Untitled

I think you are right Arthur that the POW invites to multiple layers of seeing, interpreting, analyzing what is in front of our eyes. As such it could be used as a very good eye-opener in an arts-lecture. However, I'm not sure that whatever we discover in this photo, is not what we can discover in any other media or art forms than photography, such as paintings and sculptures, but also film and theatre.

The main way into such "seeing", or let me just use the term "interpretation" is to go beyond what you at the very first glance see in front of your eyes. Good art, has always several layers, giving other visual messages than those directly shown: in this case two women, a post, a street, rain, an umbrella, bags, tissues, a signpost, a photo of the street from 1923 etc etc. Good art is never, ever the apparent, only.

Personally, I believe that much comes depends on composition. A way of analyzing a photo like this POW is very mechanically to draw the main lines and shapes in the scene. I will not show it, but it s quit obvious in this case: heavy lines of the street corners, the white line to the right, the pole to the left, the two bags shown on the extreme sides of the women - all constructing the theatrical scene of the two ladies. Our attention is immediately drawn toward the women. We can add the compositional element of the perspective down the street and we have another point of attention. These elements in the photo creates not only attention points, but also balance of the POW. (no rule book tells us to do this and you can surely play with lac of balance in a photo and you create "tension", which the rule book does not tell you to do either). For example a strong tension is created in the POW by the turning of the head of the woman to the left.

This being said, I believe a compositional analysis of the photo can furthermore investigate what happens if some of these elements of the composition was eliminated (take the white line to the right out, or the dark street corners) and see what happens with the composition. In this case, something dramatic in my eyes: The umbrella starts taking force in the composition and moves our eyes towards the left in the frame : towards the woman with the satin shirt, that becomes the main element.

In my eyes, such a simple vision of what happens in the photo tells us that the POW is not just another shot among thousands, but has the potentiality of being a very good photo. It attracts the eye. It invites to have a second look. It forces the viewer into other layers of the scene than the most obvious heavily supported by other elements of the photo: the rain; the soft contrasts, the sepia, the satin, These other layers, might be story tellings, or moods of the photographer or viewer, or associated referential : protection and safety (from the rain); economic crisis (empty "market street"); non communication (of the two women); silence; music of the sound of rain....

If a photo draws me in, I may feel invited to analyze the composition to see why. But if composition is the dominant force, when I can clearly see content, it may well leave me as cold as this photo does.

For me, this is not a matter of seeing a photo through paradigms as much as just looking at what's in front of me. Before me are two people on a rainy street. If I ignore that, as far as I'm concerned, I'm not looking at the photo.

Some photos are abstract: we either can't tell what was originally shot or don't much care what was originally shot. On the other hand, most photos -- even a failed narrative one such as this -- act on an abstract level and have abstractions (and composition) at work.

The content here seems so present to me that I can't imagine relating to such a photo as either a "pure" (nothing is purely pure!) abstract or one where I am invited to ignore the content. Others seem to be getting other things out of it, which is fine with me. I don't think this has anything to do with paradigms.

A photographer may certainly use subject matter to express many things with light, composition, texture, focus, etc. And so the subject matter itself may become almost irrelevant in some cases. But many photos invite some literal observance in order to take a viewer deeper. If I don't see "rain" here, quite literally, I don't know how I access the atmospherics. It loses something if I refer to it as varieties of light, shape, design, etc. Seeing it as "rain" gives it an emotional texture that's important to me. So does seeing these as people responding to that rain. That's because that's what's going on. It may not be important, and in this case is not, who these people are and where precisely they're going, but something human is happening here, and it can't be reduced to composition or accessed simply by a compositional analysis . . . for me. That said, a compositional study of it can draw out more, is very worthwhile, and can help me appreciate how it is or isn't working.

I fully agree, Fred, on this, surely.

Compositional analysis is worthwhile because it, sometimes, like here in my eyes, can help appreciate how the photo is working, or not.

I draw the conclusion that it is clearly working.

If I understand you right, in your eyes, it is not.

Fair enough !

One of the paradigms I see in photography appreciation is that of the need of a quickly recognizable human statement, such as that in the photo posted earlier of a man crossing a rainy streat with a somewhat distorted umbrella. Ah, we are incited to think, something significant is going on here. Many viewers respond (and in my paradigm example "respond" can be replaced by "need") to that everyday human event immediately. Forgotten or ignored is the jumble of elements behind the main subject, which, to my mind at least add little to the image and in fact make it confusing of statement. It is simple in intent (not that simplicity is a bad thing, just that it requires more care in presentation to convince) and doesn't lead to further analysis (I admit that many of my own photos are similar in that sense, if intended otherwise).

