ReMake

With all due respect, you are here telling Lasse something he certainly knows as well as you do.

"The above image destroys the symbolism and becomes merely decorative, i.e. wallpaper."

Lasse IS NOT DISTROYING anything. He's TRANSFORMING something into something else. Using one symbolism as a base to SYMBOLIZE SOMETHING ELSE. Till you find out what else and whether you like it or not, I do not see how you can judge this image.

Please, a little more respect for somebody's effort to communicate something to you. Just try to hear it. Lasse surely didn't mean to give to his image the same exact meaning as Da Vinci. He's not dumb enough to do that. He knows what Da Vinci did, thought about it and had something to say about it. Let's just see whether what he had to say was interesting or not, and whether he said it well or not - visually, and conceptually. That's how to go about this category of work. I see no reason to trash a picture before even understanding the photographer's intent. Let's be a bit more constructive than that, and try to UNDERSTAND FIRST, then only critique (and rate with the little black digits in the little boxes...) Not the other way around. Cheers.

There's been plenty of debate and discussion (much of it very useful) on Photo.net about appropriating other people's art, regardless of media. DaVinci needs to be more than a reference for this image -- DaVinci's work in fact provides all the "meaning" to this image, as nearly everyone recognizes its origin, even with the superimposed woman who is posed exactly as the original.

 

A clever use of PS, yes, and well executed. But it seems to be getting a free ride on the back of a famous work of art. Can DaVinci be considered public domain?

I think Tony has it right this time, though he's a bit of a Pharissee about it. It's kitsch, it doesn't say much at all, even if it's well-executed.

 

Where I part company with Tony is in rejecting it for not being meaningful. This isn't photojournalism.net or sociallyresponsiblephotos.net. It's photo.net. Emotionally shallow commercial photography has its place here. Fashion shoots have a place here, and sterile, hypersaturated studio stock-photo pieces have a place here. So, I'd think, would the pre-digital avant-garde photography of the first half of the 20th century: the darkroom stunts with overlaid negatives and razor-blade cuts, the abstractions and psychedelic pieces made with starburst and bug-eye lenses.

 

An image like this may not be a call to social action and may not be a historical document, but it can still be an exemplary photo.

 

But in this case, and to my eye, it's clever and shows real talent, but it's not 100% there. The central section of the image seems too bright and undifferentiated. The leafy and fabric-y elements that wend their way through the composition feel more arbitrary than they should be. As a stock image, it could use more background on the top so that art directors have more cropping options available to them. The gear looks too rendered and flat, like something created quickly in Illustrator and painted with a "corroded metal" pattern, rather than looking corroded. The navel and the head seem to be defined extremely sharply, while the rest of the body isn't defined sharply enough.

 

It's a decent postcard or dorm-room poster, and a damned fine framed image for the reception area of a law office specializing in workers'-rights cases.

 

It's good, certainly, and Lasse deserves the attention, but even leaving the silly digital/antidigital nonsense aside, I don't think the massive layering here left enough pure photo behind to critique as such. All I can say for sure is that the model's face and calves were adequately lit and kept in focus. Other than that, the photographic elements are overwhelmed by the artifice. Unlike some other recent collage POWs, particularly the frog-on-the-window one, I don't know if there's enough here to discuss, good or bad.. and that to me is the value in a POW: the discussion of what worked and what didn't and why.

"Masterpieces are better left alone", said Morven. Why so ? Because they are masterpieces ? Is it a profonation to rethink based on what not Leonardo by the way, but an architect by the name of Vitruvius, first created ? This Vitruvius and Leonardo after him did not mean that this drawing would be anything else than a symbol, and symbols belong to Humanity as a whole, not to a few people.

This being said, what does this drawing symbolize actually ? It was firstly an effort to rationalize things by an architect who was looking for clear rules as for how to build his constructions in an harmonious way. Leonardo then used it in a slightly different way, intending to symbolize firstly that art and nature were both obeying to the rules of reason. Then, it was used (mostly later) to demonstrate that there would have been a God to put reason in all things, and it become a symbol of harmony of the forms.

But originally, what comes with these drawings, and that's imo a key element to understand this POW, is a kind of really complicated calculation involving all sorts of measurement of human body parts, which basically makes Man a mathematical entity more than anything else.

