Here there are no limits to imagination, also because this place and situation is unknown. If the intent is a graphic, metaphoric message, your reactions say that it may succeed.

 

Concerning questions of the second kind, this single picture is rather insufficient. in fact, per se it documents nothing. To document, it would need a narrative, which is not visible in the photo presented. It does not provide any additional information. If it documents a slice of real life, it is just not enough to accomplish this task. If the intent is documenting, this photo may be considered a failure.

 

Ludmilla, who mentions an “intriguing story” may want to tell us more about this story she perceives.

[samstevens]

Ludmilla, who mentions an “intriguing story” may want to tell us more about this story she perceives.

Or not.

 

In addition to the communication of a message or the documentation of something, there’s how the photo makes one feel. In this case, I am amused, energized, and intrigued … by disparities, movement, unknowing, scale, and content. The intrigue contents me like a question mark sometimes does. For me, it seems not to suggest or warrant an answer.

[je ne regrette rien]

Or not.

 

The intrigue contents me like a question mark sometimes does. For me, it seems not to suggest or warrant an answer.

 

Sam, ... you know it's my photo. You are right, a picture may raise questions that do not necessarily need answers and I will not tell the when and what and how of this one.

 

I can just say that I am very familiar with this place and just happened to capture this fleeting moment by chance, and still just in the "right" way, the right frame, the right depth of field, the right moment.

 

A photographer I hold in highest esteem for her artistic path suggests "that there are not just the photographs that we think are 'right': they must be the ones we ultimately 'choose'". I have chosen this photo and possibly give it a frame.

 

My comment came from my perspective as the author of this image, with no control over the observer's perception. I agree with your idea of "feeling" from the perspective of the beholder.