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

I like this image. The lines are appealing and easy on the eye. The simplicity of the image to me is what makes it work. I wish the hot spot on the seats surface was toned down a bit, but all in all its a nice shot.

 

For those of you that complain that this has been done before, wake up. Name one of your shots that havent. We are all inspired by things we have seen. Some of us are inspired by things we would like to see, and set out to create them, but in the end, chances are it has already been done. Think of portraits. If a photographer showed you their favorite portrait of a family member or friend, would you say you have seen shots like that done before? Think about it, what hasnt been done.

 

With over 6 billion people in the world, many with cameras, its pretty difficult to come up with a totally original image, yet every image has some degree of originality. We're all searching for a different angle, unique lighting, interesting colors and shapes but its all been done before. Does that mean we can't produce new and interesting images? No. Even if you take a mug shot of each person on earth exactly the same way, you'll have 6 billion unique images. Each image will be interesting to someone.

 

So, just because we've seen a particular shot done a thousand times before and could care less if we never see that shot again, that doesn't mean its not interesting to someone. Let that someone enjoy it. Its OK.

 

I like looking at the shadow in this shot from close up. Look at the two little curls. And I like all the irregular lines on the surface the chair and shadow are on. Maybe I'm easily entertained but I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I like the feeling of transparency associated with the image. There is also a mirror-like quality generated by the light reflecting off the floor and by the near perfect lines of the mesh's shadow. Beautiful image!

Thanks to Ricardo for his comments. I again repeat that if the author explains/replies to critique/questions as early as possible the discussion can only take advantage from it.

 

For instance Ricardo says that he deliberately choose to have the shadow and the chair lie together so to be confused. It's important to know that this is a choice of the author and not an error or an ingenuity. Still I find it to be a bit too confused also at a second and a third look :-) but it's a matter of taste - in a B/W photo I search for elegance and harmony, which I found in this image with the exception of the cited left side of the chair.

 

For what concerns originality: it's no doubt that it's very very difficult to be completely innovative, and more or less every kind of artistic work takes at least some hint from previous work. The point is if it also _adds_ something valuable and new to the old stuff.

For instance, in the cited Rachmaninov's piece "Variations on a theme of Paganini" the composer just starts from a simple piano transcription of the Paganini's violin theme and then adds a lot from his own, up the point in which the theme is inverted, achieving a completely different musical atmosphere. A hint from Paganini _plus_ a very simple but genial idea and you get a dramatic effect; this is the signature of a masterpiece.

 

While this photo is no doubt the work of a competent professional, still I don't see anything special in it. The fact that the photo was a contest winner is another proof of the author's competency but this fact doesn't change my original opinion.

As usual, interesting comments reflect that there is something here worth discussing...

 

Clearly, Ricardo thought this composition through before tripping the shutter. He successfully blended the chair, shadow, and floor lines into a composition that is substantially less static than it could have been. In fact, on first viewing, I found my eye searching around the picture for something to hang onto. The strength, to my eye, is the graphic of the sideways curve in the middle, which separates the image into (rough) thirds. [it runs the open area upper-middle left, through the shadow of the chair bottom, and out the open area lower middle right.] Ok, that's just something I see here that I like, anyway.

 

This image fits into a certain style of shot, but I don't find it to be a copy of the Guarionex, any more than, say, a wildlife picture is automatically a copy of another wildlife picture. Those who are not enamored of the subject will lump them together and that's fine, of course.

 

From the perspective of the saturated color images that dominate today, Ricardo's project of "color black & whites" takes on a special significance. Don't get me wrong - I love saturated films - but the subtle coloring makes for a different feel to this image.

 

Should we be moved by Ricardo's justifiable pride at winning a contest with this shot? Well, no. Any opinion counts for what it is. And mine, you ask? (I know, you didn't.) I like the picture more on a few days viewing than I did at first. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but it is an interesting study, and I think that's what the photographer was after. Would I hang it on my wall? Who cares.

