Hotel room, Grenoble

This photograph doesn't engage me much, but I fail to see why it should. One of the strangest paradoxes in photography is that even pictures of ugly (or depressing) things must be aesthetically pleasing and/or engaging.

The greys in this photo destroy any life the decor might have had (an aesthetic plus), but they don't make this scene any more bearable.This week's POW reminds me of the Great Homelessness Debate several weeks ago where a "good" photograph of the homeless was used to denigrate a "bad" one. If I remember correctly, Aldo (and Tris?) was a strong advocate of photographing the world 'as is' instead of hunting high and low for those rare moments of aesthetically pleasing magic (e.g. this one from dominique's folder)

This image is really awful; a drab, generic, hotel room where the only thing of real interest is completely virtual. For this male viewer, there is an element of frustrated desire here... (dominique's photo of the empty bed has re-inforced that).

I don't 'get it', and I don't particularly like it. However, I'm not sure I'm supposed to!

Depressed now...

I find hotel rooms fascinating. They tell us how others view what we might want, or how little they view what we might want, on a temporary basis. Some are like home - I stayed recently at a B&B in which each room was carefully assembled to look like a personal bedroom, and you chose the one that came closest to what was "you". Some, like the typical big chain hotel, reflect the absolute minimum perceived level of comfort, filled with banality.

This photographs is particularly interesting for the garish art displayed. Its inclusion apparently bothered some, but I find it a compelling element. Was it chosen because the hotel owner liked it, or was it chosen to reflect something about the intended visitor to the hotel? Why is it bigger than the TV? Who is that on the TV? Are two people staying in the room? If not, why did the hotel put out two glasses when it could easily make a single traveler lonely?

There's enough questions in this photograph to make it interesting for a long time. It's also composed nicely, with a certain level of restrained chaos.

One comment on the comments:

hotel rooms are things to get the hell out of, not take photographs in. But I already knew that (and please, don't bother introducing me to someone who doesn't).

The arrogance, and the lack of interest in the world, in this statement amazes me. How can a photographer rule out such a big opportunity for both himself and everyone else? I've photographed many of the hotel rooms I've stayed in, and like quite a few of the results. I won't clutter the thread with my own photographs, but this one sells well and is a photograph I get huge response to. It was taken in one of the most uncomfortable hotel rooms I ever stayed in.

In this instance, I find myself largely (though not completely) agreeing with Samuel Dilworth.

Specifically, I am intrigued by this observation:

 

"Taking pictures of the inside of a hotel room, even waiting for the screen to have the right image; that strikes me as something you would only do if being pushed to the edge of boredom. This picture can tell me a lot about the photographer. I can think of photographers who would feel nervous showing themselves to the world by presenting such a picture. It is a self-portrait; not in the trite sense of the girl in the screen, but in a more meaningful and infinitely more exposing sense."

 

I too get that heightened sense of awareness, that "buzz" if you will, when finding myself trapped within the confines of a generic hotel room. Obviously, not because of the room itself, but because of the anticipation of what lies ahead. In other words, I am excited. However, Samuel's comments remind me that not everyone (particularly the well-travelled) shares this emotion. In fact, I think Tony's comment (essentially confirming his boredom with hotel rooms) says in words, what this photo says with images.

 

A sharp and creative human mind naturally rebels against boredom. While Tony combats this boredom by "getting the hell out of Dodge ASAP", Dominique fights this boredom by making the most of the situation - if only by documenting it - and has done a commendable job in this instance.

 

My particular reaction is mixed. On the one hand I find myself experiencing a similar set of existential emotions as those I felt with the "woman with umbrella" POW a couple of months back, but on the other hand, the photo may have been too successful in conveying the boredom of the moment. And I ask, who wishes to be bored... let alone contemplate it?

 

 

i am not sure what to think when i appreciate a picture more after reading 96 critiques of it (other than the obvious...). i am most drawn to pictures of the mood-capturing, candid variety (as opposed to the plethora-of-equipment, unlimited-budget variety), and i think this photo does well in that capacity. i think this is one of those pictures that does well as part of a set, but is not of the sort that tells enough story or evokes enough feeling by itself. alone, i think it is most successful in contrasting the warm, inviting young woman with the cold antisepsis of the hotel room. i can't say that i'd want it on my wall, but it is interesting nonetheless and far less forgettable than a lot of other POW's that are coming to mind. thanks.

