Afterglow V

Overdone hair, overdone makeup, a ridiculous outfit, silly shoes magnified by proximity to the lens; thrown into the corner with her legs spread . . . gee, I wonder why she doesn't look happy? (What do women want, anyway? And given the title: was it good for her, too? Maybe [certainly] not.)

 

I think the very point of this picture is all the above. It's not supposed to be glamorous; quite the opposite. I agree with the previous commentators who interpret this image as a statement about society's treatment of women, and perhaps specifically photographers' treatment of women.

I agree with many others in feeling that this photograph has some technical flaws that need

to be addressed, however isn't that why we submit photographs for critique? To get feedback

on what we are doing right and what needs to be improved upon? For me, this is an idea and

a concept that has wonderful possibilities. Talking about society and its view on women,

using the model as a lifeless doll, the implications of some type of abuse, are

all shown here, and with some tweaking this could be an extremely powerful statement. So

Antonella I commend you on a great idea and a very interesting photograph. Thanks.

Great post, Mona... I too really wonder what are the "technical flows" many have spoken about. When I read about "oversharpening", I don't see it as a technical flow, but rather as an internet flow. I often sharpenen bulks of images using a script when it's for the net, and then, some images will be over-sharpened or not sharpened enough, whereas I'd sharpen the large file properly - manually. The grain ? Obviously meant to be. The blown highlights - mostlyon the legs ? Probably meant to be as well, although that's perhaps a decision some of us will be reluctant to approve. Lighting ? Meant to be just what it is. And the pose is clearly the subject of this picture and can be likedor disliked, but it's essential to the photo. What else ?

 

Afterglow is a common English expression that refers to a period of relaxation and bliss after sex. I didn't know that, and find it very interesting. It could indeed explain the title and the photo. Then perhaps the meaning of this photo could be that women (or THIS women), used like a doll and then left in a corner was somehow frustrated to be treated this way. And she could feel empty because she simply was dissatisfied. So that it maybe a statement about women being treated like dolls by men in sexual relationships. Not sure, but an interesting possibility here...

My congratulations to Antonella on POW. For me, this image displays a myriad of technical skills by the artist. This image didn't "just happen". The choice of focal length and its application to enhance the perceived perspective of the floor boards, the angles of the skirting and the relationships between foreground, subject and background; the asymmetry in the spatial arrangement of the model in relation to the corner in the background to enhance our perception of a balanced image; the "alliance" and detailed balance between the feet and shoes with the angle of the skirting; just to acknowledge a few. Truly a skilful artist to be able to combine all these techniques (and we haven't even acknowled Antonella's skilful use of lighting and camera placement in conjunction with these).

 

I feel that the title is appropriate. It can mean as little or as much to the viewer as the viewer decides...... Titling a piece of art is part of the process of creation. Some images appear incomplete to the artist without a title and some are complete without one. If it's included then it's part of the artwork. The debate will go on tirelessly about this crop and that crop and "what the title means" and "what the image means". "All publicity is good publicity" right? (That's if your skin is thick enough! heeheehee)

 

Art appreciation for me is always subjective because it affects me from the first instant of stimulation (whether it's visual or auditory etc) and influences my evaluation. If it has a positive response then the good points come rushing into my senses. If it has a neutral or negative response then I have to really probe and analyse the piece to find the sometimes equally good points.

 

Thankyou Antonella, for posting an image which I could just sit back and enjoy whilst it displayed your creative brilliance to me. My interpretation is profound and between me and the artwork. Of course it's the right interpretation just as everyone elses is. The point is that it is profound. Thanks Elves, another good one.

 

Cheers fellow PNers.

Folks, "afterglow" has specific meaning. If she didn't want us to think in those terms, she wouldn't have used that label. Why deprive her of that credit?

 

I think it's a woman, not a doll. Dolls do not have afterglow, nor are they so grim that they become ugly, as this model.

 

Antonella's portfolio is full of sunset and makeup-flash. The POW appears to be the only one in which she's stretching out, actually expressive...it's her best. A good omen.

 

It IS a strong image: I dislike it intensely.

 

IF Antonella wishes to "comment" sympathetically on the lot of women, why does she portray them as subhuman?

 

I hope she'll continue along the lines of the POW, which I do hate. It's not necessary for an image to be "liked" to be strong.

I am with Marc in praising Mona s comment; I think too that she hits the nail. Marc writes . True, you can see it that way. In fact we have two options: weather we accept the image as it is as a starting point or you analyze the image before finding meanings. The analysis may reveal technical flaws, inconsistencies, whatever. I dont think that one approach is necessarily contradictory with the other one; it is a matter of method. I agree that the search of technical flaws can be misleading as not always we are able to control how our images are seen in other monitors. An image on paper is more reliable. But I think that in this case and in many other some previous analyses are necessary, and precisely the pose here is to be seen careful to get the meaning of the photo. I think that Mona and Marc are pointing to something interesting, which is that the pretended inconsistency of this pose is what makes it so special, so worth looking at. I pointed above this inconsistency; with these new insights I am trying to approach the photo in another way, honestly it still bothers me the inconsistency of the pose. Perhaps I am not flexible enough in my appraisal and you are right, but I still think that working with inconsistencies is extremely difficult; in a paradoxical way an inconsistency has to be consistent. This is what I expect from a very talented young artist as Antonella is, just watch her portfolio. I am submiting this comment because I see here a very useful discussion and I want to contribute to it.

