"Narcissa"

Congratulations on causing this whole discussion. It seems to me that most of the comments above could be reformulated as "If I was to take this photo...." but their authors rather do not realize that.

 

I think you should not bother about comments of the type "too much of this, too little of that". You created a shot as you wanted to. And in my opinion you deserve praise for carrying out a designed project, according to the vision you had in mind. And for the outcome that inspires.

 

Many POWs are just great pictures at which you look once, say "how perfect" and forget about them. Your photo makes me think and try to imagine how I would approach this task. And plan some next project for myself. I just wish I will have enough skill and imagination to complete it.

 

Thank you for this moment of reflection that your photo caused and thanks to the Elves for picking just this photo. It indeed is worthy of discussion.

I'm rarely motivated to enter the POW fray, but being an armchair semiotician and having mulled over the use of symbols, icons and allegory in the arts, I find this one irresistible.

 

And since the art of apologetics is associated with the defense of theological doctrine, I'll play the part for David's photograph from the standpoint of a work of art within a context of art history. Please consider the frequent religious references an unavoidable adjunct and not proselytizing.

 

We should dismiss the sexual transference issue because it's essentially irrelevant. For centuries men played theatrical roles intended to represent women because it was the convention of the times. Over time and throughout various cultures attitudes change regarding whether men or women are more obsessed with their appearances, to the extent that Narcissus represents the obsession itself and not a particular sex.

 

Now the pendulum has swung so far toward the direction of de-emphasizing sex as an essential element to a character that a particular concept of an angel is thought of as feminine, which has no basis in historical fact. But it's an accepted artistic conceit and not worth nit-picking over.

 

I found the comments about the model herself intriguing. From this perspective, the model seems somewhat androgynous, befitting the theme. The pose would be awkward for the model (altho' perfectly in keeping with the classic pose of this type), emphasizing the smooth musculature. And I had to laugh at one fellow's impression that the model's "meaty" hand was "masculine," remembering the Seinfeld "man hands" episode. I suppose we all have our comfort zones, beyond which we dare not venture even in our imaginations.

 

Some folks are taking this "Narcissus as angel" thing far too literally. In past centuries artists were rather liberal about bestowing wings upon characters. Sometimes it was with a purpose, other times rather gratuitously. Only David can respond to his intent here.

 

The whole concept of angels has been distorted over hundreds of years anyway. Judeo-Christian lore is rich with rather cryptic references to the creatures God made before man. Most of these references occur outside the canonized scripture, leaning toward the apocryphal, and some of these are likely to have been influenced by the mythology of other cultures including the Greeks.

 

Consider the Cherubim, reduced to winged infants in swaddling clothes in Renaissance art. In scripture these creatures defied description, leading to the impression that witnesses were either hallucinating or mentally ill.

 

The other pop culture angel, as depicted in David's photograph, is derived from the Seraphim, the order of Gabriel and Lucifer. The Seraph is traditionally described as having three pairs of wings, one with which to fly, the other to cover its eyes in the presence of God (for even the angels may not look directly into the face of God), the third to - presumably - cover its genitalia (which takes us into a whole 'nuther branch of angelology, *do* angels have genitalia and if so, why?).

 

As other artists have done before, David transforms the three pairs of wings to a more aesthetically pleasing single pair of wings, a gown to cover the body and loose flowing cape or train. It's simply a traditional artistic conceit that's so old the origins have been forgotten.

 

An analysis of what's particularly interesting about the arrangement of the wing-substitutes may help to answer some of the comments in this critique.

 

Dave Nitsche, for example, finds fault with the mud on the gown of Narcissus. If you accept the premise that Narcissus, in this case, is represented as a Seraph of popular culture, then not only is the spot of mud forgivable, it makes perfect sense. The gown represents the wings that would have covered the body in the presence of God. Scripture is full of references to "spotless" garments in association with being presentable to God. Narcissus obviously no longer is concerned about being presentable to anyone other than Narcissus.

 

Ben Rubenstein dislikes the cloth draped across the tree limbs. Again, pursuing the same premise that this is Narcissus-as-Seraph, the twin drapes are the wings that would be used to shield the Seraph's eyes in the presence of God. Since Narcissus is obsessed only with the reflection of Narcissus, these "wings" are superfluous and it is appropriate that they be flung carelessly aside.

