ReMake

Oh my, kiss a frog, win a prince. Whoops. Perhaps not what you expected? Oh well, sometimes you lose (or maybe not).

 

For further enlightenment and possible education (?) please visit http://www.lassehoile.com. Please note the two upcoming exhibitions, one in Denmark and one in Germany. If you missed the one in July (in Denmark), you might want to attend the one in November. Point being, Lasse is an accomplished artist in his own right. If you don't like his stuff, fine. I am sure you are not alone. Such is the nature of being different.

Back from the Wilds, Steve? Welcome home! You puzzle me a little when you say, "I can NOT produce something as beautiful and creative as Lasse's work. Can you? (And the key word is creative.)". This seems to be suggesting that an inability to emulate Lasse's work disqualifies one from critiqueing it. If that was the case then most of us would be disqualified from holding an opinion on anything, and I know you (especially you) wouldn't agree with that as a proposition.

I'd also like to take issue with you on your description of this image as "edgy". I'd call it "way over the edge" and heading in the general direction of one of Andrew's "extremes".

The world you conjured up of endless pictures of cats and dogs, Yosemite vistas and shots of drunks recorded on Tri-X was a trifle depressing, I'll readily admit. But equally, I have to ask you, do we really need another Leonardo Da Vinci quotation?

I've been counting the cogs and the bolts (there are 24 of each), and trying to suss out the clouds (are they?) for an inner meaning, and can't come up with anything more than Lasse's information that this was just a "fun" thing to do. I'd like to attempt to critique the photographic aspect of it, but there seems to be a swirl of fog (or cloud?) in the way.

Moderator edit

Undoubtedly Lasse has used some skills to create this work. It seems to be a combination of several photos - two people (the woman with a pretty deadpan expression on her face), some clouds, a kind of sprocketed wheel and some steel bolts. And there's something else lurking in the background too. Looks like a curtain or drape of some kind. It's difficult to make it out at thumbnail size. Plus the square, of course. Layered in together to produce a swirling effect (and possibly to preserve modesty, as the figleaf version above suggests). Dare I suggest it wasn't that difficult? (this question comes from the comfort zone of not having to duplicate it myself).

But please tell me where the emotion is here? Where's the tear-inducing oomph! that makes me want to reach for my hanky? Or, are we talking about another kind of emotion. Laughter? Happiness? Can't see either of them either, not much more than, "Oh yeah, I think I get it," level. Next...

Even when I try, I can't see the point, the message or even the irony of this image (that must mean I'm a Pharisee or a Philistine, right? - maybe both?). And certainly not any overwhelming emotion coming through. But, then again, Lasse did not claim any such thing for the image. He's had greatness thrust upon him.

This is obviously an endless debate. And I certainly do NOT wish to foster my opinions on anyone - because they are simply that, opinions. But in response to Carl's comments, I have simply become bored with "straight" photography. As an example, here is the LAST scenic I ever submitted. I would NEVER hang it in my home. And yet is was published 3 times (once on a calander)and brought in close to $2,000 total. This is the sort of straight photography that bores me silly. Perhaps because I have seen so much of it. However, photography is a progression of learning experiences, and I would NEVER begrudge anyone for loving this form of photography. Most do. "F8 and be there" or "F32 and be there with a 4x5 and a Snyder 90mm" certainly have their well deserved places in photography - as does experimental work!

I admire anyone who can paint this well; but if I presented the Venus de Milo as a male, I don't think everyone would be applauding. This is PC stuff, and people are lining up to display fashionable reactions. In fifty years, people will roll out of their chairs laughing at us for such posturing.

[mod. edit]

 

Regarding the question about Jackson Pollock. I don't see why not. People can critique the ability of the photographer in recording the painting. Getting the lighting right and the colours correct. Perhaps even lighting the painting from different angles so as to capture the texture of the applied paint.

And so we see . . .

 

Big, basterd, baneful machinery,

 

Cold, and hard, and sterile.

 

Wrenches turn against rusted bolts:

 

Gears drop into dirty gears.

 

Bodies flock in cloudy flakes

 

And stuff and clog between the teeth of brown metal.

 

Soft bodies and brittle metal. A circle without end.

 

Lasse's work is groundbreaking photography at its best. It challenges the very ideas of photography, but that doesn't make it not photography. I believe that makes this more than just a photo, but an important photo.

