Six Sandstone Steps

I couldn't DIS-agree more.

 

What is a Great photo? One everybody likes? Doesn't that just makes it popular?

 

Greatness has to be more than mass appeal.

 

What about a ground-breaking photo? They become great by virtue of their differentness, because they upset the status quo, because they turn convention upside down, some of them. In doing that, you can bet some people will not like them. I would almost say controversy is more a hallmark of greatness than popular appeal.

 

The F/64 group challenged the contemporary art world of the early 20th century by making photographs that looked like photographs rather than paintings.

 

One could say that Karsh's portraits are too dramatic with light that doesn't exist in real life.

 

Or that Ansel Adams' are imposing and pretentious. I've been to Yosemite and it didn't look anything like what he photographed.

 

Or that Weston's were just vegetables and naked women. I've seen both of those, too. Big deal.

 

Uelsman's drank too much coffee.

 

Carier-Bresson's had too much time on his hands. Today's sports photographers "Capture the moment" day in, day out.

 

Whether any photograph is a work of true Art, or just one of innumerable pretty or interesting pictures is something for the next generation to decide, or the one after that, or the one after that. Here's a quiz: Which of these great talents died poor and unknown: Rembrandt? Van Gogh? Mozart?

 

My point is that one should never consider their work to have failed because everyone is not falling all over it. There are too many other factors.

 

I like this statement:

 

"For a novice like me this photographs means nothing, neither do I find it fascinating. "

 

I can honestly agree with this point of view because I've felt it many times myself, even when viewing so called great photographs. Weston's Pepper #30, for instance. So, it's a contorted pepper? What's the big fuss?

 

On the deathbed we will remember more than life's smacks in the face . There will be subtle and private landscapes, little whispers, places in the dark, places and memories with this same quiet power, but that are in our own experience, formed of our own symbols, little dumb things that are meaningless to everyone else, so I hope the maker of that statement doesn't walk off and forget what he is not able to find.

"Phil has nothing in his mind but nothing. How could he know the mysterious philosophy of ancient orient?"

Yes, Lei, because that's what this picture is about. Not exactly nothing in fact, since we still have stairs and earth, but at least "NOBODY". Nobody visible, millions of possibilities for us to imagine what's at the top, what's at the bottom, and who was there.

"With imagination, we can find any picture very interesting."

Agreed ! And I'm personally very greatful to whichever force or God made us that way.

"It is not only a matter of quality of picture itself but also a matter of the own capacity of the person who look at it."

Absolutely.

"Some pictures are more suggestive, some are less, where to stop the cursor?"

Let me just ask you another question: why bother stoping the cursor ? Are we here to determine what is the part our imagination played in our appreciation of a picture, or are we here to appreciate that picture, and just to explain why we do - or why we don't ? This is not the "Taxinomist forum of the week", is it ? No cursors needed. This isn't a laboratory. No labels needed on the glass bottles. As you said, the viewer matters a lot in the appreciation of any picture, especially such an "empty" picture in fact. Some pictures are open to interpretaion, and those pictures rarely please everyone. A clear message is more likely to appeal to a larger audience imo.

"Probably it's a mater of marketing to make the client feel he is clever enough to understand or imagine what's behind."

I'm sorry, but while I absolutely respect your opinion Jacques, I feel this was somehow insulting. I like this image. I have seen shots on this site that I like better than this one, but that's just my taste, and I feel this picture is extremely good in its own way or "genre", and it works for me. Why would I be the victim of a marketing plot simply because I like this picture ? If you can't prove that, then why assume that those who feel differently about an image must have been fooled ? Which, some more, seems to rank the potographer among some imposters... I don't think that's a fair assumption.

Come on, folks ! Would you maybe just admit as a fact that not everybody likes the same thing ?

The ancient greeks used to call "barbarians" the people coming from far away lands. The word "barbarian" etymologically refer to "bar-bar", the sound attributed to birds screaming - said Levi-Strauss, if I'm remembering correctly. Basically, when the greeks didn't understand what these foreigners were saying in their own language, they compared these sounds to the sound the birds made...

Basically, Doug Burgess and others who liked this image aren't snobs or barbarians. They are just people who have different opinions about an image. Once again, I wish we could have a proper discussion an disagree in a friendly manner. Regards.