The current photograph is an opposite of that form of example. The whole photograph and the multiple input of its various elements and layers hold together in a somewhat remarkable way, maybe by chance, maybe by intent. Anders mentioins the woman with her head inclined slightly to the left, which I also recognize as a positive part of the image, and for me counterbalances the position of the other woman and the angle of her umbrella. Undiscussed and perhaps underappreciated are the dark curved fronts of the opposite buildings, only hinting at their faces (like the faces we see not in the two characters), separated by a footbridge (symbolic?) and perhaps more importantly, the vertical line of light of the distant tall buildings and sky that mark the upper centre of the image. The foreground characters are in very good compositional balance (balance of forms, of tonalities, light-dark, etc.) and the curiosity surrounding what they mean adds to the enigma of the photograph. There are several other ways in which different parts of the photograph speak to each other, but which have been mentioned or which would just lengthen this evaluation.

If I want to see fine photojournalism, readily identifiable human actions, or a more revealing human side as presented in much portraiture, I may not be interested in this image. If the tensions and the harmionies of picture elements are what please me, with an enigma or fantasy of human subjects (and whether or not that enigma can be solved), with the beauty of a black and white image extremely well realised, I might gravitate to this type of photograph. It may not be perfect and may not fit any of the well established image paradigms, but it is where I like to see photography evolving and am glad that it was presented here to help us with that recurring question of what is important to each of us in works of photography and art.

Arthur, your recurring talk of need may be telescoping something, possibly more about your viewing approach than others. It's as if you are assuming viewers need something (and perhaps you do, which seems a fine personal approach) and those viewers are projecting their own needs onto the photo. I don't know how it would differ from suggesting that viewing to a great extent boils down to a matter of prejudice. I think viewers are constantly embedded in their prejudices/tastes but some viewers also recognize those and are constantly allowing their horizons to be broadened, even given their prejudices. For me, the photo itself is suggesting something which goes unfulfilled or is not executed well. Now, if you want to say my "need" is better execution, I have no problem with that. But your imposing other specific needs on me, narrative or otherwise, doesn't feel right.

Your assumption, Arthur, that those of us who don't think this photo works have "forgotten" or "ignored" something, is off. I think many of us are capable of seeing the whole and the parts and seeing all that you are seeing and still not liking it or still thinking something is failing to come together. It is not a case of the other guy missing all there is to see. That we don't talk about everything we notice should not be taken to indicate that we don't notice it.

I would agree with this statement if it is meant broad enough to include statements which have no human elements in the frame, where the "human" in question is the artist/photographer and his intentions. For me all conscious artistic work do "human statements", even in automatic painting or speedy snapshots.

I clearly do not agree on this and Fred dismisses it himself by referring to those of us (all serious viewers) that are prepare to see something new, unexpected and something disturbing in any work of art (photo). The only pre-justice I would accept the existence of, is that of believing that some of us have closed eyes and minds when "looking at photos.

I agree, obviously. Seems to be to be a banal statement. None of us have the time or space for writing all that happens when looking at a photo and that passes our mind. However, writing is a question of selection of more or less important elements that we choose to communicate. We surely differ in that choice as the discussion above have shown, at least.

This is why it's best to read and absorb the entire idea of a statement or post rather than responding to isolated quotes. You isolate a few of my words as if I had somehow emphasized only that portion of the idea, and then recognize that the isolated quote does not convey the meaning I intended, which is clear from your going on to say what I did mean, which is included in my words that immediately follow the quote you isolated. One has to ask why you quoted only the portion you did to begin with, since you knew it didn't do my ideas justice. Clearly I was responding to Arthur (that's why I started my post by addressing Arthur, who said some of us are responding to needs). I was challenging that and I don't doubt you knew that. Why you quoted only the first part of what I said about prejudice, as if I were somehow emphasizing that, is beyond me.

.

Banal, perhaps. But it seemed necessary because Arthur said in several different ways that he thought people were ignoring or forgetting things and he tied that to their not having discussed them. I was reminding him that he seemed not to be taking into account what you, Anders, thinks is banal, that just because we don't address something doesn't mean we've forgotten or ignored it.

Actually, now that I re-read, Anders, you've given a very false impression of what I said. What I said was this, and it was in response to Arthur:

By quoting me, you make it seem like I was saying that viewing is a matter of prejudice, and then going on to either contradict myself (or dismiss my own thought) by going deeper into it. That's what happens when you isolate words out of their original context.

Fred, let's not start a ping pong that is of interest for nobody.
Just two hints for clarifying what I wanted, and clearly failed, to communicate.
I quoted you concerning "prejustice" and wrote immediately that the quote was dismissed by yourself, doing full justice to your point of view, so what is the problem ?? You choose to oversee that my main message was : "The only pre-justice I would accept the existence of, is that of believing that some of us have closed eyes and minds when "looking at photos." if you permit that I quote myself.
When it comes to "ignoring and forgetting things" in discussions like these, you again choose to overlook my main message, quoting myself again, which will not be a habit, I promise you: "However, writing is a question of selection of more or less important elements that we choose to communicate. We surely differ in that choice as the discussion above have shown, at least."

