single photos American Goth

I like the idea in general (although i have seen other parodies of this photograph so i dont feel it to be hugely original) and i like the people in the photo but i think the background is a bit blase for the subjects. They are modern but yet have an "old timey" brick building doesnt seem to gel. Maybe a stark modern building, nothing mirrored but adobe clay or cream colored stucco? Just a thought but i did love the attention to detail (the nail polish being the same and the almost predatory look in the womans eyes) It is good but could use some polish

The whole set up and models look way too artificial for me - may be a good shot for some theme or project, does not stand alone as a piece of art for me. Good thing is that it looks like the photographer spent a lot of effort to find models and dress them up, but the lack of imaginative lighting and/or background/set up does not take it to any higher level than ordinary

It should be no surprise that many people don't get this insider joke.

If you don't know the Goth culture, if you don't know Norman Rockwell, if you don't know Gordon Parks or any of the other great artists who worked this image in parody mode, you won't get that for instance, the flat light is on purpose, the stiff poses, the pasty skin tones and the attitude... then you won't get that it is not intended as a "stand alone" piece of artwork. It depends quite heavily on it's referent to succeed, just as it depends on these other elements that people "don't like". Without those elements and conditions it would not be what it intends to be... a parody.

Some folks just don't get parody, so here's the definition: "A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule". So in this regard, I think this photograph is a success.

Oh and by the way, Goth was Goth waaaay before the Matix. The Matrix was trying to be Goth, with a little new age and gangsta thrown in (just to hit all the markets)... t

...but I would like to see the bottom of the pitch fork. And the film edge doesn't do it for me, as it's out of place with the intended effect... t

Tom, can you give us visual references (i.e., links) to the Rockwell and Parks parodies of this same shot. Thanks.

Tom good points, yes I know when Goths were around, thats why I said the ones of today are trying to look like the Matrix. I'm a 60's 70's child/teenager, hence the ref to Rocky Horror. I loved seeing the people leave the midnight shows.

Matrix has little to do with Goth, it's cyberpunk.

Its strengths: The idea alone reminds us of one of the subcultures which still has its own followers. In my opinion, today the Goth subculture is reflected through feelings and temper, rather than through clothes. The whole scene is theatrical.

 

Weaknesses: The scenography looks too much artificial. The hair style of a man give the unseriously look. The lighting is too strong thus giving an artificial mood. The idea deserves serious scenography, rather dramatic interpretation and presentation.

Even though the photo has some impact and definite merit, for the first time I fail to see why

it should be chosen as photo of the week.... Must be something wrong with my eyes or

judgement.

In answer to your parody explanation, here is another (better) example.

 

And it has nothing to do with whether one understands "Goth" culture or not. I found your remarks a little condescending especially in light of the fact you were asking for open critique.

 

Parody or not, my previous comments stand.

Here is Gordon Parks take on the topic, using the original as a starting point for his socio-political commentary... t

check wikipedia on "American Gothic". There is a long listing under parodies of this painting.

Who is condescending? Apparently everyone at photo.net thinks I'm condescending,even when I'm not trying to be. "Opinionated" is frequently taken to be many things not intended.

This post is destined to be sanitized, I'm sure... t

I think the subjects could have been better placed in relation to the background to make it look less muddled.

 

As far as concept, I think it is devoid of one, and is more of a commercial picture.

 

I think there is supposed to be humor here, but it doesn't appeal to my personal sense of such. I'm sure others think it's funny, as everyone's sense of humor is different.

 

The edge markings are indeed pretentious to me. If it were important to the concept, it would make more sense, such as to reinforce the idea that this is just a piece of film; not reality. However, I feel that in this case it's just an attempt to inject some sort of style where there is none. It is distracting form the subjects.

 

The obviously intentional color cast doesn't suit the mood for me.

 

The models are not particularly interesting to me. Not that they couldn't be; they just weren't made to be so.

 

In short, I would try this one again, or maybe try to find a better shot from the rolls.