 

Enjoy.

Congratulations on POW, Ricardo! I like this photo. Although it doesn't hold my interest for a real long time, as many have noticed the different lines, shadows and 'invertability' are definitively interesting.

 

Whether originality is important depends on the standards the photographer sets for himself in relation to those of the audience. Be it an interesting picture for his own personal photobook or an entry in a few art contests. The latter being the case, perhaps that would raise the bar a bit and make the charge of unoriginality more legit. However, since PN is not solely about great Art (though a bit more of it wouldn't hurt) this should stand as a fine image by a thoughtful and competent photographer. More chairs can be found here too: Brian Mottershead has a great version here.

 

What I just keep wondering about is what the coloured original looks like. Any chance that you could share that with us, Ricardo?

Tony Dummett and Michael Bender hit the nail on the head. This image is a study, one step in a photographer's (or a theme's) evolution. An evolution not towards the perfect image (if such a thing exists) but towards a new way of examining the known.

 

I like the image and enjoy returning to it to re-discover its content.

 

I was so taken by this picture. I find it so interesting and easy to stare at because of its lines and the great use of all 12 shades of gray. The lines help to draw my sight around and around the picture over and over again. I was fairly surprised that Thacker attatcked its origionality. When I first started out as a photographer I was told by many to copy the work of those that I most admired, that that was how to learn to see the truely great things and capture them. I really like this picture. Good work!

Jeroen:

 

Thanks for your comments. This is a color image. It is a color slide shot on Kodachrome 64 slide film, scanned directly, and posted. I was working on a series at the time called 'Color Black & Whites', which for all intents and purposes was to confuse the issue of seperating photography into color or black and white art forms. After all, aren't black and white just two forms of color?

Interestingly some people here advocate originality in photography implying a different set of building blocks being used to create an artwork. Or in simple terms, a unique visual experience that they may not have come across before.

However, a photograph is not just visual- the building blocks are ALWAYS the same- lines, shadows, colour, light, etc leading to composition that arouses emotions and feelings within the viewer, thus conveying the message the artist had longed to get across.

 

Take a look at Cubism pieces by Pablo Picasso- if I were to use layman's definitions, I would very easily suggest Picasso created one piece of art, and copied it over and over again, perhaps with different subjects and arrangements. But those works have always been regarded as masterpieces by masters themselves, for they convey unique messages, using the same basic blocks and even the same styles. Ansel Adams shot similar photographs of Aspens in New Mexico (http://www.anseladams.com/taag/showdetl.cfm?&DID=8&Product_ID=474&CATID=24 & http://www.anseladams.com/taag/showdetl.cfm?&DID=8&Product_ID=1029&CATID=24). They're the same, yet original and masterpieces in themselves! Michael Fatali, Jack Dykinga, Tom Till, and we can count numerous artists who shoot canyons in Arizona, lakes in Montana, mountains in Yosemite and fall colours all over the US very similarly. Are they not original?

 

In brief, originality is not just limited to visual and/or aesthetic appeal or the arrangement of subjects/blocks within the artwork. It is also determined by the feelings, the story conveyed and the impressions left on the viewer by the artist.

 

Thanks.

I like this photo. I have never seen anything like it. To me it is "very original"....I have never even heard of Grobino, Gravideaux, whatever the dude's name was. Don't even care really.

 

You folks who, week after week, find the same old boring derivitive photos....my only conclusion is that you have been on the planet too long. As a very recent newcomer to photography, lots and lots of what I see here is "original" to my eyes, and I hope people don't quit posting their work here because of you guys. Why don't you guys find a new hobby that gives you some new sense of originality? adventure? whatever it is that you are craving. Or maybe dogging everyone with your photographic memory of every freaking chair photo ever taken is what gets you going? Sad, that.