Morwen said:

 

"It also raises an interesting question, namely what does it take to stop a photograph of a drab and boring scene from being a drab and boring photograph."

 

Thank you Morwen for putting the issue more succinctly than my contribution two posts up. While you think the photographer has successfully avoided this dilemma, I, on the other hand, think she has been only partially successful (existential interpretations notwithstanding). In other words, I'll sit on the fence on this one.

Very cool photograph. Nice textures, compelling psuedo subject, good craft and solid vision make this image stand out.

I almost like this but it needs more.

Photographs of people on the TV, sometimes this approach can be used to good effect to propel story into a scene, but you need something for the TV image to play off against, basicaly we need a human in the Hotel room, with the woman on the telly looking at the human, or vice versa.

 

If we only shoot the telly in situ, then we have a shot that looks more like a shop window display, sort of cold and uninvolving.

 

One of the best examples of shooting People on Television, is Gilles Peres' photo of a mother and daughter fighting in a living room in Belfast, the fight takes up the foreground, whilst the rear third of the picture shows a girl (on television) looking at the squabblers in astonishment.

 

See also Peter Marlow's shot of an old man watching a cartoon space shuttle take off on his television.

 

So you see, televisions are a wonderful mirror that can be used to instill narrative, sadly here in the POW, we are missing our third man.

 

 

 

Its thumbnail picture looks confused, no attraction for me at all. I guess I would never have opened it if it hadn't been chosen as POW. Its full-sized picture reveals neither technical skills nor artistic charm. The perspective is trivial, the framing and the lighting are in a mess. Frankly speaking, this is no more than a mediocre photo for my taste as it sometimes happened to the POW. I doubt how much we can learn from such a POW.

I think this is a mediocre photo. The frame is not well filled. The objects are on the corners leaving the center and top-left somewhat dull, and there's this strange ghost that looks like flaws on the wall painting. The thing on the top-right is distracting and one can't tell what it is. Just a poor snapshot of a hotel room.

I have been extremely amused by reading the different reactions on this picture. I am glad some people liked it enough to make it a POW, but I cannot set aside the feeling some people around here take a measuring device to carefully analyze if the rule of thirds is respected, next if the viewer is correctly guided into the frame according to textbooks rules, make sure no reflection of glass is accidently visible, or for heaven's sake maybe even caused by a spot of dust not carefully removed on the front lens with a white glove just before taking the picture. If all these criteria are met, then they will do an effort to look further into the image. By doing this, they would have thrown into the dustbin the following works of Robert Doisneau:

 

La derniere valse du 14 juillet (awful composition, subject spot center in the middle of the viewfinder, dreadful flash reflection in the window. Besides we all know people dance at 14 juillet in France)

 

Le Baiser devant l'Hotel de Ville (far too many distracting elements in the background)

 

Or perhaps Ed Van der Elskens' beautiful selfportrait because he didn't clean the mirror so there are ghost flares and spots everywhere not to mention it was not tack sharp?

 

Let's shred Rue Mouffetard, Paris, 1954 of Cartier-Bresson, because he failed to get the boys' feet on the picture, how clumsy of him.

 

Why didn't Adams took ten steps to the left to get that moon more to the right on his Hernandez shot? Would have been an easy thing to do, and would make the picture certainly stronger.

 

 

We could also throw away hundreds of pictures of Araki, who was doing nothing more than taking photos of clouds for months and months. If you've seen one picture of clouds, you have seen them all, very banal. Until you know the background on why he made them, and you respect and feel them differently.

 

I consider my pictures to be far from the level those people work(ed) on, and certainly not as Art with capital A. I don't even pretend my compositions are great. My pictures are merely a reflection of an emotion I have and live at a certain point in time and I make them because it is fun to make pictures and share them with others. Call it public emography if you want.

 

Oh yes, I have far too much hair on my legs to be an acceptable she :)

 

 

I doubt how much we can learn from such a POW.

For the last couple of days, I've been asking myself, how do you measure the value of an image like this? I disagree that it's a photographer's photo. If there were something going on in the room, something overtly dynamic happening, then it would be a photographer's photo. As it is, however, it's more of a conceptual piece than a "traditional" image.