This symbol isn't a cute drawing at the origine, and it doesn't just mean harmony, but HARMONY WITHIN A MATHEMATICAL WORLD, where reason reigns, as reason was placed in all things.

A few centuries after this, and many more centuries after the invention of the wheel, comes industrial revolution. From the mecanical age to Galileo and Copernicus, we end up in the 19th century with technological applications of the rationalizations by mecanists over the centuries. This Mecanical circle here is basically showing the arrival point of the History of Human Kind from mathematics to mecanism to technology.

I take it as a great humoristic statement when I see man ending up framed in a piece of technology that used to be the glorification of Human harmony in form and a glorification of reason above all.

Another pretty noticeable difference between Lasse's "Wheel of misfortune" (pardon the pun !) and Leonardo's original, is then that we aren't looking at Man anymore, but at a woman. Question: why did Lasse change Leonardo's Man into a women ? I smiled when I saw this change, but it took me a while to come to the conclusion that there were 2 possible interpretations here: I'm hoping here that the second is the correct one, but both are anyway seriously ironical anyway...

1st possibility - and that's if we assume that the 2 legs at the back are not this women's legs but a man's legs -, there could be here an evocation of a sexual act. I zoomed in in PS to find out whether these were a man's legs or not, and I couldn't tell for sure due to the pixelization that occured of course at 500%. What I can tell is that the legs COULD be a man's legs, as they are quite muscular - but then, so are this woman's legs as well... ? ...?

2nd possibility - equally sarcastic - is that this woman is actually doing some aerobic here...:-) Which would be quite a subsidiary statement as for what human beings have managed to do as well with the harmony of their bodies.

Maybe a third possibility would be an opposition between feminine grace and a hard material world where mathematics and technology have sacrified grace on their path dedicated to progress.

Finally, why is the wheel moving up within the frame ? Here is my interpretation... A square is a perfectly logical and symetrical form that well represent the harmony within the principles of reason that Leonardo was pointing to. A square also perfectly contains a circle, and as such again seems to represent logic and order. The wheel touching the top of this square but not its bottom is therefore, quite obviously I think, a way to say that something isn't going to well in the world logical order. Destabilized is the word that comes to my mind... That's the photographer's opinion about the world's fate as it is portrayed here - see above.

Is this an objective or a subjective interpretation ? (I can hear the people telling me I'm a navel-gazer again :-) It is at the moment MY subjective interpretation, but I believe it is somehow a POSSIBLE, as in LOGICAL interpretation of what's in the frame. It might not be LASSE'S interpretation, and I'm actually VERY curious to know about that at the end of this week... but it is a message as it was RECEIVED by someone who tried to understand. At this point, that's all it is. If Lasse meant something similar to what I wrote here, then his communication can be considered as WORKING. Meaning that no noise came between him creating this piece and myself looking at it. If Lasse meant something entirely different, then there would have been what I would call " a communication failure". Everyone would have his own view about what that exactly means, but to me, communication failure doesn't even mean that the picture was useless is some people were able to make sense of it. No matter what, this is how one person could make sense of this image, and if he enjoyed it, what's so wrong with that ? Best regards.

To research is to make use of known things toproduce something new... This applies to musicand to science, to literature and to... photography... ! So why being upset if somebody makes use of a well known icon to produce something new?? Do I have to recall that this iswhat is happening since the very beginning...?The relevant question is all simply if the new product is relevant or not. Personally I findother images produced by Lasse Hoile even morestimulating than the present one. On the other hand it is SO obvious that this image tries to suggest us something, so obvious that there is some idea about "life in modern times" the image tries to suggest... I do not think it necessary to give details. As in many examples of surrealistic images, each of us can read something different. One can also decide that a specific image tells him little. On the other hand the effort to tell something is here so obvious that to reduce this pic to an example of a "naked full-frontal female form (always guaranteed to garner a gushing audience of pimply-faced youths)" is really arbitrary.

Mod. edit

All this bit about leaving the classics alone... Ever heard of a musical piece called "Rhapsody on a theme by Paganinni"? (might have spelled that wrong...) ... by Rachmananov? (might have spelled that wrong too... damn!) Referencing earlier pieces of work is a strong tradition in the arts.

 

The photoshop work is nice. The reference combined with changing to a female form and using the gear give the viewer a few things to think about. Certainly illustrative. I don't think Photo of the Week is supposed to be showing modern day classics... If we were producing stuff of that calibre I hardly think we'd bother posting it here...