I would like to say that I consider myself neither a snob nor a barbarian, although, according to some reports, I have been known to make bird sounds on certain occasions....so maybe I am.

Doug has proved that some creative works (and their creators) are underappreciated, but has not proved that this work (and its creator) is underappreciated.

To me this picture is not sufficiently visually compelling to stimulate wonder as to who walked up the stairs, where they were going, why, when they perambulated, or with whom. The decisive moment here was about five-hundred years ago.

Sorry I did not want to be insulting to any, firstly to Phil, so many pictures he made I discover like and to Doug who I respect for his way of taking pictures and commenting them, most of the time with a lot of consideration. I just wanted to stress, that the choice of POW was necessarily leading to such debate between nothing and imagination, art and random,... exactly like in modern art, you can find anything interesting in any painting, and few people (I wont call them necesarily snobish, and snobish is not necessarily a bad point, many patrons of art were and thanks them!) will pay very high price for something that would not inspire many, it can be a question of imagination, money, culture, pretension, claim to be different,... Unless if from author itself, I dont like long explanation to justify, to explain what the author wanted say, that's reveal a lack somewhere, that why I consider it hermetic. If so, I can demonstrate (it wont be easy sometime) that any picture can be POW.

 

Yes Marc, cursor is set since a POW is selected. Many thanks to you Marc indeed, any debate requires moderator, and you playing perfectly this necessery role and stick back people to real life!

a truly beautiful photograph. i love the organic movement and it took me a while to realize that it was artificially created.

colors and textures are gorgeous and composition leaves plenty of space for the imagination. good eye.

congrats

I was surprised when saw all this discussion about this picture and all the offenses to those who don't find this picture appealling.

First I'm happy to see that most understand the fact that the important thing about a picture is the viewer, but then I was surprised by people saying something like, if you didn't like the picture then it's because you don't know how to look at pictures. I was especcially amused with Doug's long critics and analisys where he compares this photo to the universe in a very metaphisical way, and then criticises the rules of thirds with a matematical precision.

Well, the universe has nothing of metaphysical, it's just... the universe! It is ruled by physical laws (not mataphysical) that don't change. Our understanding of them does! Then, what you imagine on the steps is your criteria. Honestly I see steps like that every day, I'm looking at some stairs like that right now, and I see people walking those stairs and it means nothing. It's like the floor of your home that you step everyday and clean perioducally just to look nice! If stairs is a big deal to you then fine! And then about the rule of thirds, I would never imagine such a big deal about it, it's just a rule that appears in any book of photography you buy anywhere... just that!

And by the way, endorphins are not creatures, are a group of molecules that serve as neurotrasmitors that have been associated with sensations of pleasure and well being and sexual atraction, not with the apreciation of art.

So what is important, the abstract concept or the physical reality of the picture? I really don't understand the logic! But I do agree with you: "What is a great photo?". I remember what a friend of mine said about art gallerys in New York (just for the record he works in one). He said that the new artists made their first exibit were the owner of the gallery (the one who had decided to make that exibit from that new artist) would buy all of the paintings. Then in the second exibit, people went to the exibit saying hoew that artist was wonderful because he had sold all the paintings in his first exibit, and were looking at the painting making critics like the one Doug said, talking about how that painting meant the universe! What I mean about this is that much of the photography that is made (as well as many other art forms) are moved by commercial interests, so many times a picture is rated as good when it needs to be sold. I'm not saying this is the case, but it's the case of many photographs and many photographers.

Come on! what is all this fuss about?! Fourtunatelly there's Marc Goughenheim to take people back to sense. A good picture is a question of taste, and personally I just don't like this picture! OK, it has nice color, a somewhat misterious feel and comes from the hand of a famous photographer, so what! Like I said, Im' no pro, nor an art critic, but I take photos since I was 14 and have contact with the photographic world since I was born, once both my parents were amateur photographer that made some professional work, especyally of nature, and in my personal portfolio (that, i repeat, it's not professional work, I'M NO PRO) I have pictures that I like best! But that's just me!!! It's my personal taste!! Don't come with that of your an endorphin deficient and you don't know how to look at pictures, because that's not how it works! It's just a picture! I don't know why his was chosen as the POW, and I'm not questioning it, especially because I believed that the persons who chose it are better qualified to do it than me. I just said that my opinion is different from the majority.

