Six Sandstone Steps

Many folks are questioning the POW choice of this photo, and I think much of that is due to the limitations of image size size and image quality inherant to viewing a low pixal upload of this photo combined with viewing it on a monitor. I have a high quality monitor which enables me to see detail others might be missing. I would love for all of us to instead see a 20 X 40 high quality print which would much better serve this photo, and expose more of its natural texture and detail. I'll bet that such enlargement would enable the soil to overwhelm the significance of the rock steps, and eliminate the problem I have with the steps leading me out of the picture when viewing this small image.

 

I would also bet that if a large print of this photo was displayed in a gallery, it would draw many long stares from viewers who would wonder why they haven't taken the time to be more observant of such trivial things in their everyday lives. Each time I look at this photo, I see some small detail that I have previously overlooked. Whenever you can look at a photo time after time and continue to find something interesting, its a pretty good photo, no matter what the subject matter.

 

I find this POW choice interesting to talk about because it demonstrates how something can be created from nothing, without sacrificing the photographic process. We can also thank this photo for inspiring viewers to concentrate our discussions on "photography" instead of some other periferal matter.

The first thing Phil did that earns points in my book was to

deliberately turn his camera toward a mundane subject. And it is

because of the mundane nature of the subject that I find this shot

so fascinating. It's not the type of subject that begs to be

photographed. If you decide that there is "something" there worth

photographing you usually have to dig it out of the dirt - so to

speak :-) And then you've got to nail it or it will fall apart, because

there is nothing for it to fall back on. Truth is we've all seen

photographs that were not even focused properly get higher

ratings than this image because the subject saved them. People

have been suggesting that these steps could have been there

for hundreds of years. That may or may not be the case but they

have certainly been there for some time. And this is quite

possibly the first time anyone has thought to point a camera at

them. I like that.

 

 

The interesting question is "what is this photo about? Is it about

nothing? Every photo is about something but for me this one isn't

necessarily about the steps. I must admit I'm not really

interested in where these steps lead. My interest is confined to

within the borders of the image. And within the border they are

purely compositional elements. I'm a sucker for an interesting

composition and I think this one is wonderful. Beyond the

composition I also find the color and texture to be very rich, and

in a way soothing. So we have good color, good texture, and a

very Interesting composition (all only in my opinion of course).

These three elements are what we all strive for, among others,

in our images. But while we normally use these elements to

enhance a subject, this image doesn't do that. For me the

subjects of this photo ARE color, texture, and composition. Not

the steps. I guess in a way Im looking at this more as an

abstract - call me crazy!

hmm. . . everybody seems to be questioning this photo, and all this talk about metaphysics and such made me laugh. Please people, we are talking about a low res photo posted on a website scanned from 35mm. Joseph Coalter, mentioned something earlier about a 20x40 print of this image. I would dare say it would look pretty bad. The image has some merrit in composition and color, but if we are going to question the artistic merit I think we really must look to the capture medium. 35mm is entirely too small to grasp this type of image imoh, and the internet could never do it justice. It screams to be big big big and 35mm cant make that happen. I would compare this to a demo track for an upcoming record. . . "wow thats a great song, I bet the album will be fantastic," kinda thing. The album in this photo's case would be a bigger negative and a huge print. The artistic vision is there but the canvas is too small.

 

As a viewer here on PN you have to have some imagination. You have to be able to step into the gallery in your mind and imagine a particular image there on the wall, but for this particular image the technical restraints of 35mm really hold it back from being truly great.

 

with that said. . . I enjoy your folder Phil and I congratulate you on POW.

The universe! Nietzsche! Time, space, and matter! Our world and our moon! Rule of thirds unto the infinite fraction! Ancient civilizations! Barbarians! Decisive moment! Nothing, yet everything at once! Gods, kings, palaces! Faces that seem to stare up from the earth! Stairway to heaven or hell, and back! Volcanoes that melt dirt and convert it into rock! Eternity, mythology and the theory of relativity!

What are you guys talking about? All I see is a set of stones embedded in dirt and a natural formation of rock next to it; I dont see the cosmos and its physical laws at work here.

The only truth about this photograph taken on the eartha planet which is situated in the solar system some 30,000 light years from the center of the Milky Way galaxy.a spiraling galaxy equal in behavior to other galaxies in the Spiral Nebulae. This galaxy in which we live may or may not have a gigantic black hole in its nucleus, but who cares? This photograph doesnt tell any of these things; the only thing it says is that there is a hill near a civilization somewhere on the earth and there is a set of man made steps in it. No offence to the photographer, I am only trying to point out how some people can make a mountain out of a mole hill. The photograph possesses a sort of charming quality with good earth tones and a trivial set of steps at best. I agree with the person who said that it could be a complement to a bigger story, but on its own, it has nothing to say to me or my children or my children childrens children.

as this sophisticated photograph has won all the praise it definitely deserves, there is nothing to add but one thing: a pow from phil's fantastic work has been long overdue. highly recommended. congrats, phil.