 

A beautiful image. Congratz on POW. The moment I saw it I knew that we were in for a lively discussion and I think its important to talk about how photography is changing.

This is every bit as 'photographic' as any B&W 'master print' that has been dodged, burned, toned and spotted to perfection.

Photography has always been a constantly changing technology and it will continue to evolve and change.

Its good to see photographers who are out on the edge exploring what the new tools are capable of. Its every bit as important as photographers who make albumen prints or use vintage equpiment to produce glass negatives.

...Photo Disussion of the Week is what we should call the selects that grace our monitors.

Why should the POW pick always be seen as something to live up to? That's kind of silly considering that photography, art and photographicly attained art is at the very least, subjective.

I have to agree with Marc on the comment of destroying Di Vinci's work. Ummm, arent we allowed to be inspired by our mentors and masters? If this is Lasse's way of expressing his admiration for the legendary figure, then let it ride.

As for the image itself, I think it would be a great album cover if it were the musician in the cog. The darker area in the upper left bothers me a bit as do some of the undefined layers behind the two human forms. You have a style with this that is emerging and will continue to do so if you look for deeper meaning in your art. The monochrome feel is what draws me in to this image. The image seems complex as if there would be a deep and powerful meaning to it, but that's were it ends.

"Remake" in my opinion is work in progress.

Congratulations on image of the week...:-)

It matters BIG time how an image was created and what information as to it's origin is given to the viewer.db

[ moderator edit ]

This image, made with acknowldegement to that famous Italian, is no different than one made with acknowledgements to H.C Bresson, or any other master, whether it's an obviously similar result, as this is, or merely the same style. In that respect, it's an emulation. Has Lasse imprinted his own style on it? He certainly has, and in so doing, has created a piece of work superior to the rest of us who try to shoot like Weston, or Adams, or Cariter-Bresson. It's just easier for us to knock it out of the category of photography than to admit he's more creative than us.

As a very unsophisticated user of Photoshop, I must say this seems skillfully done. Given the artist's goals--which seem to be postmodern revisioning (see Harold Bloom) of Leonardo--this is a fairly well-constructed piece of digital art that does have some fleeting intellectual interest.Lasse, you seem like a decent fellow and what follows is not directed towards you or your art.

[ mod. edit ]

One last note after that rant of nearly unintelligible rabble: the arguments about the sacred canon of Leonardo show a certain naivete, a certain elemental blindess (see Paul DeMan, BLINDNESS AND INSIGHT)to the history and evolution of art and ideas. All art is derivative, whether it's obvious (as in this piece) or more subtle.

edit

I never meant to imply that a reinterpretation of previous art is wrong. Quite the contrary, art history is a continual reinterpretation. However, there's a big difference between creativity and imitating.

 

For "traditional" photography, it's silly for me or anyone to try and imitate Adams' style; what we should be doing is reacting to that style and creating our own new vision, however that occurs.

 

Would it not seem absolutely absurd for someone to scan an Adams' print, then proceed to modify it digitally (Let's put a McDonald's in Hernandez!), then present that image as your own work of art?

 

Lasse said he was having some fun with the image, implying that he did not intend to send a message. I stand by my earlier position that this is aesthetically interesting, but devoid of meaning. Had he understood the intent of Leonardo, actually believed in what Leonardo was saying about who we are, he would not have toyed with the image. Art should shed insight into our greatness or move us to go deeper within ourselves(to at least question existence). So much of art seems to be saying how meaningless our existence is and that is all it says. It does not encourage us to go deeper, but to just wallow in self pity. Respectfully submitted.

I never meant to imply that a reinterpretation of previous art is wrong. Quite the contrary, art history is a continual reinterpretation. However, there's a big difference between creativity and imitating.

This is not imitating, Lasse has brouht out the social and gender themes from an image we all know pretty well.

For "traditional" photography, it's silly for me or anyone to try and imitate Adams' style; what we should be doing is reacting to that style and creating our own new vision, however that occurs.

Are you talking subject or style? There are still many named photographers using Zone system today (John Sexton to name one).

Reguardless, this image is not just digitally "slapping" scans on someone else's art.

Along with the rest of Lasse's work, this is outstanding. Anyone who has ever modified a negative from its original state has manipulated a photograph, whether in a darkroom or in Photoshop.