I can still appreciate a good photograph that plays on the old themes with new ideas, such as Tony's or Doug's work, which I enjoy as well.

Lets all go take pictures, but be careful not to post anything new and different because we will have to make a whole new website for that so no one gets his/her feathers ruffled.

[ moderator edit]

Michael, thanks for this post:

"Evolution of man into a cog in the machine... Superposition of the feminine... etc... Yeah, I saw it; I get it--I just thought it was touched upon by the artist without much depth nor much worth saying about these subjects. Just doodling with some predictable juxtapositions as part of a photoshop flight of fancy, as best I can tell."

I find it very reassuring to see that you actually somehow made sense out of this image, and that you actually "only" found the symbolism weak. To me, it isn't the same to say that a work doesn't have any meaning - i.e: doesn't make any sense at all - and to say on the other hand that you find the message poorly expressed and / or uninteresting.

I would be interested to know, by the way, whether you meant "poorly expressed" (form) or "uninteresting content", or both... May be my English playing tricks on me again, but I'm not quite sure which of these 2 things you meant.

If you care to answer this question, I believe an interesting discussion may take root in your answer... I believe that each category of artistic work has its own language and codes and works as a system, with its own set of rules as well. An idea that could be developed later maybe... Regards.

After a couple of hasty postings yesterday, I decided that I didn't have

a well-formed opinion of this image (hence their deletion.) Despite Marc's

best efforts at directing the discussion, and Dennis's imaginative interpretations,

I still don't. Part of the trouble is the slowness with which I process information,

but another significant part of the trouble is the selector's blurb, which in effect

tells us how we ought to feel about the image (the last I heard, usually POW's are

selected by a single member-at-large contacted by the administration.) I do detect an initial

visual sensuousness, a measure of urbanity and a feeling of fun, but am not able

to detect any "inner meaning" (my loss.) Now I'll stop before committing a gaucherie.

So far it looks like 2-3 layered photographs, photographed/scanned shards of green glass, lots of dodging/burning.Obviously it has been extensively modified, but still comes across as a photograph as opposed to anything else, is balanced compositionally, is interesting, original (despite being a remake), and just plain works.

mod. edit

Fascinating stuff. I was originally ambivalent towards the shot, but after spending some reading the critiques I gained a healthy respect for this POW. In striving for originality we are evolving photography.

This shot does not rate 7 IMHO for asthetics but is certainly 7 for originality, you cannot deny that it is original.

Expect to see more of this type of work.

My first reaction when I saw this as POW was "Yes, another great discussion 'photo'."

My second reaction to the photo, no offense to Lasse, was "What is that?" I wouldn't try to discuss the technical aspects of this "photo/image" because it is impossible to see the actual photo (not that I would be qualified to disect the technicalities). As far as the composition, color, etc. goes, the photo/image really doesn't do anything for me. The brights and darks aren't consistent and you can see too many details in the face to be consistent with the rest being so blurred (sorry for the run-ons). I remember a few POW's back someone commented on the wall hanging test. This photo/image would not pass that test for me (I wouldn't hang it on my wall).

Please view this as just an opinion of a beginner photographer that still enjoys photographing and viewing the "ever trite landscapes". Please keep posting because I love to read this stuff. I find that I learn a lot about photography as a whole from these threads.

Perhaps we should have a permanent "What is a photograph/Ethics of Digital Manipulation" Forum with a different image to be discussed each week. We could put the image to be discussed on the home page. Oh, we have that already -- only we call it "Photograph of the Week".

Moderator comment: Right on Brian... and once again we should remind people that the appropriate place for discussion of what constitutes photography (and this within the context of what belongs on photo.net) is here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001gZr

WOW, stunning! and i thought i had inspirational pictures.. that is a master peice! if Siskel was still alive he would of put his tumb way up!!! awesome JOB!

Lasse, can you toss us a few bones about your technique? I've tried a few projects like this, but as an intuitive Photoshop user, I'll admit my work did not turn out anywhere near as nice as yours. I'd like to know how you did it.

P.S. Perhaps if we knew more about the techniques used to create this we could have a better discussion.

mod. edit

Personally, the illustration doesn't do anything for me. No offense to the artist, I just don't like the aesthetic.

 

While I think this is an interesting image, it is tamer than Lasse's other work. For some reason, I keep seeing this shot on the facing page of some article in Newsweek entitled "Working Mothers: Can They Do It All?" I prefer those of Lasse's photos that I can imagine nowhere but on a gallery wall, and there are many.

