"Portrait of an Eloquent Chair" A study in lines and 'color black & whites'.

(Edited by Moderator) I'm not a huge fan of this shot. The composition, while an interesting idea, is to my eye confusing and hard to look at. It lacks a strong, central area of interest. Still, a nice job, and a fine portfolio. Congratulations, Ricardo.

The photographer clearly had a objective in mind for going for this shot. He seemed to study the chair, lines and shadows and - hey - enjoyed himself. His hard work resulted in best in show.. Now, the really tough test... Viola -- POW. I think this image accomplishes what the objective was. It is a very complex "study" of lines and black (color) and white - as stated in the title. I don't find it to be too busy because the shadow lines mimic the lines in the stone patio. All lines are without a static pattern and the chair lines are consistant with that. In fact, I was struck by the grace and simplicity of the shot. If I find any problem, it is that a portion of the seat is a little hot.. Other than that - I think it is worthy of POW.

I think this is a well done shot and nice to see as POW. While perhaps not the first to employ chairs as material for a composition, or a high contrast linear approach, it is nonetheless not the same as "twelve chairs" or the other example shown above. To say it is cliched simply on the basis of the objects it contains is unfair and ignores the details of this particular example. One might as well say all pictures containing red have been done before. Or those with rocks, people, whatever. I find the anecdote about color having been unacceptable interesting, as this was shot well over ten years after Eggleston's color photography exhibit at MOMA. I have a feeling this picture would be nicer in color, and that might offset some of the jaded reactions expressed elsewhere - or maybe not. Congratulations, nice picture.

I threw the image into a viewer offline and turned it upside down. Then the fractured symmetry finally hit me, and this became a wonderful optical illusion (like the old woman/young girl drawing or the cube that changes "direction" based on which lines your eye favors). Up until that moment, it was a cliche shot of a chair with some relatively interesting cracks behind it. Afterwards, I find it infinitely more appealing and original.

The argument of this not being original is so overwrought. There has probably not been an original image created in many a year, get over it. I really think this is a case of sour grapes by the critics.

 

As far as this photo goes, I love the near pencil drawing lines and curves, almost like a study in linear dissolution. 10/10 imho.

This is a picture that keeps my eye wandering over it looking for connections. It's very well composed/cropped and the shapes of the chair and the grouting lines complement each other well. I like it.

 

For me the "wicker" patterned shadow and the shadow of the chair itself give an alternate view of the chair: two photographs for the price of one if you like. The composition is complete - a definite improvement on Guarionex's "Twelve Chairs", which has distracting elements of the composition cut off at the edges of the frame.

 

Viewing this as an improvement of a well explored theme leads me to wonder whether criticising it for "unoriginality" isn't too harsh a judgement? As someone mentioned above: are we to write off all photographs taken of Yosemite National Park as unoriginal simply because they weren't the first to be taken there? What about Rachmaninov's "Variations on a Theme by Paganinni", or Beethoven's 9th Symphony - both of which took others' melodies and made something better of them. Joe Cocker's cover of Lennon/McCartney's "With a Little Help From My Friends" is another that comes to mind as a definite improvement on the original idea. There are thousands of examples in art of on-going development of a theme. One could even argue that "thematic development" actually describes art, or at least is one of the elements of a description of art.

 

Some might say that this photographer is no Rachmaninov, Beethoven, Joe Cocker and no Guarionex. But surely that doesn't disqualify him from trying to improve on earlier versions of a similar scene? If he succeeds in so doing - as I believe he has - then that's all the better for him, and us, isn't it?

 

This is a clever pic that warrants more than a casual glance. At first confusing, a second (and third) look at it reveals that it is quite ordered and very well executed: a pictorial success.

I like the photo. I don't see the comparison to the 12 Chairs photo. This photo demonstrates the interplay of the lines of the concrete with the chair and with the shadow of the chair. There are no chair shadows in 12 Chairs.

Tony, I think the point of Mr. Thatcher's argument, as well as that of mine, is whether this photograph is seen as an improvement over a well explored theme. If is, then all your argument about "thematic development" holds fine, no problem with that. The problem is overall, this photo appears to me of little visual appeal. It doesn't intrigue me, unlease the imagination, or give me something worthwhile to brood over, even after several careful examinations in a clinical manner. This photo has much to desire in terms of artistic finesse and delicacy, in composition, rendition of individual elements and overall tonality. My opinion is these qualities are essential in making a pictorial photograph visually attractive, and to be a success. As for its cleverness, I see it attempted, but not quite there yet. It doesn't take much to lay bare the photographer's thoughts behind this shot. My own rule of thumb, if I can see what kind of cleverness you're into, then you're not clever enough. :-)

 

This has been said, I'm certainly not among those "nothing will ever be original to some". Incidentally, just by following the link on Guarionex's web site, I discovered Rolfe Horn, http://www.f45.com/, where I have enjoyed to view some most wonderful photos of outstanding pictorial quality. It's not all that necessary to spin a sour-grape theory, if one's here to sincerely argue or counter-argue any legitimate points.

