grave

YES. Let's take this photo. I see it as incoherently messagy. If the photographer were to write that he had no symbolic intentions, that the pigeon was nothing more than happenstance, etc. I'd have no reason not to believe him and would find that very interesting. My response would be to tell him that, regardless of his intentions, he's made a photo that LOOKS LIKE it is full of symbolism and has a message. And so he shouldn't be surprised if people are trying to find the symbolic meanings and messages and especially if they're coming up with an incoherent sense of that. His job is not to tell me what his intent was so I know how to look at the photo. His job, or at least part of it, is to realize that photos LOOK a certain way, and may take on a certain feel despite whatever our intentions may be. A photographer has to be in touch with what the photo looks like, even as he is in touch with what his intentions are. If someone creates a photo that has dark, moody shadows and mysterious blurs, he can't then proceed to tell me I shouldn't see it as moody and mysterious because when he took it he was very lighthearted. He may have been lighthearted but his photo doesn't show that. And if he didn't intend it to be moody, then he needed to create a different photo, not tell me what his intentions were. If you don't want a photo to feel symbolic, you don't create a photo of tombstones in surreal daylight/night sky atmosphere, with a bird hovering over the strongly-shadowed tombstones. You just don't. Your intentions need to be somewhat in sync with your finished product, otherwise your intentions really don't matter. Yes, intentions are interesting to hear from a learning standpoint. Not to tell me how to view or interpret the photograph, but to help us advise the photographer whether or not his intentions came to fruition in his photograph.

I don't think this photograph should have a more coherent symbolic message because I like photos that have such messages or because I think photos with symbolism are better than ones without it. I don't. I think it should have a more coherent symbolic message because it LOOKS LIKE it is a symbolic photo. Or, if it's not meant to be symbolic, it should be redone to avoid the intensely symbolic elements and overall feel.

Most often (and there are exceptions) I think the photographer has more to learn about his photo from the reactions he gets (he gets to hear what people are actually SEEING) than the viewers can learn about his photo from the intentions he provides us. What we learn when we hear about intentions is what the photographer was TRYING to do. Not what he did.

I agree with Stephen that it can help us offer suggestions if we know what direction he wanted to take. It will make the difference between suggesting he be more effective and coherent in his symbolism or suggesting he make it look less symbolic. Or, despite his intentions, we might say it would still look better one way or another and he might consider rethinking his intentions with this specific photo. So, in order to offer helpful suggestions, it can help to hear from the photographer. But I don't need to hear from the photographer to know and assess what I'm seeing.

I think you're taking fairness to an unreasonable extreme, Stephen.

By stretching your point just a little bit, I could conceivably show you a boring picture that you could tell me you don't like very much (because it's boring), and I could cry "foul," because my intention was that it be perceived as interesting. And by the logic you present above, you would have to concede my point: It wasn't right to criticize it for being boring, because my intention was that it be interesting.

This sort of thing will always be part of any criticism of any work--ask Georgia O'Keefe what she thought of the critics and her abstract, and later flower, images. She was not happy and no one changed their mind about it because she said it wasn't what they thought it was.

But, IMO, the crux of the matter goes back to something I have suggested here many times. Look at the person's other work. If they don't exhibit manipulated photographs then why should we think, in light of it very possibly having been done in camera, it was a manipulation--people don't get skillful in one try. If it definitely looks manipulated or just looks odd, then we question it.

The same for metaphor. If I look at a photo stream and most of the images look more descriptive or documentary, I am not going to go too far with symbolism or metaphor being part of the person's nature. That doesn't preclude that they might produce a symbolic/metaphoric piece, purposely or in spite of themself. What I see is what I see and how I respond to it--I have to own that. It is of little matter what the person did or didn't intend but what I discover by critically viewing an image. If the person gives me insight as to their intent, then I think I have take that into consideration, but that does not govern what I then see in the work. I do think it is imperative that we use whatever information we can get our hands on when evaluating work, that is how we grow as individuals, but the person's intent is only one of many pieces of information that should influence our interpretation.

I was thinking about my last post while doing the week's laundry, and I came to the same conclusion as Fred just expressed. I thought it is one thing to state how a photograph may leave me feeling flat and how the symbolism I might see in the photo failed, but that's not the same as criticizing the photographer for failed symbolism. Also, John more eloquently stated what I've tried to state in the past, especially how we evaluate photographs, and I appreciate the clearer language. I've both sharpened some of my ideas by talking about them and expanded some of my ideas by reading comments provided by others, and that's what I consider a successful POW.

It might be fair to say that there is a general perception that the selected POW is high art, therefore reacted to accordingly.

It's one thing for us to be a crowd of sideline art critics talking amongst ourselves, but in my view, it is more fruitful to have an interactive discussion with the image maker. The former has less value to me because we will only be expressing individual perceptual differences.

I appreciate Micheal's comment in at least one sense - that of engaging a fruitful discussion with the photographer. Would it not be useful for Photo.Net to inform a photographer that his photo is currently being placed as the POW, and to require, or at least to recommend, that he or she become engaged in the discussion, once it has more fully developed. Regarding the utility of viewer comments, I think that they are always of much importance to the photographer and to other viewers, as they are an excellent means of sharing our experience and abilities as appreciators of photographic art and methodology and of learning from others.