 

It is more effective to focus on the result rather than argue over the process. This photo inspires me to try a few techniques I hadn't thought of, and the results will STILL be photographs, albeit modified.

 

It might be wise not to insist that "this is a photography site, not an art site." Some photos make that all too clear, and that statement might come back to haunt many a comment...

Wasn't Lassie saying that he just wanted to have fun?).

BTW, I'm posting the original Leonardo's drawing just forthe sake of comparison (BTW it seems to me that the square and the circle are in the samerelationships in both images).

My problem is the overall aesthetical result. Going into details there's quite a mess in the centerof the image, near the model's belly. What I see is something that looks like when I jam twoslides into my projector. There are some objects (is it a draping?) that look confused andI don't understand why they are there. My eyes are continuosly moving near the center searchingto focus on something and they can't, and I find it quite disturbing.The model attitude is too simmetric - yes, look atthe feet and the lower legs in the original Leonardo's drawing and you'll find that he was able to break the simmetry a little. OTOH I find that Lassie's image is too static. Moreover, themodel herself does not match with the subject, I mean she looks like a model for a CD cover,a fashion magazine, a soft-erotica magazine, everything but a classic subject like this.

We are thousands and thousands of users here, we cannot expect to see only things that we like.An POW is not a 'premium', it is just a pick over a photo that fosters discussions. I'm learninglots of things even from stuff that I dislike.

About time. Lasse's work is amazing and deserves every bit of this wonderful attention. This particular choice is very well done. The previsualization required to create such a work is really astounding. Its not scattered and haphazardly assembled, but precise, containing many different photographic skills (macro, portrait, landscape, digital darkroom, etc.).

 

We dont all want to shoot street or take pictures of Yellowstone. Great artist are not a product of their technology. They are simply great artists who are forced to use the tools of their time. Clone Leonardo da Vinci, grow him up in the 21st century, and watch what he creates. Would it not be a masterpiece because he used acrylic paint or maybe even, god forbid, that technological cheating device, a camera?

Lasse, you know that I have admired your work for a long time on this site. I really like this work and think it is among your best (you have removed some of your best work IMO, but that's beside the point.) What has bothered me about this image, however, is that the position of the models arms and legs do not match up with the origianl Da Vinci drawing. Indeed the arms should be straight out, with the legs closer together and one foot to the side. This is a minor point, I know, but if you're trying to recreate a classic image, why not try and get the details as close as possible to the original?

If we assume for a moment that this image has a clear or quite clear meaning, instead of just believing Lasse who tells us he was having fun, (which certainly was a way to avoid further questions), we can suppose that the legs may need to be just as they are - see above the hypothesis of the aerobic for example. Again, this IS NOT A COPY. As Mike said, it is RE-CREATING something. This re-creation has no rules except the ones the artist has set for himself to produce the work. To judge the rules, you need to understand the work. No choice. The lack of clarity overall especially in the central area is a problem by traditional photographic standards, but doesn't shock me at all in this context. The "drapping", by the way, is a major element of another piece in this series - which seems to show, once more that elements of these compositions are not chosen at random.

Then the cog is out of the center of the squared image frame, Fabrizio - that's what I meant - and to me, that means instability, disorder. And the foggy look of this image means aetheral and ascending, and confused - which is related, imho, with our times and with the confused march of "progress". What are we progressing towards is the question Lasse raises in this image. Reason is leading us nowhere... (Neither does this thread, by the way...:-)

Regards.

This piece is wonderful. This piece is Art.

Yes, we can agree that its not everyone's idea of Art.

But lets sit back and enjoy it, not slam it because its not a "true photograph".

 

....stepping off my soapbox........

First, a question:

We hear a lot of the argument that you shouldn't harshly criticise a work here if you can't match it yourself. Does the same apply to praising a work? Are you qualified to praise a work if you can't achieve the same result yourself?

The sophists may think they have conclusively demonstrated by reducto as absurdum arguments that, as all photography on a web site goes through some degree of digital processing, the difference in degree between a primarily manufactured work like this compared to a shot of Yellowstone or a B&W taken in the street is insufficient to differentiate them as to photographic bona fides. We are all made of molecules, atoms and subatomic particles too. They're not even matter, under certain conditions. We are all energy, ultimately. Does this mean that there are no demarcation lines between species, no distinguishing characteristics that separate animal, vegetable and mineral? True in one sense, false in another.