 

 

Chairs have been studied for a very long time - Kertesz shot them again and again, to provide just one example.

 

This study is definitely valid, as the lines echo each other adding to the visual complexity and creating the need to stop and study the image - half of the success in itself: most modern photos are sleek and empty, one takes them in one glance and moves on. Visual complexity - when there is perceived orderliness in it - is a very strong advantage in an image.

The interplay of the shape of the chair with the stone joints and it's frontally projected inked-on-the-stone shadow, the varied densities of the mesh in oblique, perpendicular and stacked views, and the overall stained glass character of the composition hold multi-layered interest. I suppose if I could see nothing but chairs on stonework I might confuse it with the Guarionex?

 

Steve

I would like to leave a comment for all Photo.net viewers about my Photo of the Week. First of all thanks for all of the feedback. Its good to read constructive criticism whether good or bad. Thanks to my defenders for seeing what my attempts were, especially the comments from you who looked for my ideas or searched my portfolio before commenting about my reputation as a photographer.

 

To answer a few questions about this image very quickly. First of all, it was a deliberate image. I stumbled across this marvelous stonework and wrought iron furniture, but everything else was planned. The shoot started with more chairs somewhat similar to the Guarionex mentioned above. However, the more I work an image, the simpler I want it to be. Second, this is a color image. It was meant to be color, but of black and white subject matter, as a challenge to the viewer.

 

Look carefully how the cracks between the stone connect to the armrests on the chair as well as the feet, etc. Then check the shadow. I wanted to tie the shadow into the chair so closely that it would be confused with the chair itself. Look for the contact points of the shadow to the cracks in the stonework. Is the subject the chair, the shadow, or, the highlight on the seat where you plant your rear in the gardens?

 

The botanical gardens contest was going to be all about color; the beauty of the flowers and the gardens themselves. But I wanted something different as my subject for two reasons, to be different, and because of the judge. Cole Weston, son of Ed Weston, was exhibiting his color work at a local gallery and was invited to judge this event. I knew his color passion from his work, but I also assumed a discerning black and white eye he would have learned from his father. I wanted to win this contest and had researched the judge. But mostly I enjoyed the creative challenge and was being lateral about my choice of black and white subject matter in such colorful gardens.

 

Finally, this image was also a winner in the Popular Photography Your Best Shot, February, 1991 Issue. So to give the Photo.net editors a nod, this image has won contests a couple of times before by pretty credible sources. And no, I had never seen the Guarionex image shown above when I created this image almost 20 years ago. However, in my opinion, the images arent even close. The black and white Guarionex image has its subject matter cropped on the corners, has no balance in placement of the chairs, relies on a poured cement palatte as a backgroundand not a single shadow under any of the chairs. Touché!

 

Doug, I think you need to chill a bit. One camp (which I belong to) sees something fresh and elegant here: the way the chair confuses itself with the paving to become an abstract. The other sees a chair, in a style photographed many times before, while the abstract stuff is just... confusion.

It's just another version of "you can't argue about taste", really ( gustibus non disputandem, for those who find arguments more powerful when stated in a dead language).

What I find more interesting is Kadok's question of the border between creativity and copying. Obviously photographing a painting is out. If you photograph a sculpture, you are at least responsible for the reduction of 3d to 2d, the lighting etc. So the photographer is choosing a view in a way analogous to a street photog. choosing a moment.... although maybe the choice is less.

Then we could add a little more by photographing the interaction of a person with the sculpture... or with a painting. The extreme would seem to be a completely synthetic scene... but that would lead us back to the "what are the bounds of photography" debate (synthesised in front of the camera, or after, in a computer?).

Anyone recall the name of the German artist who paints from photos, then exhibits a photo of the painting? :-)

[Edited by moderator to remove references to deleted comments.]

 

 

 

While this subject has been done before, I've not seen it done quite like this. For my money, Roberto has put his unique signature on it.

 

Lastly, I, like others, find the whole originality debate to be the truly tired thing here. If we took Doug's philosophy to it's logical end, we'd all sit around the house with our cameras on the shelf, for fear of not being original. All art is derivative to some degree; it doesn't lessen my enjoyment of it.

I like this photo. It is very competent. The photographer is also very competent. Is it a rehash? A bit. But even Picasso was a rehash of African Art.

Oh yes, this is obviously completely unoriginal. I mean, it's a three-dimensional scene rendered as a two-dimensional photograph. We've seen it thousands if not millions of times before, and I'm afraid we'll probably see it just as many times again.

There is a picture on Ilford's website http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/autochrome/auto1.jpg which is around a hundred years old and is also a three-dimensional scene (of inanimate objects even) rendered as a two-dimensional picture. I can hardly tell the difference between it and this months POW. Could we please move on. Could we please have some originality?

OK, sarcasm off. I don't have much constructive to say about this picture, that hasn't already been said, except that the idea of this in relation to a botanical garden makes perfect sense to me. The curves of the chair as well as the stonework reminds me of the architecture and stonework of my local botanical gardens, and I would expect a lot of other gardens to have a similar appearance.