I have been coming to this site for a long time and had never said anythingg because I mainly agreed with everything that had been said. But when I disagreed, I decided that my opinion was important.

I hope you think about it, and stop taking the pictures you like so personally and being so offended with people who disagree with you. I hope I'm not offending anyone because that's not my intention! I jst want to have a good change of ideas and opinions. After all, that's what the intenet was created for! My best regards to you all, and good photos!

"The decisive moment here was about five-hundred years ago." - Tony D.

That was a memorable sentence, I must say, Tony...:-)) Just brilliant.

By the way, since we are now all back among friends, I would really like to understand what it meant... Basically, are you saying, Tony, that a picture of a staircase also has its "decisive moment" ?!? I must say I'm quite surprised and very interested to hear more if you actually think so...

I was personally, so far, under the impression that still life photography would simply not fall under the "decisive moment" category at all, since the steps don't move...:-)

So, could you be saying here that a picture of a man made object needs the maker of this object to actually be alive ? Or that a human presence is simply necessary to get a great picture ? Wouldn't that mean that all still life are fated to remain dead photographs...?

Or do you mean that these steps need "something more" to get alive ? And if so, what could that be for example ?

I thought a picture of stairs didn't necessarily need more than "just stairs" to get our mind to travel... Which is why I asked Paulo earlier, and now Tony, and all others who find something missing here: what, for example, could have made this picture of stairs more alive, more compelling, or more interesting to you...

This being just an attempt at understanding what I could be missing as for what could make such an image better...

A lost human object, left behind on the stairs was an idea I had when I first saw this... Maybe a broken pipe, or such... Could something along that line be an improvement, and add any interest...? I'm tempted to think so, but I'm not sure... Any opinions ?

Or shall we simply conclude that stairs like this are just not a good enough subject to some of us...? I would really like to understand... Thanks for sharing your views.

This photo contains all of the elements it needs. In trying to understand what the photographer was trying to achieve in this photo, I ask myself "what was it that first caught his eye, and what was his main point of interest?". Was it the dirt, with its wonderful colors and textures, or the steps, which provide a certain visual interest in contrast to the soil. Whichever subject first caught his eye, the result is, within its context, a photo with two subjects that compete with one another, as neither is dominant or submissive. Remove either one and the other cannot support sustained viewer interest.

 

I think this photo actually is supported by the rule of thirds, although in a very subtle way. It should be celebrated for its abstract qualities, especially because there is no apparent photoshop enhancment. It is an interesting photo worthy of discussion, and a good POW choice.

This is an interesting selection... but I'm still not sure if I like it or not.

 

Typically, when browsing the pages of photo.net, I will do so alone, and contemplate the significance, appeal, and quality of a particular photo alone. But in this instance I was compelled to ask others "Do you like this photo?" And the reactions I got were not only typical of the diverse opinions expressed above, but also indicative of my own mixed reaction to this photograph. To wit, on the plus side this photograph has a very nice abstract quality to it, is very "tactile" (if that word can be used to describe a scrint), has soothing deep colours, and is sufficiently in keeping with the rule of thirds to please those who feel they must follow the "rules", yet to my eye, has a certain imbalance that is challenging (in a good way) and intriguing. Of greater significance, perhaps, are the metaphysical questions that naturally arise... where are the stairs going? where did they come from? who traveled these stairs? for what purpose? are they "nothing".

 

However, on the negative side, I'm just not sure if there is enough here to hold my interest... and I don't think that is because I'm endorphin deficient! ;-) I can, and do, contemplate all of these metaphysical questions regularly enough on my own. I'm not sure if this photo inspires me to contemplate them in any deeper, more meaningful, or new way. It does inspire the thoughts, it just doesn't do so in a profound way.

 

Marc posed an interesting question above (actually several, but I shall focus on one only)... can anything be added to this photo to add some context that might inspire a deeper appreciation? I think his suggestion of an old pipe might do it, but how about some bones? an old pottery artifact? a footprint? Cliche perhaps, but I think any of these suggestions would improve the photo because, again, to reflect upon the metaphysical question of "nothing" doesn't really require a photo in the first place. To be successful, I think a photo should tell a little "something".

 

Actually, I would now like to clarify my very first sentence in this post. I DO like this photo. I just don't think I love it. I'm not sure why I'm using a baseball analogy (I like sports, but not baseball especially), but this photo is certainly a "double", probably a "triple", but not a homerun. Nonetheless, I too congratulate Phil whose work I have long admired.