 

While I like the idea of using the cog to replace the pure geometric form depicted in the original, I think maybe this picture tries to do too much and therefore ends up being superficial. To the extent that this photo is not just an aesthetic effort but also an intellectual one, why both introduce the cog AND change the gender of the person? I'd appreciate a more focused look at EITHER the "cogginess" of today's world OR the changing role of women in it. But when both are thrown in, they each get short shrift. My mind can't do too many things at once.

There is no technical information on this. Was the 50 1.8 lens used for all the layers that were added to the piece above?

Moderator edit

 

 

A summary of my previous comment:

 

I support the creativity, but remain a traditionalist.

this could be a nice effect, but its too one dimensional. an effect does not a picture make however, it is lacking any meaning, it would be better as a part of a whole. it reminds me of how people go "wow" at a boring picture just because it is super saturated by fuji,etc.

Congratulations -- this is aesthetically a very fine image and certainly involving a lot of skill and thought. I really, sincerely, think this is a brilliant piece of computer graphics. I also sincerely think that the elves are way off suggesting that we should consider this piece as emotionally engaging. The technique used, the concept employed and above all, the resulting aesthetics so obviously force the intellectual response that I suspect elves were either drinking or wickedly projecting emotional responses involving the genre of this image (most of them deleted by now).

 

[moderator edit]

Needless to say, this is well done and aesthetically interesting, but I'm not sure what to make of the various elements mingling in the center. The bright spot in the center could act as sort of a radiating core, but instead it's more of a bright drifting cloud that's a bit distracting and takes away from the general symmetry of the image. Is it intended as a sort of fig leaf? There are other things going on too, but I can't really make them out. A little ambiguity can be good, but my imagination is not taking the reins.

Interpretation? Well, the image is sort of Metropolis meets Da Vinci with a female model, fed through a City of Lost Children filter. Mixing those elements obviously leads to numerous interpretive possibilities, but I'm not sure I feel anything stronger than that it's a nifty image.

That said, Lasse is obviously very talented, and I look forward to seeing more of his creations.

[ moderator edit: we try to keep the discussion focussed on the image itself. Discussion of photo.net policy and other issues is welcome, but this is simply not the right place. So we delete such comments and edit those which are at least partially discussing the image. If anybody is not happy with our edits to his/her comment, he/she is free to remove the comment entirely ]

We can debate the technical qualities or the artisitic merit. I think it is a thought provoking work and excellent choice.

* Aesthetically, why is everything cloudy and murky? I don't get that. If you're trying to suggest the industrial revolution, why not do it more directly? Why obscure the human form? Aside from the figure and the wheel, the whole thing feels very arbitrary. The square shape is an afterthought. The result, I think, is not really a photograph, more of an illustration - maybe for an article on the health issues effecting women in the workplace. Lasse should consider putting together a portfolio, in fact, and showing it around to magazine art directors. But this isn't really photography, it's the use of photography to create something other than a photograph. I, personally, don't like it very much.

 

* To suggest that it was somehow inappropriate to have made this image is really absurd. Far from being upset by this, Leonardo himself would have recognized the appropriation as a very commonplace thing (though he would have wondered how you got access to his private notebooks). Artists in the renaissance appropriated like crazy. In fact there are works of Leonardo's that we only know of because they were copied by other artists. (By the way, in the US, anything that was 'authored' more than seventy five years ago is in the public domain.) Appropriation is definitely fair play.

 

* This isn't a masterpiece. I don't think there is any official definition or process, the distinction just seems to come from a lot of critical consensus over a longish period of time. I think that this is very unlikely. At the very best, this image is 'neat.'

 

* This image isn't groundbreaking. We've been seeing the use of famous works of art like this since long before personal computers. What's groundbreaking is the technology and especially the access to the technology that was used to make this.

 

* I'm not too impressed by this technically. Once you get around to playing with blending modes in photoshop, this kind of thing isn't that difficult. Not to downplay it, I know that it takes effort to get it right and polished, but these are techniques that are not on a very high shelf.

 

 

Having now looked at the rest of Lasse's folder, I think that this image is probably the least original and interesting of this body of work. He seems to be pretty influenced by HR Giger. The images that he comes up with without appropriation seem to have a greater sense of purpose and unity. They seem less arbitrary.