silver diner Tysons115

need a name . . . .

Monkey bars.

hmmmm. Are we looking at a small critter climbing up the right side? Or maybe it's the swing above his head.

 

You got me on this one. . . . .

If you take the white verticals as long arms, then of the righthand 'pane' there's a monkey at the top left, and a halo'd human lower down. On the left 'pane' there's a bird floating by in the background (extreme left centered vertically), and what appears to be some strange creature swinging to the right.

 

What can I say, I have a fertile imagination.

 

I find this quite mesmerising.

OK, I'll go with the monkey, but the rest . . . ?

I like the Monkey Bar idea but to me the left side reminded me of a map so I am putting the two of them together to become, "The World Is My Playground."

I guess I am lucky in that many of my photos contain text, making the naming choice more or less obvious.

The other thing this made me think of was the Red Arrow Highway in Michigan. I guess because that red line is as straight as an arrow (when was the last time anyone used that expression).

Speaking of highways, that red line reminds me a lot of the old style car radios with the red line that would scroll back and forth when you turned the tuner knob (aka dial). Maybe "AM Radio" or "Radio Tuner" would be another option.

Or "Radio Waves" or "Air Waves" or "Talk Radio." Ok, I am all tuckered out now.

I always wondered what kind of pictures Miro would shoot if someone gave him a camera. Now I know.

Please forgive my butchery, I've attempted to illustrate what I see.

Lots of food for thought here.

 

I've seen some of Miro's work, but should spend some more time with it.

 

It's hard NOT to see the monkey bars now, but I like the car radio idea, too. Maybe "AM Radio Static".

Jack and I seem to be on the same wavelength. I was thinking Miro and also Paul Klee. Fortunately, I do not yet see a monkey. Carl, this is great stuff -- I saw the thumbnail and thought, Yes! Everything about this composition works.

There's nothing wrong with monkeys, especially the cash variety.

Ben has WAAAAY too much time on his hands. :-) Another fun shot, Carl!

I agree with the allusion to Miro! beautiful! cb

I see the monkeys very well and Miro's spermatozoa was my immediate reaction. But the first element one cannot ignore is the red bar dividing or joining two worlds: so different, yet so similar.

I see the monkey as well, and before scrolling to Ben's interpretation... or rather than a monkey, I see a strange homunculus which is trying to escape from the right hand side where the red wall traps him. He will discover that the outside world on the left hand side is not so different after all.

 

Alchemic dreams apart, this is a magnificent image and -need I say?- I simply cannot help laughing at the ratings it harvested.

 

The position of the red line, and its contrast with all the rest, is just perfect, and so is the evolution of many of the forms from one side to the other.

While I find it an interesting image, I do not find it "magnificent". Original, yes, Aesthetic, well........maybe if you like red, white & blue & apes. (sounds like the US Congress :) Awe, I think I've hit upon a title for it, "Inside the Oval Office" :)

 

Unfortunately, I'm more of a diagonal freak, so aesthetically it doesn't appeal much to me. Granted, it's well exposed, the composition, while a little busy, is OK. I find my eyes jumping all over the place without purpose. Very erratic & chaotic. Just like the "Oval Office", more support for my purposed title :) If I were to rate it, (which I don't do anymore unless I go thought the rate recent), I'd say O=6 A=4. But of course I'm no real critic of the fine arts :) I could be wrong.

Might I add, as far as the "allusion to Miro", it is possible :) Let's all judge for ourselves. Maybe a little less drama?

Jayme, I'm having a hard time responding to the associations you attribute to this image. "Liking" red, white and blue is not the point. Color theory is not a matter of taste. Neither is your preference for oblique lines. Lines serve a function and influence your reading of the image. The "apes" reference is especially bizarre since that is not a stated subject of the image.

 

The eye jumps all over the place only if you don't recognize the dark blue shapes in the composition. They alone determine the balance and framing of this composition. The white lines are uniformly distributed throughout the picture space, although you could say that there is a tension in the image due to the space on the left heightened by the circle on the right.

 

Your self-assessment as a critic of the fine arts sets the bar way too high. It's really more about basic visual design. . . . recognizing how all the elements work together. If you then see something interesting, so much the better. Learn to separate the two.

First, I said I was not a critic of fine arts. That's a given. Secondly, I was not discussing "color theory". I was stating my "preferences" or "likes". which I think I stated pretty clearly. I am well aware of "color theory". (Have my little color wheel with me all the time along with my camera :) However, I do think the theory of color effects not only my "likes" & "dislikes", but most people's, without their knowledge. I often hear people say, "I don't know why I like that, but I do." Usually it has something to do with the arrangement of color first. Color is usually what captures the eye when a well defined "subject" is not clear. Such as in this image.