I noted here the comment by Marc G, and I thought one other that I can't find right now,

that the word afterglow, in the conotation referred to by John Kelly, was not familiar to

these people. I think this brings up an interesting question, does Antonella know this

word in this context or does it mean something else to her. I am not sure it is even

important, but it does point back to how we bring our own biases to things.

 

Also, I would much rather have someone hate a photo of mine that just like it or think it is

ok. At least the photo, as John acknowledges, has had an effect. A friend of mine saw a

photo, from a series, and told me he hated it and didn't like looking at it. A year later,

seeing the series completed, he went to that photo and said that "you know, this is still my

favorite!" Sometimes, maybe not here, it takes time to process what we see and reconcile

it with things known and unknown within us. That is what I like about this photo, it is so

many things. I don't see rape or abuse and maybe not even a comment about women. I

don't know what it is yet, but I find the image intriquing and wonderfully done.

I'm siding with John Kelly on this one. I don't 'like' the image, probably due to its nightmarish quality. That being said, it is eerie and bold with a strong statement. I don't really see all the technical flaws some have hinted at (but not explained). It truely belongs in an art gallery. Bravo!

This picture engages the viewer emotionally. Memories of childhood clouded with sadness

are pulled to our surface . The much loved rag doll , thrown into a corner where it will sit with

anticipation to be played with again. How often in our lives are we made to feel this way by

those who controll us. How often are we used for our talents or support, only to be dismissed

to a corner when we are not needed anymore. We all know that this doll will come back to life

, the smile will return , the eyes will comfort us with their special understanding, only when

we pick it up and love it once more. As a side note , I think color might have added to the

drama.

John writes: "I dislike it intensely. IF Antonella wishes to "comment" sympathetically on the lot of women, why does she portray them as subhuman?"

 

Well, how should she portray them? If she feels that society uses and discards women, that it "dolls" them up, throws makeup up on them and uses them as objects of sexual desire until they are no longer wanted, at which time they are discarded in the corner (at least, that's what I see here), how SHOULD she portray that? If she is saying that society treats women as something less than fully human, than doesn't the photograph have to show women in that light in order to illustrate the point? Yes ... it is a strong image and incites dislike for the attitude portrayed. But, I am unclear in the nature of your dislike. Can one not dislike the feelings which produce the image while still admiring the image for bringing them to the surface where they can be discussed? If she had portrayed women as human not dolls and with sympathy, could she have made the same artistic statement?

I listened to an Eminem song called "Kim" once (yes, Your Honor, I am going somplace with this). It was a harrowing description of his murdering his wife. Four minutes of screaming and yelling followed by the sounds of the murder. I was, literally, shaking the first time I heard it. What is the point, I thought? It was so visceral and real and not at all pleasent to hear. But, life is like that sometimes. People feel that kind of rage and commit murder in that state. Some artists want to illustrate that point; they want to say: "These feelings exist. Whether you choose to acknowledge them or not, they are here. They are real." Maybe it's shock for the sake of shock or maybe it's a way of talking about feelings that we usually submerge. While I don't think she is entirely successful, that's the kind of idea I see her getting at here.

 

Is it successful? that depends on your point of view. I never listened to that Eminem song again except once when I played it in a college course I was teaching. So, if the object is to be seen and enjoyed, I certainly don't enjoy it in a conventional sense. On the other hand, five years later I'm still talking about it. This picture may be the same sort of thing. I don't enjoy it a conventional sense, but it makes me think and it has inspired the liveliest POW discussion in months. So ... no one's hanging it on their wall but no one is going to forget it. It's one kind of success and arguably the more important kind.

"John writes: "I dislike it intensely. IF Antonella wishes to "comment" sympathetically on the lot of women, why does she portray them as subhuman?"

 

Well, how should she portray them? If she feels that society uses and discards women, that it "dolls" them up, throws makeup up on them and uses them as objects of sexual desire until they are no longer wanted, at which time they are discarded in the corner (at least, that's what I see here), how SHOULD she portray that?" - Bill F.

 

Exactly. You may dislike the look of the woman you see on the photo, but this shouldn't mean that you dislike the photo. In fact, quite contrary, if you can accept that this image may precisely be (and, I'm quite sure, *IS*) a commentary about what you dislike about this disembodied woman.