These 2 last posts have helped me understand something, I think. Look at the medium size again for a while, then view the large size... Do you still think that your eye would actually get bored with an extra-sharp and extra-large print...?

What I realized trying to imagine this print, is that our eye would probably travel among the tiny details, probably looking for the answer, almost desperately... Basically, I came to wonder whether the pipe etc would in fact really help. Yes, they would deliver some sort of answer, but would that actually be a good thing ?

I'm wondering basically whether this contradiction, Joseph just mentionned about, is not exactly this picture's main subject. Wouldn't it be meant to have us looking around for details and enjoying them while trying to find Goddot - who would of course never arrive... The magic of this image may be that it makes us dream of a God, of an Answer, but delivers nothing but dirt and earth, and forces us in the end to make do with the ultimate reality of this ground we are attached to forever...

Nietzsche and Heidegger, the two philosophers who used to walk kilometers almost daily in the woods ("Holzwege"), are also the two philosophers who were the closest to earth and who were in love with reality, needing no platonician world of ideas...

In fact, I believe this picture may present precisely what they were looking for during their walks, and in a way, may even echoe their philosophies...

(My apologies in advance for this new delirium tremens, but surely, those who are familiar with these philosophers' works will at least see what I mean - eventhough they might not agree about this connection I'm trying to make with Phil's picture...)

The photo is direct and simple, yet by some of the analysis and observation one would think this were in the realm of particle physics. Don't bother trying to catch meaning in a butterfly net of words. It's better looked at from a Tao perspective. Less is more.

Marc said:

 

I'm wondering basically whether this contradiction, Joseph just mentionned about, is not exactly this picture's main subject. Wouldn't it be meant to have us looking around for details and enjoying them while trying to find Goddot - who would of course never arrive... The magic of this image may be that it makes us dream of a God, of an Answer, but delivers nothing but dirt and earth, and forces us in the end to make do with the ultimate reality of this ground we are attached to forever...

 

Excellent counter-argument Marc, and one that I will not take issue with. You may have swayed me a bit closer to your side of the fence (I haven't started climbing over though!!!). However, I would add that to succeed on the level you are suggesting, this would have to be a large, richly rendered print, and not the scrint we are all presently looking at.

"The decisive moment here was about five-hundred years ago." - Tony D.

 

 

I don't think so. The decisive moment here was more like five hundred years LONG.

 

And I don't know about anyone else, but I always consult my copy of "Beyond Good and Evil" before I even think about pressing the shutter

:>)

I'm not saying Phil was reading Nietzsche before or while shooting this...:-)

It just happens, for example, that Heidegger's "Holtzwege" was surprisingly translated in French as "Chemins qui ne menent nulle part", which means in English something like "Paths leading nowhere"... So I just figurent that if a philosophy book asking people to stay close to earth could have such title, then maybe an image showing stairs going nowhere - and earth ! - was actually somehow related to this type of photographic approach Phil went for...Of course, I am not saying Phil meant to write a philosophy book with his camera, but... who knows...? :-)

I wrote "Joseph", but I meant "Dean" instead...

Looks a bit like part of my back garden. A mess. Gonna take a few shots of it now though.

My thanks to everyone here. This really is a most pleasant surprise and I am very pleased to be featured. I think probably without exception, every comment about my pickie whether from those who liked or disliked it has been worthwhile, measured and healthy.

Taking some of the points made first on the title. Sure there are only five complete steps. But with step pieces top and bottom I thought I could get away with suggesting the pickie showed six. Besides, and more importantly, I liked the alliteration in S.. S.. S. It was catchy. As in Six saintly shrouded men , a line from Suppers Ready, (Genesis / Foxtrot 1972). Theyd have to be friarly and fornicating or something for Gabriel to have written about five of them.

Then on to the border. Yep, I agree that it is far from ideal and I cant say if I was exhibiting this photo on a wall that Id fit it in a big black square. I certainly wouldnt. When I first posted the pickie photo.net clustered all your thumbnails together in a rather higgledy-piggledy mosaic. I wanted them spaced and looking uniform like a collection; like postage stamps in an album. But I think (forgetting the shape and vastness) black is preferable to white as a background for this picture. Viewed large, the shape and vastness vanish.