We draw demarcations for convenience. We draw them to distinguish broad ranges of achievement and interest. Ultimately we draw demarcations to slow down the onset of the madness that will overtake us if, in trying to deal with a particular field of human endeavour (in this case, photography) we are forced to consider and admit as equivalents all other forms, not only of creative activity but of abstract thought as well. In photography, the bar seems to be set at whether the image - no matter what its origins may be, or the processes used to produce it - can be expressed in the form of a JPEG file.

Photography is that element of illustration that ends with the capture and cleaning-up of the image. Let the layout artists, album cover designers and air-brush experts do what they will with photographs that are presented to them.

From the elves description:

 

"This is one of those very rare pictures that cause one to look a second time. And then a third, and then a fourth . . . "

 

It's a quick read - a takeoff of the familiar drawing that substitutes a woman for a man and adds in a cog wheel. Throw in a few faint textural elements.

 

"The color is surreal . . . "

 

Another red, yellow, or brown shade would have been equally suitable, I suspect.

 

"the subject matter very imaginative . . . . "

 

You must have known from the numerous reactions to similar recent POW choices that this would have been seen as kitschy.

 

"the artistic treatment exceptional . . . . "

 

If you like your photographs doctored up, I suppose so. Your choice here perpetuates the notion that this is what artistic photography is all about and that a straight shot by comparison is less 'original' or 'aesthetically' pleasing.

 

"and most of all, it has emotional content. . . ."

 

Some raters agree with you. Many, including quite a few who have given up on rating because of images like these, do not.

 

"It takes a great deal of photographic skill and knowledge . . . ."

 

How can you tell? The skill and knowledge is in the use of PS techniques.

 

"along with great artistic talent, to produce such an image."

 

On this site, artisitic talent has come to mean something you create using a photograph as raw material as opposed to capturing something that has interest by virtue of being real. Many of them deserve better. You just have to look at them a second time. and then a third, and then a fourth . . . .

 

 

I can honestly say that I only clicked on this image because it was POW -- and even then only to read the discussion rather than admire the image.

As a graphic artist myself, I can see plenty of merit in this particular piece, but not as a photograph.

[ mod. edit ]

Regarding this image... interesting I suppose, but with all due respect, I really think you are reading too much into it Marc.

[ mod. edit ]

NICK...:-)

"I really think you are reading too much into it Marc."

Maybe so, Nick, but... 1) At least I explained what I saw in it - which I thought was the purpose of this page...:-) 2) Nobody has so far told me anything relevant to prove that this interpretation of mine made no sense.

It seems to me this week that we are not talking about the image, except for a few very rare posts. I personally regret that, because, "regarding this image... interesting I suppose, but with all due respect, I really think you are reading too little into it Nick..." :-) And I certainly wish you told me in what sense an interpretation can be, ever, "TOO MUCH" !? Imo, it can only be too little...:-) (Pardon the pun, but I couldn't resist...)

Basically, eventhough what I saw here maybe wasn't what Lasse put in it, I feel a lot happier to have seen something than I would feel if I had posted a few angry paragraphs about something else than this image... But that's just me... happy to be silly...:-) Cheers.

Ah, Tony. If I was as gifted in photography as you are with words, my work would would be hanging in museums all over America! Why is it that some people find it so difficult to accept "edgy" stuff? Must I be BORED forever with more people pictures, more cat pictures, more dog pictures, and the ever trite landscapes? Geezzz, give me a break.

 

Lasse's work is a breath of fresh air. A valid attempt to break from the mold. Keep in mind that most photographers, such as Lasse, who attempt to combine art with photography must FIRST be a really good photographer. In fact, I would bet that some of his "straight" images would be superior to 99% of what I see here on photo.net.

 

So should we penalize him because he has mastered TWO mediums? For over 30 years I made a damn good living as a photographer. I was also one of the first kids on the block to play with Photoshop. And yet, I can NOT produce something as beautiful and creative as Lasse's work. Can you? (And the key word is creative.)

 

I really do not wish to trade verbal barbs with Tony (as I will surely lose), but I think his comments, as well as those of others, are missing the point!

 

Should we really CARE how this image was created? I would suggest simply judging it on its merits.