Fred,

I don’t know how you confuse "need" and "prejudice", the latter being a term you have introduced to my text. The need referred not to the POW but clearly to the example (of the man in the rain) given much earlier. Why you question the word need is strange, we all have needs although those can differ. Secondly, your statement « Your assumption, Arthur, that those of us who don't think this photo works have "forgotten" or "ignored" something, is off. » refers to the POW when in fact I was referring instead to the earlier example, where I was suggesting that those who found the photograph of the man in the rain impressive were perhaps ignoring or forgetting the cacophonic jungle of shapes and elements behind him.

Why it is always so necessary for you to challenge every critique and virtually every word others use is something I have real trouble understanding. When you make a critique I read it with pleasure, attempt to understand it and take away from it what I think is valuable for me. I have little interest in analysing every word or thought you have or contesting specific words you use, and am happy simply to say, OK, Fred feels that way, great. It may or may not make me agree with what he said, but that I can live with.

« I don't know how it would differ (what ARTHUR was saying) from suggesting that viewing to a great extent boils down to a matter of prejudice. »

Again Fred’s word prejudice appears and misinterprets my argument, as if it isn’t enough to deal with what I was actually saying, rather than introducing another word/thought.

One step forward, ....two steps back. I think it is often more constructive to build one’s further ideas on the basis of what we can assimilate of another’s whole argument, rather than continuously confronting each word or phrase another uses. Having different ideas from another is not really a bad thing and individual words and expressions don’t need to be challenged at every corner of the road, or interpret them as being other words ("prejudice") or expressions. I gather I am not alone in reacting to this. Giving the chance to another to express quite different ideas from one’s own is perhaps one basis for a solid discussion. At least it can encourage the possibility of moving forward to some mutual understanding of the question.

Strongly held views in critiquing photographs are what I guess to be a part of the aims of the POW forum. Sometimes the defence of one's ideas or position takes on the spirit of a word duel, but this should be considered I think as something positive (including a desire for clarity) and not related to any intentions of disrespect amongst the participants, including Fred, Anders, and myself.

It is a measure of the power of a photograph or a painting that it can be interpreted in many ways. Understanding the differences of interpretation is also of interest for many of us.

nice tonal range. Why change parts of the image? It's Sebastien's art. From concept to final print. Let yourself into the image, see it and feel it.

This is a magic moment with rain and sun rays. It is no chance for rainbow in the city. We have people instead. Under the small roof they tend to integrate. Here this situation is not spotted. The women has nice shoulders, a big nose and fresh hair. The other is better equipped and probably provides better. I can not image painting about rain which is  better than this photo.

There are elements that are appealing in this image and I will start with them.

The rain excellent. I do not believe I have seem an image in recent memory where the rain has been so elegantly rendered. It is as sharp as falling rain can be and poignant when it impinges on street, creating starlets and haloes.

The tones are also well rendered, exhibiting a subtle artistic sensibility.

One marvels at the parts of this image the more one looks at it. The figures are pleasing in their tones as are the buildings in the background, veiled by translucent panes of falling rain.

This said, however, the image is not a success. The parts must come together in a street photograph to form a single effect. This, unfortunately, does not happen here. The two figures, one with umbrella and one without, do not work together. The person sans umbrella is not wet, as she is obviously standing under a cover. There is no drama. There is no irony. There is no epiphany. What insight into life do we have here? What makes us care about these two people? Unfortunately the answers are none and nothing.

Part of the problem is that the faces of the people are not shown. In a case like this the artist has the onerous task of making the body language work in place of facial expressions. Body language in this image is essentially static. The figures don't complement or counterpoint each other.

Though the image fails on the macro scale it is interesting--even charming--on the micro scale. One remembers the rain and all it does to enliven everything except those two crucial figures.

The overall solid structure of the image suggest an artist with a clear sense of form. Perhaps in other images he has achieved or will achieve bringing human drama to life, as he unfortunately has not in this image under discussion.

Spray of the rain really adds to the mood and a texture of the image. I think that the foreground woman is reduced to the random element together with the add and the pole. They are all framed very tight and ordered. The woman with the umbrella is a better looking element here, in my opinion.
(I'm not following the conversation here.)

I love the exposure in this one. And the light is magnificent, something I wish I could achieve one day.. it really reminds me one of Trent Parke's pictures:

http://www.in-public.com/store/image/file/1497/01.jpg?1154345347

only I prefer yours over Parke's.

7\7! love the atmosphear and magic you created in this shot

This shot is spectacular.  Starring at the image brings me some sort of serenity...very beautiful.  Thank you!

-Alexis