I remember taking this picture a year ago this weekend coming. It was a very wet Sunday. Id gone to Crackley Woods, a little wood outside Kenilworth, Warwickshire, UK near where I live. But nothing was doing in the woods (or nothing I noticed at any rate) so I stepped outside and ventured along this disused railway line and to a bridge running over and which served the adjacent farm. The picture is at this bridge. It was a handy place to shelter. Im underneath the arch and its pouring outside. The subject is the embankment with rough steps up the embankment (leading you out on to the path over the bridge and then to the farm I mentioned). I had a look at what was in front of me and figured I could use the steps to make a picture. I wandered in and out left and right to fix the position. The image I had in mind was flat with no top nor bottom, monotone, sharp front to back and with no intruding sky or other light; just these steps in rock. If sky got in it would blow the upper steps out big time. So that took care of the right margin. Looking at the left of the picture there was a shed load of clutter. Twigs, crisp packets (old copies of Newsweek) all of which had to go. I shifted the junk a bit at a time and re-checked the frame but as the picture in the viewfinder took shape so I was shifting my perception of the eventual picture into one which contained two square halves. The empty space on the left and these steps leading out on the right. The halves would share features in common yet each would be in stark contrast. So I ended up shifting the shed load and what you see is the result.

That Im inside something resembling a tunnel on a wintry afternoon goes some way to answer Scotts query on the 15 sec shutter speed. The pickie hasnt been artificially created or coloured. PS was used purely for the crop, balance and USM. I like a picture that poses questions. But I also like the ability to determine some sort of answer. It doesnt have top be the right answer; just an answer to satisfy the question. Any answer is fine by me.

So there you go. I like looking hard but its knackering. I havent held a camera for two months now. A rest can regenerate. May be if I go out this weekend, a year on from taking this one, something will go click. This award has certainly been an inspiration.

Cheers.

I do not see the need for a huge black frame around this excellent photo. It's 1000x1000 with the frame and seems to be overkill in this type of a forum.

 

Are we rating photos + frame or just the photos themselves (and maybe an extra, small, slim frame)?

 

I agree that this photo would look marvelous framed thusly but I do not see the point of a framed photo being rated in Photo.net.

All-in-all this is a marvelous choice for POW and I must congratulate you Phil!

 

-Ken

Thanks for providing some additional details on this photograph Phil. The colors immediately brought to mind the cave paintings in Lascaux France. The scene looks ancient, making me imagine wild men and fierce beasts. I thought that the steps might lead to a blood stained altar and wondered if the steps themselves were constructed as part of some elaborate pagan ceremony. Which came first, the altar or the steps?

 

I was surprised that no one mentioned the two faces that seem to stare up from the earth. I liked Joseph's interpretation of the two halves as being natural verses altered by man. I also liked the idea that the decisive moment is long past. Perhaps that moment was a sacrifice to the gods of fertile imagination.

 

I enjoy this photograph and I think there is plenty to work with in both subject and context. I could say that it is complex by way of its simplicity but then everyone here would be laughing and squirting grape juice out of his or her nose.

 

I figured out the bit about the frame when I saw the rest of your tidy folder. I think the title is fine but I think it would have helped some people relate if you had added something a bit more trite (as we are found of saying here). "Stairway to Heaven" "Steps to Hell" "Slippery Slope" "Voices crying out from the dust" "Lost World" "Future World" "Atomic Diplomacy" Or my favorite, "Beneath the Bridge at Crackley Woods."

Everything moves and everything is moving now.

If you mean the right light, by the right moment, of course you are right... But there surely has been good light a few times in the last 500 years, I suppose...:-)

My paragraph was to be read in context, as I asked Tony to expound on whether he meant, that some sort of "action" should have taken place in this image...

As for the light, I personally like it here, and since I understand aesthetics as the art of matching the form with the content, I wouldn't be looking here for more light or a ray of sun, or such...

To be honest I can't see why this is POW either. Even the colours aren't that appealing..but maybe that's just my screen settings. I do like the fact that it's taken of something that is usually not photographed, but at the end of the day do I think it's unusual?clever? or do I want to put on my wall and stare at it all day? Not really. Sorry.

This photo may follow some simple foundational photography rules, but is nowhere near the quality for POW.

How many thousand of people must have walked these steps an paid abolutely no attention to them? Yet Phil Morris made them beautiful and interesting.