I like this photo - i like the colours, the textures, the lighting and the sharpness of the pic. At the end of the day what is important in photography is that the photographer enjoyed taking the photo and likes the final output - anyone else liking the photo is an added bonus. What i didnt like about the photo is the dark patch in the top left hand corner - it seems to distract my eye from the lovely shaped steps and the (i think) overwhelming black border. Those two points though dont stop me from liking and enjoying the picture - well done on POW and congrats on a rather nice portfolio

No Bob Hixon - you are not crazy - at least to me. I agree with you. I think it is an abstract and nothing more. As such, I like it for the texture, the simplicity and the warm rich color. It is not my favorite abstract by any means, however. I do applaud the photographer for making a very nice image from a simple set of steps. Good vision and imagination. Though it would not have been my pick for POW -- I have long ago learned that there are varied tastes in the world and just because I don't "see it" - doesn't mean that I'm right and the rest of the community is wrong. There are some people here I respect very much that seem to see something here that I don't.

I must say, however, that the comments have been very entertaining. Just some food for thought though..... Did you know that Salvidor Dali and some other artists occassionally would paint something really bad on purpose just to sit back and laugh while people would assign some important meaning or artistic genius to the art. I witnessed this myself with Dali. I met him, spoke with him and I watched him do it. He was absolutely laughing at his prank. It was at a press conference for a gallery that our company set up. I spoke to other artists there about this and found out that they do this sometimes just for fun. Clearly Phil didn't do this but I only bring up Dali as an example to demonstrate that when we view something, we can get a little carried away with intellectualizing art beyond what the artist intended or what is there. But I still respect that we all look at art with our own set of eyes and experience. To me - this is just a nice abstract.

Maybe, Mary, the joke was on you, and Sal was actually creating something brilliant, fooling you into thinking he was not, then laughing as you believed him and failed to see the brilliance of his work. Hmm?

 

Or, maybe he was simply incapable of producing something that was not brilliant, however hard he tried. And the art world simply recognized his failure to be a failure.

Trust me Matt.. It was a farce and after the conference it all came out in the open. He didn't come out and tell me -- I saw and heard his snikering to his cohorts about how you can give people junk when you have a name and they'll pay through the nose and give it significance when none was there. It was all a big joke to him.

The Joke may have been on Dali.

 

Hold up a blade of grass and it is a sixteen foot golden Buddha. I forget where I read that. Who can deny that this is a truly successful POW when it has engendered so much discussion about so many universal topics and made everyone THINK? Our attention is almost unanimously brought directly to the realm of ideas. How many POWs have done that without getting mired in technical debates? For that alone this is a remarkable photograph.

Why, we all know members on this very web site that are able to upload "Gar-baaj" and be showered in 7's and 8's. "Beautiful work, as usual." "You've done it again," etc.

 

Only, there is a significant difference: Dali, according to Mary, knew the difference between garbage and art.

 

Still, I'm left to wonder: Are some artists so gifted that even their joking mockery has artistic worth? In a way, this touches on the idea that hard work and deep thought do not necessarily guarantee a worthwhile product, and likewise, sometimes casual clicking results in an astounding image. It seems my worst images are the ones I labored over while some of my best were nearly accidents. Has anyone else had that experience?

Mary: I was, mainly, joking about Dali's double-crossing pranksterism. Didn't you see the annoying smirk on my face as I typed my comment?

 

Trust me -- I'd happily be among the first in line to protest the dogmatic pretension of the art world, and I'm sure Dali would be ahead of me.

holy cow! i am flattened by the fact that this great photograph has led to a discussion on dali's prankish behaviour. should we not rather .... ?

Klaus - I used the Dali story merely as an example of how we can complicate things by over-intellectualizing. And, it actually ties into Doug's question.... of images that one works so hard on that don't work and others that are wonderful "accidents". I have an image of a dress in a window, for example, that I gave no thought or care to and it is my highest rated image! I must have seen on a gut level that it worked. I have had quite a few surprises that way. Other times I can shoot two rolls of film and come out with one or no images that are inspired. I do believe you can overwork or overthink an image. Sometimes I just have to trust my innner instinct.

In painting or drawing it is not quite the same as the works are created rather than captured. Still, some works are passionately inspired and others are too contrived or mechanical.

Haven't you ever met people that know so much about photography or art and tons about technique or the mechanics of a camera - yet they can't create or take a good picture? Maybe there are no "accidents" -- Perhaps artistic ability comes from within unmarred by thought. To me it seems that there are some that have it, develop it and trust it and others that just don't.

Yes, Mr. Burgess, I can agree that the spontaneous snapshot can often be more successful that the planned shot. That's what I love about photography - the discovery of a favorite image which was unexpected.