So in that respect I think it's succesful. It's also a lovely abstract composition, which for instance part of a person holding a flower in the corner would ruin, as might separating the shadow from the chair - that would give a nice clinical image with a chair, a shadow and the stonework as clearly defined distinct elements.

This does not seem to me to be just yet another picture of a chair. Wether it has been done almost exactly like this before, I don't know (the twelve chairs picture is not much closer to this than a Hawaii sunset - and now I'm looking forward to see a Hawaii sunset with chairs in it :)

Nor am I going to investigate the matter because in the end, although I think it's very nice, I don't think I'd choose this to hang on my wall, nor anything like it. Purely a matter of personal taste. I'll have to try the upside down trick though.

much improvement over Guarionex's... [ad hominem quip removed by moderator; relatively mild one, but we aren't going to tolerate them at all; sorry trib]

feh, trib

Perhaps I was a bit quick to jump, in terms of originality. Taking this picture on its own terms, it does have a certain appeal, I'll admit. Maybe it's growing on me. In any case, I did forget to wish the photographer a sincere congratulations.

There is a picture on Ilford's website http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/autochrome/auto1.jpg which is around a hundred years old and is also a three-dimensional scene (of inanimate objects even) rendered as a two-dimensional picture. I can hardly tell the difference between it and this months POW. Could we please move on. Could we please have some originality?

The picture linked above is a still life of fish against a red background. Maybe I just don't know anything about art, but when I look at the POW of a black chair on a white/gray surface taken from above, I don't see a picture of fish against a red background as being similar.

Just another comment, as POW winner, I really have enjoyed your feedback. Thanks Mr. Thacker for your second look. Sometimes its not just seeing the forest through trees, but dismissing the forest as just another. And thanks to you Gus M; you know more about art than you lead on. And yes, Chanh Ly, this is a color photo, only of black and white subject matter. Henri, Andrey, Time, Michael, Graham, Keith, Toni, Aaron, Rohit, Lin, Brian, George, Michael, Steve, Doug, Stefan, Alex, Carl, Doug, Mary, Dean, Sandy, Tony, thanks for looking into the theme, not just of the subject matter but of the attempt. All your comments are well taken. I've been a professional photographer for 20 years and a photographic art teacher for 5. After 20 years, this image still is one of my favorite studies.

techinically its quite a nice photo... it just dosnt hold much attention for very long. but as far as chairs go.. this is a classic picture. im thinking it would be better if there was something like a bird or a bug or something else on the pavement that would add some kind of atmosphere... but alas its just a pic ( albeit a good pic ) of a chair. One for the photographers not much public interest. I hope to see more ( untouched by paintshop ) pictures that truly reflect a photographers vision and capture a certain time or mood that will keep you looking at the pic saying to yourself "thats such a great photograph" no matter what the subject matter or technical perfection ( too many anoraks in here ).

enjoy a picture if it conveys the artists message.. dont get too hacked down in technabililtaes.

 

happy snapping !

 

 

Andrew, you hope to see more "untouched by paintshop".

 

I'm curious, what is paintshop?

Beautiful, and yes, a little different. Though I agree with Doug Thacker. Aethetically, I think it's lovely, but like others have said, the general subject has been done many, many times...just not exactly like this.

 

By the way, though I been visiting this site for several months now, this is the first time Iv'e felt compelled to to comment on a photo. Maybe that in itself says something about how compelling the photo is. I look forward to becoming a more active member.

Thank you for getting me started!

 

 

"A shadow of a chair is a plain ordinary every day scene."

 

What's your point? I don't know about anyone else, but that's where I live. And the one of the beauties of photography is its unique capability to make us stop and appreciate what's right there in front of us. This picture is a good example of that IMO.

Sure the chair may be an " ordinary " object , but the way it was captured is anything but . I find the way the chair (and it's shadow) interacts with the black lines to be very captivating .

As an aside , I see no similarity between the "12 chairs" picture and this one . Just because both use chairs does not mean one is a copy of the other .

On one hand I'm very confused by the attack on this weeks POW, and on the other hand it doesn't surprise me one bit.

I think George Day said it best in a previous comment:

I think this photograph is fantastic. I love the connection of the shadow to the object, and I think the textured background draws out, for the eye, the curves on the chair. I wish I could capture something as well as this.

One of the reasons I've only really lurked on photo.net is because of some of the out-and-out attacks Ive seen people wage on others over issues of "art." A critique is one thing but the venom with which some of the holier-than-thoughs lace their comments is mind-boggling. Amateur photography and amateur photographers are just that. Now, Im not suggesting that everyone join in a big love circle and pat each other on the back just for loading the film correctly in their cameras but some of the comments (on photo.net) just go too far.

With all that being said, I have seen a number of great comments here (in this thread) and I encourage that sort of discussion. Finally, I congratulate the artist on having one of his pieces selected for POW.