 

Keith

No offense meant Tom.

But maybe you should re-read your post of Sep 06, 2007; 08:01 p.m. from a more objective point of view to see what I meant by "condescending." Seems obvious to me.

From the opening statement all the way to your citing the definition of "parody" for those who don't know what it means.

I mean... geez.

"[H]ere's the definition: 'A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule'. So in this regard, I think this photograph is a success." --Tom Meyer

 

Tom, I am not sure about your "therefore" (stated here as "So. . . ."). Yes, it meets the requirements of being a parody, but it does not follow that is thereby a particularly successful parody.

 

Although I critiqued this photo earlier, I think that the concept is sound enough. As others have said, the execution could be improved and is thus worth worth trying again. The background just does not work with the foreground characters.

 

--Lannie

No offense taken, I'm used to it. I mean, we're just talkin here...

It seems obvious from many people's comments that they don't know the original artwork that this is based on. And that they don't understand that it is a parody, or even what it means to parody a work of art.

Since this is, ostensibly, a learning forum, I don't think I'm out of line to point out this aspect of the piece with some clinical explanation. Those who don't get it might benefit from my stating what is obvious to others that do. If you do, great, then you at least understand the premise of this photograph, and my so-called "condescension" is not for you.

And the supplied definition of parody is not meant as a sly criticism of any "neophytes" among us, but rather an attempt to reveal and to aid in understanding the intent of the piece, whether it is ultimately believed to be well done, or not. This is also a discussion forum.

It is clearly a parody, and therefore not a totally original artwork since a parody is derivative by definition... and while not "perfect" (whatever that may be), it gets it's point across quickly to those who know the original and know what a parody is. Without that knowledge it's a more difficult image to appreciate, to any degree.

I want to emphasize my belief that you can recognize a successful attempt in an artwork, without personally liking the particulars of it. Consider Gordon Parks rendering... very powerful on many levels, but many here at photo.net might be critical of the lighting. That doesn't diminish it's effect or it's success as a socio-political commentary or it's rightfully high place in the history of American artworks... t

one other thing...

to say "So in this regard, I think this photograph is a success" is much different than saying "So I think this photograph is a success". My theoretical "therefore" cannot be truncated to "So" and retain the same meaning. It is successful "in this regard", which implies a lack of success in some other regard, no?

So in this regard, we are in agreement :^)... t

Tom you made me laugh with the Sept7th post, opinionated I would agree is a more apt description. This is the problem with modern communication, writing words with no tone or pronunciation heard can make a simple comment sound however you wish to hear it. In reality aren't we all opinionated otherwise we would not be commenting in this forum?

just so!

... t

Yes, Tom, we are in agreement, and we are glad that you keep the teaching/learning spirit alive on PN. Most great teachers on the site, such as Marc G. (Gouguenheim), have also not been sufficiently appreciated for their contributions, to say the least.

 

Keep it up.

 

--Lannie

having a web forum where the participants are free to express their understanding, or mis-understanding, of an artwork is as essential to the learning process as the contributions of any one of it's members. Without discourse and dialog, we stagnate... t

I love it! Love the concept. The only thing that scares me is what he'll do wtih that pitchfork.

technically this photo resembles a proof print ... a first step used to read the lighting, read

the subject and fine tune if deemed to be necessary. As in the majority of Roberts' interesting

portfolio Robert has chosen to not let his shadows fall below a certain threshold. This creates

the need for special consideration to be given (in transfer/handling from film to the

computer) to the backlit monitor as the presentation medium. I feel that his hard prints have

the potential to shine. Roberts movie set style is apparent in technique and handling of

subject/parody.

Everyone keeps mentioning 'parody' but what is it a parody of?

 

When I first saw the picture I assumed they were 'the devil' stood in front of church. If this is a social documentary portrait of real goths making a statement then I really like it. However, if it is a couple of hired models being placed just so by the photographer then perhaps I'm not so keen.

Now I see! Of course, it is a parody.

Tom, you made me lough!