Thanks for the clarification, Ricardo. Amazing, I didn't know slide film could look like that. Then I'll just side with Michael Walter: well seen and made use of! Since you mention this is part of a series I must also confess to be curious about the other photos. And to all squeamish people above: comments questioning originality or comparing this with (a now disappeared -where did it go?) Guarionex should perhaps be seen as the next step of critique after all kinds of technicalities. If somebody posted it on one of my photos, I'd definitely feel complimented!

[Moderator's note: the Guarionex picture, a black and white photograph of several chairs, was removed because of a possible copyright issue. Arguably, the posting was a fair use of the image, but given the mission of the site, it seems important to bend over backwards to respect photographer's copyrights.]

Abstract still life combo is well done. The composition is good. I can see why you might have won a couple of awards with this. If this is what you like to shoot, then keep doing it.

I like its simlicity and effectiveness. No doubt, it is agreat photo.

 

I'm learning alot from it.

I have no problem with an individual or corporation using my image/s once they have ASKED permission.In the past many visitors to my site (www.myfotosite.com) have requested and received permission to use some of my images. Had I been asked perhaps I would have granted permission in this case.

A second issue it that Chairs Ala Moma was given the new title of Twelve Chairs. Im sorry, but this rubbed me the wrong way. I do not want to even begin to express my feeling on this one.

Yes, as the moderator said, the posting was a fair use of the image, and I think photo.net serves a very good purpose within the world of photography. Yet I do believe it is up to the artist, not the borrower, to determine what is fair use. I do not feel that asking an artist for the use of his/her work is to bend over backwards to respect photographer's copyrights.

P.S. I like Ricardos Photo.

Moderator's note: Even though this message could be considered off-topic, we feel that it is important to give Guarionex the opportunity to express his view, especially in light of the numerous references to the image in question. We would be honored to have him visit us again at photo.net under better circumstances. Meanwhile, we hope that there won't be any further discussion of copyright issues in this thread. If anyone feels compelled to discuss such issues further, please start a thread in the unmoderated forum.

Thanks for the comment from Mr. Guarionex. But if I was going to make a print of a photo off the internet, it would be Ricardo's chairs (if permission were granted from him. Ricardo's photo is much more compositionally interesting, and more pleasing to look at.

An interesting picture. At first glance it is stark. But then when I look at it, it is quite complicated (rather like its caption ;-).

 

It is actually not very pretty ... as far as the patterns go. Which isn't necessarily bad.

 

It is static and self-conscious and geometrical (good things, in my world) -- but then it is also a real mess of lines, and looks sort of haphazardly made, which I am sure it isn't.

 

I do like it, 'though.

Real nice! Am I wrong if I recall to have seen -months ago- a color version of this picture? Orange-like, if I remember well. Or am I confusing this with another photo? Anyway, I'd be interested to compare this one with the color (other than B&W) version. WJ

This picture draws me in. It's as if there were two chairs, one above and one below a cracked glass surface. A marvelous mystery.

Hello Wim:

 

No this image had never been posted before in any other form. It is a color slide of pure black and white subject matter. Thanks for your interest.

It is certainly well taken... and reasonably well composed, but to a certain extend only... I can't refrain myself from the thought, that it would be stronger if the chair was separated from its shadow - meaning that the camera angle could be a tad lower...

That would unfortunately result in seeing less of the top part of the chair... So we would need to rotate the chair to the left slightly... With this rotation and a lower camera angle, with the chair separated from its shadow, in my opinion, we would have a perfect composition. Not as it is though...

Unfortunately, a picture like this one isn't greatly original, so it should really be perfect as a compensation.

The light is nice, the network of lines makes it a good shot... Then comes the question " So, what have I learned looking at this image ? " Nothing much in fact. I would expect a great fine art or art picture to tell me something new about something. As Paul Klee said, art should make new things visible... This hasn't achieved that in my opinion. It is nice, but cold - it doesn't concern me, it doesn't tell me a story. And not absolutely perfect to me... So, good, not fantastic in my opinion. Originality: 6. Aesthetics: 8.

Shadows, lines and energy are right there. Wouldn't change a thing. This one grows on you.