Ahhhh .... so now maybe we are getting to what I am trying to discern here, John. You say it is "valuable" and you "dislike it intensley." So, what I was trying to get at earlier is this: is it - to the degree that we can make this sort of judgement - a "good" photograph? Worthy of public exhibition, sale, use in anti-pornagraphy ads, whatever? In other words, to me a "bad" photograph is one that should just be thrown away and never seen again. A "bad" photograph (at least from the artistic point of view) is a boring photograph. So, can one dislike a photo and still find it a "good" photograph? I think of, for instance, many Vietnam War era shots as providing an example. If that is the point you are getting at, I can go along. It's a good photo, but it's not going in my living room.

View the image in the context of the other shots in the folder and it makes a great deal more sense.

 

I see a well composed image taken by an obviously talented individual, who, despite her youth, seems to have a firm grasp on both composition and form, as well as a defined sense of personal aesthetics.

 

I can't for the life of me understand the sexual reference outside of the well chosen title. This looks entirely fashion-based and would fit neatly into any one of the higher end glamor mags on any news stand.

 

So if this image deeply disturbs anyone then I suggest they spend a little more time looking at and trying to understand a body of work they are clearly unfamiliar with.

Many viewers of this photo seem to link this image with sex. Others seem to think that it is degrading to women. In my mind that does not square with the title.

 

There is more than one meaning for this term. In fact, it has several meanings that could apply to this photo.

 

1 - The atmospheric glow that remains for a short time after sunset.

2 - The light emitted after removal of a source of energy, especially:

The glow of an incandescent metal as it cools.

3 - The emission of light from a phosphor after removal of excitation.

4 - The comfortable feeling following a pleasant experience.

5 - A lingering impression of past glory or success.

 

I would love to know why this title was chosen but I find it hard to be related to that comfortabble feeling following a sexual act.

First, congratulations on your photo being chosen as the Photograph of the Week!

 

There are several things I like about this image. I like the way the legs follow the lines of the wall for one thing. Love the hair and makeup, and the model is stunning. Great facial expression. I'd really like to have seen the hands in the shot, but that's a minor point.

 

The concept and composition are strong, very strong. Overall, the image works for me, especially regarding the number of interpretations that can be drawn from it.

 

There are a few things I don't like about it, though...mostly pertaining to overall image quality. I don't like the loss of shadow detail, especially in the right shoe against the dark floor, and on the floor itself. But mostly, it's the poorly done post-shoot processing of the image that bothers me. The sharpening and sizing artifacts, even at the larger setting, are way too noticeable...giving the image sort of a hastily done look, which really negates the impact of the shot for me.

 

So kudos for concept, composition, and execution...but thumbs down on processing and editing.

I agree with Jim. The concept is nice and all but the execution and post-production is poor. Maybe re-shooting would result in a terrific image.

 

There are many, many better images in her portfolio so I can't understand why this one was the chosen.

 

Antonella: Congratulations for your work. It is really good.

Marcio - you say: I can't understand why this image was chosen....

 

If you read Patrick's statement at the beginning of this forum:

 

"This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest. It is simply an image that the Elves found interesting and worthy of discussion. Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Site Feedback forum."

Frankly, I don't understand all the referrals to sexist and degradation. I find Antonella's portfolio imaginative. As for this shot I feel it compelling and it holds interest. It's different & original. While not my favorite, I like the piece. Not crazy for the vignetting, but I like how the subject was done. Almost a real life rag doll or marionette. Good POW choice

You listed several possible definitions, but none seem to apply as much as an ironic, sexual connotation.

The first thing I thought of when I saw this is the movie Blade Runner, probably due to the makeup and expression (actually Pris had more expression). Kinda has that mysterious robot doll look to it, as when Pris was hiding from Decker amongst the other creations, though this subject is alone and obvious. Enuf rambling.

I hate the vignetting soo much that I love it!.... Orrr do I love the vignetting so much that I hate it...?????

I love controversy about an image....

GREAT PHOTO , 7's

The enigmatic title "Afterglow" seems to have led us directly to various stand alone sexual interpretations of this. Afterglow has various meanings, but if we accept for the moment the post-coital one then I note that the whole folder is called afterglow and that this is actually "Afterglow V". Can we disentangle this image from the series within which it is embedded, and indeed should we? To me it has been given to us as a particular example of a broader phenomenon, and as such it is robbed of some of the power it has if seen as the only manifestation of that phenomenon.

 

In some ways I think the title is a shame...I spend more effort wondering about Antonella's purpose than about my own feelings. Yet after hanging this on the wall for a year or so her purpose would be irrelevant. And so would its companion images.

 

I don't really see the contradictions mentioned by others in the pose of the model. To me her legs, upper body and face look tense, angry and about to explode. Blade runner also immediately came to my mind. If I had just cast her aside I would be concerned for my future well-being. Weakness and victimisation are not mmediately apparent in the image to me. Taken for granted maybe.

 

Beyond that, I don't know what I think. It is easily one of my favourite POWs, but in the sense that Mona used, rather than in a warm and fuzzy sense.

Reminds me of Daryl Hannah's character,"Pris", in Blade Runner.

 

http://www.brmovie.com/Profiles/BR_Cast_Hannah.htm

it is possible that this is one of those photographs that might be clearer without a title