All these neat categories are of course arbitrary, and they blur easily; but I think it's safe to say that this picture doesn't involve itself with the (supposedly) traditional concerns of photography - those being, among others, graphic elements (tonality, composition), aesthetics proper (its self-referential stance in the imaging world; as well as how effective it is in that way overall), narrative, and emotion ("human interest"). I think it's safe to say that if this picture is about anything its about an idea. This idea has been alluded to earlier ("the room [. . .] static, lived in but devoid of life - except [for] what we see of life on the TV." And the more to the point, "appalling discrepancy between the human needs and the sterile society in the western world driven by commodification of everything in life"). Like a Chinese puzzle, this image says, "I'm obviously not about the usual concerns, so? My true nature is hidden. Unlock it and know my secret."

Is the value of the image to be measured by how often you come back to it in order to unlock it? Is its value measured by its meaning, once that has been retrieved from the image's heart?

I think the answer to the first question has to be largely no. How often and whether the viewer comes back to the image - or is even drawn to it to begin with - is entirely too dependent on the viewer himself. To some, the image might offer not much resistance. Still other viewers are locked into "common sense", or immediate impact, or traditional photographic concerns (or all of the above). They demand that the image do something for them and do it now, elsewise they'll go elsewhere. Or, they demand that the image conform to certain ideas, that it present them with a standarized iconography, a map. The idea that there might be something to see here beyond (or rather, in) the obvious is, to them, not worthwhile. And this approach, of course, neither the photographer, nor his image, nor his audience, can control. Some viewers just don't want to work. Their argument perhaps will be, "Something about the image has to make me want to." Fair enough. No accounting for taste (though lazy habits are another story).

But what about the meaning itself, the secret in the center? (Assuming, of course, we can divine one - or at least the possibility of one.) It has to be sufficiently substantive, nourishing enough or - as Tony Dummett pointed out - served in such a way that, even when we know it, we keep coming back for more.

I don't think that is the case with this image. In either the serving or the eating. Once you've gotten the puzzle pieces apart, it's pretty much a case of, "That was nice. What's for dinner?" (I realize my metaphors here - Chinese puzzle, women, food - are somewhat mixed. But you must admit they bear similarities.) Even so, the image is beguiling, intriguing - and worthwhile if only for that. You could actually learn quite a bit from it, depending on how much you already know. There are more than a few here who would be well served to "know" less and look more.

One of the dangers in evaluating images is to use elevated terms about mediocre works. Citing Doisneau et al you have just fallen into it.Let me explain using a liguistic example.

The same meaning can be expressed using different words. The basic statement is about the same in "People who discover something first are often not the real beneficiaries of their discoveries" and "He who sees the way out is the first to be trampled on" (by the crowd - the phrase may have lost somein the translation, but the idea should be clear).

The first phrase is descriptive, the second one is aphoristic. I will omit the discussion about what turns a statement into an aphorism - and will only say that in the previous comment the author compared his banality with excellent aphoristic visual statements that justly remain in the history of photography, the presumption most probably caused by sincere lack of understanding.

I REALLY, REALLY have too much hair on my legs to be a she :-))

 

I accept some people don't like this picture. I do agree I wouldn't hang it on my wall as a standalone image. As I wrote elsewhere, it is a picture out of a series.

If I'd pick one picture out of my folder I really like, it's the hug picture.

I did not compare my picture with those great photographers Michael. You have to read what is written in the comment, not more. I just reject people with a textbook measuring device screening pictures, just to make a point that by handling only these technical criteria, one would waste many great images. Not more, not less :)

This photo impressed me much less than the (semi-?)professional equipment of the photographer he showed us in his profile portrait. I'm sorry not being able to enjoy this "masterpiece" like the elves or some other photographic geniuses. Since I have no time to read through all of the above comments carefully, I don't want to risk repeating the points that might have been mentioned by others. To sum it up, this is another example of choosing a low level POW as I'm slowly getting used to.

Ellen, I took note of your observation concerning the impressive collection of expensive equipment available to this photographer

 

Do situations exist where all the best photographic equipment available ceases to matter?