 

Also, consider the connection with the Seraph Lucifer, who was cast down for arrogance. He too would have no need for these wings as they were originally intended. Depicting these wings as caught up in the trees is an appropriate way to illustrate the state of being cast down.

 

David's composition of the surroundings suits the theme (at least as I've interpreted it, which may not have been David's intention at all). Narcissus is oblivious to all, even shunning the pursuits of Echo whose body eventually withered to bone and rock, as stark as the dead trees in this photo. And the bit of dead tree limb to the right, which bothers some folks, strikes me as a haunting figure watching Narcissus - perhaps Echo herself?

 

Also, the Seraphim are associated with light, fire, burning and even serpents (hence the familiar references to Lucifer and Satan - who may not necessarily be one and the same - as serpents). Archangels are described as so brilliantly blinding that man cannot look at them. Perhaps a fallen angel would scorch the earth, producing the dead trees and bare ground surrounding this Narcissus.

 

The comparisons to the 19th Century Romanticism period (the Symbolism movement is more accurate) are appropriate, so David's use of light and color are entirely consistent with an homage to this art form.

 

As for accusations of "Kitsch!" that's high praise considering that it is now esteemed as fine art. At the very least "accidental" kitsch is as highly regarded as primitive and folk art, while the ability to create kitsch with malice aforethought requires estimable ability. If this is what David's client wanted he succeeded admirably.

 

In the final analysis (I'm sure those of you who have endured this far), the appropriately mythic Keyser Soze has it right: It engages your imagination. What more could one ask of any work of art?

 

Well done, I say. If you wish to pick nits there are remedies available at the pharmacy.

great writing above^^^

 

 

i dont think my set photo upload worked (for those that are interested)

 

so here is a link

 

http://fs6.deviantart.com/i/2005/052/8/4/narcissus_set_photo_by_maxpower.jpg[/

url]

Agnieszka:

 

Just curious: would you argue that besides photography, no literary, art, theater, etc. criticism is warranted in this world? After all each author "creates a 'shot' as he/she wants to... according to the vision he/she has in mind".

 

;->

It's a great, beautifully lit product shot, David. This would be the end of the story, except (a) you posted it here, and (b) you wonder whether it's worthy of competition entry.. asking for trouble.. and now POW! I think you've done quite well, on balance; if even the very best of my commercial work became POW I seriously doubt it would fare any better.

As an 'art' shot I'd have to say it looks unfinished, top-heavy and over-realistic. It might easily have been inspired by this painting (after I gave you a 6 for originality!) and my critique would be based on that. A little more congruity with the BG lighting-wise, a tidier composition and more work (in PS, most likely) on the satin drapes would greatly improve its (4) rating.

There's nothing wrong with the 'female narcissus' theme; some versions of the myth hold that narcissus fell in love with his sister & when she died, 'saw' her in his own reflection. I stand by my 6 in this respect, as it really illustrates the theme imaginatively and concisely. Maybe it would be worth suggesting to your client that she commission a male angel/narcissus partner shot..?

I realise the budgetary constraints involved, but there's enough here to warrant a day in front of the computer for your own purposes to make a really impressive folio shot. Not much, just a face in the reflection with a decent crop from the bottom, some added grace and movement in the drapes, a more 'active' background and definitely do something with the mud - not sure, but are those car tyre tracks I can see? I think you would do really well in a competition with these corrections. Setting out to create a specific dream out of cold, hard reality without Pshop is over-ambitious to say the least, and bound to leave you with mud on your dress.

Lex, off to the pharmacy right now...

"budgetary constraints" is an understatement...

 

im still a student, 21yrs, working freelance, and part time as a waiter...

 

i submitted this to get critiques, as it is a cornerstone of my current portfolio book, and I

am hoping to land some bigtime jobs in the next few years..

 

i did not submit this image as "high art" and say im better than eevryone else...

