No or little words: beyond emotion

[reinier_de_vlaam]

comments?<div></div>

[leonard_evens]

Very striking picture.

 

I hope the slit wrists were simulated.

[reinier_de_vlaam]

No they are real, it was very diffucult to have the model sit still for the required time ;-)

[domenico_foschi]

Great social commentary , Reiner .

Love the simbolism , of the hole in the shirt where the heart is .

I am going to post something , but i still do not know how to post

something in the same page where the text is , #*!!&@!!!

[domenico_foschi]

Whatta!??

[domenico_foschi]

Apologies , i give up .....

[pvp]

Domenico:

 

Remove the word "copy" from your filename, make sure the extension (.jpg) is the last thing in the uploaded filename (rather than type it in, it's best to browse to the file on your PC.)

 

Make sure it is 600 pixels or less in both directions and it should display with the text.

[z_z1]

Good pic Dominico. I just saved it and then changed the extension to JPG. Loaded fine.

[triblett_lungre_thurd]

eeeew,

 

art... i hate art. it's so forced and staged. never understood the need to do this kind of stuff. i feel like i'm being hit over the head with a sponge bat.

 

and tell that girl to eat a sandwich or something,

 

me

 

p.s. well, you asked for comments.

 

p.p.s. may i make a few suggestions? cover the girl in fake blood, take the bloodied shirt off and shove it up her hoo-haw then dress the man up in a minotaur costume and have him holding up the photo above and reshoot. print it up, then set the print on fire and toss all the negs/slides that you used to create this half-considered monstrosity into that fire.

[alex_hawley]

Both are powerful images, full of symbology. Thanks for sharing.

[scott_jones2]

Despite the very creative response of Mr. triblett Lungre-Thurd, I thank you for sharing your image. It did make me think and appreciate your work. It is so nice to see photography once in a while on this board when the techno-talk gets a little thick...

 

Scott

[psychophoto]

No offense to Alex, and not to get terribly off-topic, but does 'symbology' make

anyone else think of <i>The Boondock Saints</i>? Good images, BTW...

[geoffrey_swenson]

I am 100% in agreement with Triblett on this one! This is a feeble try at a very forced pseudo �Art� in bad taste.

 

G.

[james_driscoll2]

i really wouldn't call the photo "bad taste", but I would agree with

with it being forced. it looks like most of the stuff that is churning

out of art school these days, except there is no lesbians in the

photo.

 

try putting more effort into taking the photo, and less effort into

naming the photo.

 

if you want a play by play of whats I feel is wrong with it, let me

know.

 

i feel that it is great that you posted your picture, it means that

you have more balls than most of us around here. as soon as the

scanner gets up, I'll let you guys take pot shots at me.

 

thanks

jdjdjdjdjdjdjdjdjdjdjdj

[jim6]

I'll have to go along with Triblett as well. I think we've all tried this approach at one time or another. It's actually very weak in my opinion... but hey, it's only my 2 cents...

[domenico_foschi]

Triblett , arer you the guy who plays the banjo in "Deliverance" ?

[reinier_de_vlaam]

hi guys

 

You have no clue how you are complimenting me right now. I'm a self-made photographer, comparing my work with work from art-schools is a compliment of the highest rank.

 

True art also leads to discussion between people who like it and who hate it. It's done here so it must be real art.

 

So you are free to give any negative comments you like, please do so. I won't take any offence

[james_driscoll2]

ok, my now four cents:

 

"true art"- what does this mean??? and about it causing discussion,

you'll notice that the posts on 150mm apo-ronars cause more

discussion.

 

comparing your self to art schools- makes you realize that you don't

have to spend $100,000 to make pictures.

 

the bone I have to pick with your photograph- is that I feel my self

having to ask "what are you trying to say???". Maybe it is because I

didn't go to art school who knows???

 

when one finds themself having to explain visual art, than we have not

succeded.

 

i am by no means "awesome", I find myself explaining all the time.

 

think about, what are you trying to say. you seemed to have taken a

lot of time to pose and style the girl, but no effort seems to be have

been taken with the man in the background. he looks like an

afterthought, and his relation to the girl is minimal at best.

 

mood- there doesn't seem to be any, the lighting looks like standard

fill flash, and equal emphasis is placed on everything in the frame.

The fact that you used selective focus, seems to me like the girl is

supposed to be the point of emphasis, but my eye gets drawn to the out

of focus man. He is out of focus, but not completly-hence I keep

wondering how he relates to the scene.

 

The clothes, the location, and the props (chairs, newspaper) do not

give me a sense of time, place, or importance. It also helps me

struggle even more with what you are trying to say.

 

not that it has to have shock value, but if that was what you were

going for, it is missing also. She looks like a woman with paint on

her. I don't feel pain, disgust, or sorrow, or joy, or happiness for

her- I feel like I am watching a low budget slasher film

[reinier_de_vlaam]

Thanks for your critisism. With many thing it is so that ypou need to know the story behpre you casn fully understand the subject. I personally think that not all objects/images should be self-explanatory, butalso some parts can be left for people to fill in. The story behind the shot is a girl who was raped and tried to kill herself after that. Her immediate environment (the rapist came from that) didn't care at all and turned away from her, rather than helping her.

 

Actually I get the impression you are feeling the right feelings, but can't place them. If you don't know the story than I can imagine this.