This photo could be perceived as abstract - if it were an arrangement of shapes, textures and colours that were unrecognizable. But it's not. These are plainly steps amongst the soil and stone. To me the image works on two levels, the technical (detail, composition, richness, colour balance & contrast etc) but also that it has a story. Whether we the viewer knows the story is up to the artist. Phil shared the story - but even if he didn't, how do you not wonder what the history of the steps were, or from where they came and where they go? I fail to see *nothing*. I see the earth, a little snippet of earth where men have come and gone. This is not over intellectualising. It's imagination. It's appreciation. And, it's real! However perhaps planets, moons, Nietsche etc is going a bit far with imaginative thought, but just as we differ as artists, we also differ as viewers .... some deeper, some more shallow. And for Dali? It is true many artists take the piss out of the art critics. The buyers are the ones that ultimately have the last laugh. They don't recognise the art, or the prank, but their bank balance is loaded! They don't give a fig whether it's meaningful or not. But my question - isn't the *game* of taking the piss, a form of intellectualising in itself? Just as sharing the joke? Just as asking these very questions??!!? .... without intellectualising there is no discussion and no communication.

ok, i didn't mean to be offensive in any way, i just expressed my uneasiness. being neither intellectual nor an artist, i just tried to bring the discussion down to earth. moreover, the term "garbage" used in some comments made me wonder as well as the fact that some viewers failed to perceive the intention, message, and technical perfection of this photo. i strongly believe that the before mentioned term is absolutely inappropriate in regard of this photo. to conclude, not being a native speaker i might fail to comprehend the gist of this thread. if this is the case, i do apologize.

No way have you been offensive IMO Klaus. My post was in support of your last comment. I think the topic about Dali was difficult to relate in context with this photo.

As I understand, it is meant to be enjoyed, and to see open doors instead of closed ones... "Art makes new things visible" said Paul Klee. Visible ? Visible to whom, is the question.

Many, this week, have said that some of us, including me, saw more in this picture than there was in it... Well, maybe so... But don't you envy me for that...?

What is your main concern ? To see in a work what it contains ? Or to see in it the most beautiful thing you can think of when looking at it ? I pick the second choice without a single second of hesitation. If one cares about a realistic interpretation of a work of art, he's trying to be scientific about arts, and that sounds strange to me...

If the road can be traveled by a single man, then you can safely say there WAS indeed a road... How many people saw this road is irrelevant. Whether the road was real or not is equally irrelevant - provided you enjoyed the journey...

"Great is the man who didn't give up on the heart he had as a child" said Confucius. Innocence might mean stupidity to some, but dreaming is still allowed, and often pleasant...:-) Some pictures generate some dreams in some people's head - that's about it.

Phil took a picture of nothing, so that we could fill it with our dreams. Some of us did. Some of us actually walked up these stairs, and found something... Whether it was for real or not, who cares - if we enjoyed it...?

Again... What is art for...?

(Restart at the top of this post...:-))

A nice pic.. the colours just make me feel "cosie" .

Art and champagne are what separate us from the other animals.

Art gives us something to look at while we drink the champagne.

Art gives us a reason to let Marc know we envy him.

Art allows us to realize perceptions that are not available to us by other means.

Art helps cover the cracks in the walls.

Art gives us a medium for endless debate with no serious consequences.

Art allows us to be introspective.

Art enables self-expression that is available to a wide audience over a long period of time.

Art is a gift for our pleasure and for the vanity of those who can afford to commission it and own it.

Art is a means to express thoughts and emotions without written or verbal language.

"If one cares about a realistic interpretation of a work of art, he's

trying to be scientific about arts, and that sounds strange to me...

"

 

Marc - my reaction to this piece was not the least bit scientific. It

was a purely aesthetic reaction. That is how some images strike

me and I quite enjoy it when it happens. In fact, for me I would

categorize it as as being akin to an emotional reaction.

 

"What is your main concern ? To see in a work what it contains?"

 

Not usually, but sometimes that's all I need! When I said that to

me this image is about color, texture, and composition, I said it

because that is all I really need from this image. Each of us is

going to have a gut reaction to an image that is unique. For you

this image touched your philosophical side. You were intrigued

with where these steps lead. For me it was an aesthetic - design

nerve that was tweaked. You're right, art is to be enjoyed. The

great thing is that we both enjoy this image in our own way, and

we are both right! Ain't it fun! :-)

 

P.S.

Art cooked me a cheeseburger for lunch today. Does that count?

Fantastic technically, but it IS just some stairs...

However perhaps planets, moons, Nietsche etc is going a bit far with imaginative thought, but just as we differ as artists, we also differ as viewers .... some deeper, some more shallow. I guess I'm shallow sometimes then. Maybe instead, I should be amazed at the varied imaginations and interpretations this image seems to generate. Sorry if I offended anyone but it was not any one single comment - but the collective comments that were going way over the top for me. I sat here scratching my head with confusion and - sorry - but a little boredom.

My personal way of enjoying art is clearly on a more base level. It is an actual physical reaction which I have or I don't. I suppose I make a mistake by judging how others respond. I just don't relate and feel people are missing something by responding mentally vs emotionally. Maybe it's me that is missing something by not going deeper.

As to the Dali example - I felt it illustrated how even artists can't believe how people/critics can go off on a tangent. I've seen people go into long explinations about why orange paint on a canvas is brilliant. I just don't see it sometimes. Sorry, again, if I offended anyone - it was not pointed at any one person..

Awesome dirt shot....huh?