 

In your opinion, the "dark blue shapes" determine the balance & framing of this image. I feel differently. I think this is where we differ the most. For me, the bright red line determines the balance here & it's not in the correct place when you apply the "rule of thirds". The dark blue shapes "anchor" & attempt to balance the image. But, because the bright red line is off center(does not fall within the 1/3 or 1/2 rule) & the dark blue shapes on the right are slightly darker (heavier) than the dark blue shapes on the left, again, it tends to make the image's right side heavier, a little lopsided.

 

The white lines are "not" uniformly distributed through out the image, they are more densely positioned on the right than on the left of the red line, adding to the "lopsided" feel of the image toward the right. Because of their erratic movement (up, down & sideways), plus their characteristic of moving from sharp to blurred & jagged & back, there is no one area that holds the eye, thus the "eye jumping" around.

 

I happen to believe "Visual design" is what first captures the eye of the person seeing the object for the first time. "Recognizing how all the elements work together" keeps them looking more intently, even if they are not aware of the workings of elements in an image. Fortunately, I do not need to learn how to separate visual design from working elements. Like most everyone else, I've had this ability since my vision cleared shortly after birth. (My parents say I walked at 9 months, tempted by a set of shiny car keys.:)

 

If you want to get into a more detailed discussion, we should talk. But I'm not buying your explanation of my critique. While I think the image is colorful & somewhat visually interesting, it is no "magnificent" work of art. Not only are the "working elements" askew & incongruent with a work of art, but the colors in the "visual design" are less than emotional.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is nothing inherently unemotional about the use of light blue, dark blue and red.

 

Images do not require a dominant focal point. (See Miro's image on the right above.)

 

The rule of thirds is a misnomer (research the golden mean) and is the most overly applied visual design guideline cited in this forum. With the line running top to bottom, it becomes a question of proportional placement, and the resulting tension from the density imbalance which I alluded to is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

The blue shapes determined the framing from the standpoint of composition. I took three versions of this and the placement of the blue shapes were most pleasing on this one.

 

What is this repeated reference to "magnificent?" Are you saying that I used the word to describe this? Where?

 

I'm using the term visual design as Freeman Patterson uses it, referring to principles of composition that are learned, not innate. I recommend his book.

I've read multiple books on composition & design. They seem to muddy up the waters for me, tend to make me over think composition/design. Some people have an innate sense of design, since my earliest memories, I have been rearranging & designing my environment:) After reading the books, I understand better why, but it did not change my actions.

 

Emotion maybe expressed more passionately with the intensity of the colors & hue of the color contrast. This image lacks passion for me.

 

Rule of thirds...... the brain just seems to love this concept, not a lot you can do about it. Try as you will, the brain has a mind of it's own.

 

I was referring to someone else's comments about this image which has now been removed. They referenced Miro & "magnificent". Unfortunately you are wrong, Miro does have a defined a focal point. The place the eyes first see or come to rest on. Check it out.

Jayme, there seems to be no discussing things with you or teaching you anything. I have lots of highly regarded images on this site that have no focal point. It is possible to see order or at least an interesting amount of tension where you once saw chaos, but it takes being willing to look with fresh eyes. I've been through this many times, and people can learn to understand the how and why if they're open to it.

I'm probably one of the most open minded individuals one could hope to meet. However, I do have opinions of my own. Be they right, be they wrong, it makes no real difference. I can look, I can see, I can decide for myself. I see your points very clearly, but again, I'm not convinced by them. You have several images posted on PN I do find exceptional, I just happen to think this is not one of them, for the reasons I previously stated.

 

Call it a difference of view points or interpretation, but don't simply write me off in your mind by implying I am a closed minded person because I don't happen to agree with your point of view. You would be making a great error in character judgment. I'm willing to be convinced, but nothing you have stated so far about this image has changed my original impression or interpretation of this image. Not your color theory, not your composition & certainly not the idea that the image creates any tension because of compositional choice. Call me crazy, call me fun, but don't call me closed minded, because I most assuredly am not :)

 

By the way, I love our discussion of your image. I think it would be inappropriate to make it about me or you personally.

 

 

You can choose to like it or not, but tension caused by the relative imbalance due to placement of the red line and comparative concentration of elements on each side is not an opinion. It's a fact and is based on an understanding of the concept of visual weight. I've never googled the phrase, but it might be worth the effort.

Just so I understand what you are saying, I will paraphrase. You are saying that the dividing red line divides the image into 2 parts. That's true. Then, this division of the image creates a relative imbalance of the image elements, which then creates a tension caused by the concept of visual weight. Yeap, that's true too. But.....my point, is the tension created aesthetically pleasing? Or... would the placement of the red line elsewhere within the image be more pleasing? Thus, my rationale for the aesthetic rating of 4.

 

I have no problem with the concept of visual weight, tension, etc. I am just saying, that if the red line were placed elsewhere in the image & if color theory had really been more controllable, the image would be more pleasing.