 

 

>think about, what are you trying to say. you seemed to have taken a >lot of time to pose and style the girl, but no effort seems to be >have been taken with the man in the background. he looks like an >afterthought, and his relation to the girl is minimal at best.

 

Exactly right, the relation to the girl should be minimal as her environment didn't care when she tried to commit suicide. So also the relation in the pic should be minimal

 

 

>mood- there doesn't seem to be any, the lighting looks like standard >fill flash, and equal emphasis is placed on everything in the frame. >The fact that you used selective focus, seems to me like the girl is >supposed to be the point of emphasis, but my eye gets drawn to the >out of focus man. He is out of focus, but not completly-hence I keep >wondering how he relates to the scene.

 

The mood should be dull, it represents her emotion, or better beyond emotion. She didn't care, had no more feelings and the only thing she wanted was to escape from life. I agree that the man might be better more out of focus.

 

>The clothes, the location, and the props (chairs, newspaper) do not >give me a sense of time, place, or importance. It also helps me >struggle even more with what you are trying to say.

 

The location was to represent her collapsed world. Reading the paper is a way to show lack of interrest. I could also have the man stand with his back to her, but found it wasn't strong enough because even turning your back means recognition of the person being somewhere.

 

 

>not that it has to have shock value, but if that was what you were >going for, it is missing also. She looks like a woman with paint on >her. I don't feel pain, disgust, or sorrow, or joy, or happiness for >her- I feel like I am watching a low budget slasher film

 

She doesn't express emotion so probably it doesn't trigger one with you. She is beyond emotion, her inside is dead, only her outside has to follow.

[triblett_lungre_thurd]

uh huh...

 

listen,

 

reinier, like our friend above said, if you have to explain, you've failed miserably. photos CAN tell a story, but you can't force them to and when you catch yerself doing it for your photo, yew bess' 'reckonize. i've a friend who fancies himself quite the artist, and invariably when we'd meet, he'd show me his latest, then commence to prattle on fer hours and hours, pontificating about the semiotics and symbologies he felt his painting was communicating. it was always most evident to me that he was more in love with being considered an artist and these sermons only served to convince him further... and, truthfully, convinced no one else. he still paints and attributes great meaning to every little inconsequential brush swirl and doodad therein... and as pastimes go, his is a harmless one but be wary reinier. don't let yourself fall into that trap. don't convince yerself that your photo IS art and that some people will never get it... or that your model is doing anything but imitating a fashionista's purse-lipped mugging... and crucially, don't think that the label of 'art' has any importance whatsoever. stop yourself now, while yer just starting. work on your craft... start by making good photos and not bad art. fuck art. fer rills.

 

domenico, i love yer work,

 

me

 

p.s. yup, i'm just another savant hillbilly with a camera...

 

p.p.s. speaking of deliverance... ain't it curious je's how good that fugly critcher could pick? and thinkin' 'bout it... that skeery mofo's face was art... and begs to be photographed. but one is art and the other is just a photo of it. think of yerself thataways reinier... as a trained eye... a recorder, an archivist and good luck.

[john_kasaian1]

Well, its obvious the guys not interested in fixing the roof. We don't know whats he finds so interesting in the newspaper but since there is a neglected looking woman wearing only a shirt in close proximity, I can only hope the fellow is reading an advertisment for viagra!;-)

[reinier_de_vlaam]

Did you ever understood the work of 'Dali'? Or Mondriaan? Ever been to a museum?

 

Sorry I don't agree. I have seen many pic's which needed teh story behind it before you knew what was happening or what was meant.

 

But btw, I never called this pic art...

[triblett_lungre_thurd]

so now yer comparing yerself to mondriaan?

 

again reinier... i'm a pragmatist when it comes to art, yes i know, the two don't really go together but that's me and you asked for comments and these are mine. but, being trained in oil painting, i've come to realize that if i can do it with little or no training, take fer instance a late work of mondriaan, by using a ruler and one or two primary colors... then i won't call it art, i can't, not when my 7 year-old niece is capable of better. nor will i attribute great meaning or value to such a work. it's convenient to say mondriaan, or pollock or johns were artists just because they were self-considered as such and were later proclaimed to be so by the art world, but to me... they were hi-jack artists(see also moholy-nagy's photograms). yes, con-men of the highest order and in that, i can respect them for bilking money from fatcats by duping the art world... but i'll be damned if it's worth anything but the canvas it's painted upon. it's not... no more so than the graffiti of basquiyat nor the tracings of warhol that duped the last generation of dimwit collectors/curators/critics. what you can't see of mondriaan is that he was once an artist... and his early, less famous works displayed his brilliant talents. his latter, well, displayed his saavy and went a long way to expose the art world for what it truly is... a gaggle of brainless elitists hell-bent on kissing ass and making a 'me-first' name for themselves by loose association. dali? well, would that you could sonny but thats' a hallucination of a different paint-job. so yeah, i'd say yer photo above was the equivalent of a dozen or so perpendicular lines with one block painted yellow.

 

so what then? you become famous? probably...

 

me

 

p.s. art pioneers you say? feh! surely the caveman who invented tic-tac-toe should be given the credit.

 

p.p.s. original? you bet! so is the booger i just pulled out of my nose... never been another just like it.