Can lack of creative vision be made up for by purchasing a costly arsenal of equipment.

 

Or better yet, by mentioning one's name in the same breath with the Great Masters'. That should do well to elevate one's status as a photographer.

Dominique has rightly pointed out some of the technical "mistakes" of a few of the great photographers, in support of his point that such technical errors do not automatically disqualify a photograph from achieving merit.

He is seeking to rebut the arguments of some of his critics who have stated bluntly that his alleged breaking of rules in this picture automatically of itself prevents the picture from being considered as any good. He gives examples of other undeniably well-received images by some of the "greats" in support of his case: that technical errors can be overlooked when balanced against artistic merit.

Nowhere does he claim to be the equal of these photographers. He is comparing critical standards, not artistic ones.

At least Dominique does not make the mistake of writing raving posts here in one name and style, but accidentally leaving the electronic signature of another name usually associated with a member who presents himself as one of the Politically Correct "rocks" of the site... only to then have to delete the comment later (too late, actually, a few other members saw it) when the blunder is realised. Tut, tut.

Moral of the story: you can be whoever you want to be in Life and Art, but don't forget to log off first, before you swap alter egos! People might get suspicious...

(I believe that "Dominique" is a woman. In many cases, this would not be relevant, but in this case, it is.)

 

I think she makes an important point about the "rules" of photography: the "greats" often broke these rules, and still the results are regarded as masterpieces. She does not claim that her photograph(s) should be regarded as masterpieces just because she broke the "rules". But she does ask that it should be shot down just because it breaks the "rules". True criticism of a photograph (or any art piece) does not lie in simply measuring it against a set of such "rules" - to do so, without also looking beyond the rules, is laziness.

Sorry to ask a dumb question. But what exactly is the definition of a 'Photographers Photograph"?

Sorry to ask a dumb question. Buy what exactly is the definition of a 'Photographers Photograph"?

That's a photograph that can be appreciated by two photographers with at least four alter-egos between them.

I like this one. The highlights are on the TV screen and they pull your eyes over there, which is appropriate because the TV makes the photo. The TV is the only action in a static scene, it is the brightest thing in the scene, and it is the most attractive thing in the scene (except perhaps for the wine bottle). But of course TV is artificial and the woman on the TV unattainable, which makes an already lonely and empty scene all the emptier.

 

Alone in a hotel room ... hotel rooms aren't worth considering? This photo reminds me of Gord Downie's lyrics -- there's a guy who's written many songs about being alone in hotel rooms.

 

Quiet photo. Too bad about the ghost in the middle of the frame, but it still works.

Nice photo. Although obviously staged (is this your apartment?), it has a certain feel to it that is not objectionable.

1. Placing evacuation maps in the corner of the room, BEHIND the television? I don't think so.

2. That kind of "art" on the wall would make most patrons flee immediately!

3. Nice TV, but not "institutional" enough for hotels.

4. Your gobo is showing in the upper left!

5. Nice of the hotel lamps to highlight the chair like that - a full stop brighter than the immediate surroundings - without falloff.

 

Don't get me wrong, I DO like it, but I'm not buying the "catch-of-the-moment" pitch.

 

Oh, and did I mention - nice photo-

 

Without being crazy about it, I find the photo interesting and perhaps even provocative. Congratulations to the photog for a good catch.

 

Why would someone question the photographer's integrity by saying that this photo wasn't taken at a hotel room, when the photographer says it was? Why would the photographer lie for crying out loud??? Yes, I did follow the previous POW. No, I don't tnink everyone in this site is a liar.

 

Why would someone cowardly hide behind aliases when most of us put our good names behind what we say, however controversial or politically incorrect our ideas might be?

 

The two disgusting attitudes above are what made the last several POW's a joke, not to mention the credibility penalty that the site, and us by association, have to pay for such behaviors.

 

Signed: Marcelo Dapino

but this one sells well and is a photograph I get huge response to.

As well it should - it's a much better image than the seeming snapshot quality of the POW. I will never put down a photo or the choice of POW. But sometimes, I do scratch my head...

Matt, this picture is as non-staged, non-photoshopped as humanly possible. If ever you are in Belgium, I invite you to come and check the negative :-)

 

Cheers!