Really. Says who? What if you came upon this image in a group show or museum gallery. You are going to reserve judgement till you contact the artist and grill them as to their technique before you can appreciate and make comment on the image? Photographs, by definition, are an abstract of reality. The photograph before you is the object under consideration. It is a work of creative effort and artistic intent. As it exists, for all it's quality or lack thereof, complete as the artist intended. It stands before you, as is, for your consumption. It is the thing under consideration. How it was made is meaningless. What the artist did before or after creating it is unimportant except in the most tangential art historical sense of the artist oeuvre.

Use your eyes and digest the information through the filter of your heart, emotions, intellect and experience. Then formulate an opinion and express what you like/dislike and why. To try and interpret the artist intent or method is not only pure conjecture but distracts from the most important thing, the discussion of the image itself. The photographer, via the POW selection process, has provided us with a visual artistic statement. They are not bound to hold your hand to aid you in your process. That is your responsibility. Everything you need to know stands before you and inside of you.

Well . . . I've never heard of a museum that doesn't accept photographic works that are manipulated; on the other hand, I don't think I've ever seen an exhibit of a substantial number of works by one photographer where I didn't have a pretty good sense of how the work was created. It shouldn't have to be a secret that a photographer or artist manipulates the images that are used as the raw material of the finished work (unless, of course, he or she is a photojournalist or is presenting the finished work as being unmanipulated).

In case any children are reading: remember, kids, photojournalists shouldn't manipulate their images (at least not very much).

Louis, what you've stated is your opinion, and many people agree with you, but it is an opinion, and many other people disagree with you. I used to strongly disagree, now I simple disagree as I've been able to better understand your point of view. I can agree that the most important thing is the discussion of the image itself, but I cannot agree that how a photograph was made is meaningless. But this is a tired discussion for me, and I've chosen to put it aside and try to learn as much as I can on other topics, especially from those who may have points of view that are different than my own.

The POW discussion can be intimidating to many and the tone of discussion can sometimes appear confrontational even if unintended, so I can see how a photographer might rather not engage as (s)he might otherwise had the image been simply in the critique forum.

I don't know of a solution to this except to exercise some level of sensitivity toward the photographer's feelings knowing they didn't ask to be put in the hot seat. Perhaps the POW notification email can also contain gentle language of encouragement so a recipient will be more inclined to participate.

I would be interested to know what general art Museum would refuse photography that has been manipulated. All other art is a manipulation as its essence and the most highly prized photos today are almost all manipulated. It would be an interesting qualification reading as I would wonder "what" would be allowed. I have only seen any such restrictions in fairly small communities.

In most cases, I would prefer the artist didn't speak as it often has ruined the discussion. I suppose if there are qualifiers, about technical things, it might quell many concerns, but I have also heard some rather strong insults after a revelation--well, before as well I suppose. But certainly, even without the "manipulation" argument, there have been discussions that essentially died once the photographer spoke.

I think most of the time, when there is a one person show, if there is any unusual technique employed that the artist statement or notes at the show will reveal this. Often it is to somehow embellish the work--I have seen the manipulated or the not manipulated status presented with the same vigor as to the person's individualistic artistic ability. In most other cases, there are no notes or indications as to process unless the curator of the current show deems it necessary for comparison and contrast or for some other reason.

I don't know what to think about the POW photographer saying something (especially early in the week) or participating in the discussion. Like John, I've seen it seem to kill the discussion, while other times the photographer has just been another participant but one with more insight into certain aspects of the photo. Considering this week's POW, I don't have a sense as to what would have happened if Ugur stated whether the pigeon was added or whether he intended the scene to be symbolic. Those clarifications might have enabled the discussion to move on, or they might have killed it. Even exchanging points of view about an unknown can be enlightening; for example, I got something out of Fred's discussion about how a photograph might come across versus how the photographer intended it to come across. I don't see an easy answer to that question, and I think I would now tend to suggest the photographer stay out (contrary to what I have suggested in the past) and for the viewers to sense when it's time to put an unknown aside and not argue endlessly over it. I do like to have a concluding comment from the photographer a day or so before its end to shed some additional light on the photo that wasn't known or to give an answer to some "either-or" questions that might have come up, as Paul Mongillo did a short time ago. So many unknowns and so many diverse points of view coming from a wide variety of backgrounds make it a challenge sometimes to have fruitful and respectful conversation. I suppose that's not fundamentally different than it was 20 years ago, but the anonymity inherent in the way Internet discussions are conducted seems to make it a greater challenge.

Even though it's dark and erie it's a very peaceful shot. The greens are vibrant and I love the patch of flowers. Great shot.

I think I read Martin's comment about the museum too quickly, although I had heard of such exclusions several years ago in a small town museum and thus projected that into his words. My mistake.

I thought there might have been some misinterpretation of what I said. It's due to my twisted syntax. I've never seen a double negative I couldn't resist.

It looks that everyone is loving pigeon, that's great,
but i think ......the center grave has blocked the view ,in first look i can't decide that is it a grave or a tree,,,,,too much blur in the image. even the right hand grave are also blocking the beauty of the flowers ,,,in clear words "It does not create focus on anything"

This picture has a deep concern.