Cezanne

Thanks for such a nice and complimentary comment. I greatly appreciate it.

You have solicited thoughts on distortion and imperfection and I could not resist a reply. The only places in photography where I think you would not want these elements would be documentation and scientific inquiry. Even the act of recording reality onto a piece of film or a sensor is a form of distortion. Any attempt to interpret reality is going to alter that same reality. In other visual arts and painting in particular distortion is often what defines style -- cubism, impressionists etc. There does seem to be a distinct prejudice in the arts regarding photography and the interpretation of reality that does not exist for painters. Perhaps it is the fact that a camera can simply reproduce that leaves some with the idea that it should only reproduce a likeness of what is in front of the lens. In your image here you could correct perspective but it is your deliberate use of the distortion of perspective that give this image its kick. The same goes for imperfection regarding the noise levels. In this shot they soften and enhance the effect you are going for. The fact that neither the skewed perspective or the noise were present in the reality of your window does not rob them of their validity, in fact it does the opposite and is a testament to your personal vision of the scene. That to me is part of what defines art as art. What IF is often much more interesting than what IS.

Extremely well said. In fact, I think it encapsulates some criticisms I have with photography and photographic critiques. Often, there's such a press to be merely accurate and representational instead of being creative and impressionistic, as is true with painting. I think that's why I often return to painting as a source of inspiration more than photography. The rules don't seem as rigidly applied. Perhaps it's because photographers are often technophiles who exist in a world of gadgets and toys. Not to be incendiary by any means, but I recently attended a photography work-shop and was struck by how the nature of the event seemed more akin to a Star Trek convention than a gathering of artists.

 

 

If your comment were just a bit shorter, I'd make a bumper sticker out of it.

... brevity was never my strong suit :)

Jeff, you?re right about drawing lines between accidental and intentional being hard. Likely, the level most photographers are at, myself included, experiment with lenses, lighting and other sorts of things and many good shots start off with intentional composition, lighting, etc and the camera captures something accidentally that elevates the image. Or, you may be working in post processing and come across something accidentally. You're right, how is the viewer supposed to know.

 

With good images, I don?t think a line needs to be drawn between the two, a good image is a good image. I don?t think intentional images that are great look any better than accidental images that look great and like you said, unless you?ve seen previous work you may not be able to tell and even if you have, you still may be unable to tell.

 

I?ll let you know if your images are shallow but I doubt I?ll have to do that, you put to much thought into what you present. Contrived, I don?t have a problem with; once the image is called up in post-processing software, it begins being contrived.

 

As for using distortion and imperfection for the sake of it as being shallow and weak, that is hard to articulate what I mean by it but I don't mean accidental opposed to intentional. Maybe what I mean is that just because a person captures imperfection or uses distortion, doesn?t mean that in and of itself is going to create a great image; there are other considerations and elements that make the image strong. That applies to most images, though, from pictures of hobos and destruction to sunrises and sunsets.

 

Kirk

 

Shallow has never entered my mind when looking at your shots. I have always noticed that you tend towards emotion and depth. Congratulations on a beautiful image. J

One thing I've learned by attending large exhibitions by famous artists and photographers is that they, too, learned by trial and error. I used to think otherwise. I thought geniuses know exactly what they are doing and that their great works just spring into being. Not so. The great masterpieces so inspire in one way, but greater still, their mistakes encourage and inspire to actually try new things and to create. I'm always intimidated by the end product.

 

 

Somewhere on my hard-drive, I have a photo of mass destruction incorporating a hobo and a gorgeous sunrise in the distance. I can't wait for you to see it. Just keep your finger hovering over the "7" key.

Thanks for the vote of confidence and the nice words. I feel the same about your work.

 

 

Perhaps you missed my zebra with 3/3 tattooed on his derriere?

Exquisite!!! and unusual "flower" :)

Elegant and exquisite, bravo, 7/7. Compliments and regards, Maury

I really like this composition, and the light is also very good. Nice capture!

Halloween on the vine in a vase of perception on the edge of a sill; a window of light. You set the bar so high -- a reclusive Tahitian with big eye lashes, Cezanne ;)

...is Rubens next?

I've looked at this image several times and have held off commenting (too long I'm afraid since it seems that everything that could possibly be said has been said) because I have mixed feelings about this picture. I find the bottom with its forced perspective and delicate balance very appealing but I find the top half of the picture less so. Part of it is the overwhelming impression of red that not only dominates the picture but spills over reflecting on the window frame behind. I understand very well your homage to Cezanne and I think the bottom half catches that spirit but the strong colors of the top portion seem to belong to another picture entirely. These are my impressions, nothing more, and I realize I'm certainly in the minority here. Regards, Jack

Adela: This just hints at the warm tones typical of your pieces. I wanted to get a little bit of that autumn spirit. Hope you are well.

 

 

Maurizio: Thanks for the compliment. Appreciated!!

 

 

Inger: Always glad to see you stopping by. I can't wait for your next work of art.

 

 

John: Rubens.... Now there's a thought. I think the logistics of pursuing that particular artistic vision might be beyond me. I'll likely have more success sticking with still lifes than nudes. But, you've suddenly set a very different bar..... Hmmm.....

 

 

Jack: You don't like red? What d'ya mean you don't like red? I always value your opinon. The fact that you're not keen on something makes me take notice. There are a couple of Cezanne's still lifes that incorporate this turquoise blue/orange-red combination, which I love. That, in addition to the perspective shift, inspired the title. How would you have approached this?

Excellent composition, light and colors!

Excellently done!!! BRAVO!!!

I'm mixing up Cezanne with Gauguin.

Still Life --hmmmmm, the Peale family is interesting and you have Raphaelle, Rubens, Rembrandt, and Titian to choose from.

Lovely composition with a delight of colors and light. The atmopshere is unique. Excellent image, Jeff. Congrats!

Fantastic Still shot Jeff; the colors and lights just exquisite and compliment the overall. excellent work my friend!

The use of a wide angle lens for a close-up photo is an original choice. It can be useful to make a surrealist photography. Your start in this experience is very good. Best regards. Glauco

Magnifica composicion,con una luz sensacional y una combinacion de colores estupenda.Felicidades.

 

Un cordial saludo -Tolo.

Perfectly lovely. You make the complex look simple.

What can I say that has not already been said. Love the image and in particular the cloth behind which Cesannes my attention.

 

By the way I am adopted if you ever wanted to chat off line.

This is simply outstanding!!!!!!!

 

My best regards my friend,

 

Rakesh