Don't sweat the critiques, David. As comedians say, "this is a tough room." You've received some comments that may seem merely harsh but which really are thoughtful criticism. I've read critiques from many of these folks in other POWs and they can be a lot rougher, but still fair.

 

Keep in mind that if you did choose to submit this photo either to juried shows or to prospective clients as part of your portfolio, they might reject it without comment and you'd never know why. The critiques here will give you some idea of what jurors and clients *might* find fault with.

 

Remember, also, that art show jurors and, especially, commercial clients, might not give a damn about the type of interpretation I've read into your photograph. A museum curator *might* but don't count on that happening in your lifetime.

 

It's worth noting that da Vinci and other great artists who relied on wealthy patrons for a living often produced two or more versions of a painting or sculpture: A version that was "commercially" accessible because it was tailored to the religious and cultural mores of the patron; and an uncompromised version that represented the artist's original intent.

David, in all honesty, you should be amazingly proud of this image. It is a wonderful example of photography and thought. The 'nits' that I brought up when this images was originally posted were just some quick thoughts and by no means really effect the overall image.

 

"I am hoping to land some bigtime jobs in the next few years" I don't think you are going too have to worry about that. Bigtime jobs are in your future imo...

Just plain overworked photo! Great Idea, super photographer, but way to "fake". Everything is Studio.... The Left Hand,..Hulk Hogans?... Something just not right there.

The Angel thing has been used to death. Loose the wings and you have a 100% better photo right off the bat.

Your an Artist, don't push it so hard....just do your thing!

Jeff Henry...

 

READ EVRY OTHER POST I HAVE MADE TODAY!

 

this image is barely untouched in photoshop, and was done for commercial purposes...

 

 

yeesh :-p

David, sorry if I upset you. I looked at the photo and said what I felt about it. Not an attack on you at all. As I said "you are an Artist"

Apparently Jeff didn't read the bit about this photo being commissioned by the maker of the angel wings. No wings - not much reason for the photo.

Jeff,, LOL

 

sorry that was meant in total sarcasm.. i guess that's kind fo hard to read :-p

 

cheers

David, I stumbled upon your door photo in the Rate Recent cue yesterday, then saw this as photo of the week - excellent. Posting photos of your set, too, is incredily helpful to those of us new to photography and curious about lighting - thanks for that!

 

I have one teeny tiny nit pick, and though I may be wrong - but am I looking at a section of the lighting wire above? I would never have caught it as that, though your setup photo makes me think it is...THAT I'd clone out;)

Hello David - while the subject of this does not excite me terribly, I think this image has gorgeous light and I enjoy the opportunity to learn a little from all the comments (pro and con). Your attitude (or lack thereof maybe :-) in replying to the commentary is commendable. Cheers, -Stefan.

At last, a legitimate nit to pick. The naysayers are vindicated.

 

Good eye, Christopher. ;>

LOL lex!! you found my little secret.... that wire is how i know this is not the final retouch

version :-p

Well if I found it, I want the rights to it - the naysayers can't have it:)

 

How many lights did you use in this, David? Is it just the one for hair/edge? Really smartly done.

So this was done as a commercial shot by a twenty-one-year old? I am truly impressed.

 

David, if you can perform this kind of magic with light, you can do anything. Go for it.

 

--Lannie

My first reaction was "Huh?" Then my eyes noted the word "elves" in the explanation. This, and the image, made me think of fairies. So with elves and fairies in mind, the whole angel thing sort of made sense.

 

Still, it's a weird-ass image.

 

Could this be a homage to Willie Nelson's "Angel Flyin' Too Close to the Ground?"

 

Ya know, behind the nice light and lavish folds of material, there is an unkempt feel to it. Very Nelsonesque.

 

tom

Beautiful - simply beautiful

 

I know there is so much I could ask about lighting and such, but my biggest amazement is how you managed to keep the white material so clean while shooting in the mud.

!!^ kudos to Tom in making me laugh out loud during a class lecture! 0_o

Now that is painting with light! Great work!

David,

Very nice work !

There are only a couple of things that I don't care for and that is the wire in the background and the tree branches. They look a bit "menacing" But the shot is great all the same and it seems to have done its job creating a lot of comments and thought. Well done !!!