color There Are More Things in Heaven and Earth

Thanks for accommodating me. I have a much better appreciation of what you have done now that I see the original. I'm warming to this image.

A blank pallet-a blank billboard. How very clever. Very clever, indeed.

Jeff, "the play's the thing" and this is well played, indeed. It obviously stops people in their virtual tracks. A magic image. - Roy

First I thought it was an old billboard:we have a few of those in fields around here you know. Then someone said it was a barn and I thought,"yes, it is a barn". Now you show us that it is a billboard.I think I see a bird's nest bottom-middle of the barnboard. I have to say that you managed to turn the ordinary into the unusual in a brilliant way. Now I have to upload.

You know what? I too thought that it was a sign first. The overhang in the right side and the mention of a barn by a previous critic made me change my mind.

Very good!

David: No problem. Glad to oblige.

 

 

Margaret: Thanks. I'm glad you found this clever. I often merely have a blank head to work.

 

 

Roy: Thanks for attaching such a great quote to the mix. I'm glad you liked this.

 

 

Joseph: When you find these crazy pills, I'd love for you to regale us with your review of them.

 

 

Adan: Barn. Sign. Billboard. Theater screen. My empty little head. All ripe for projection. Thanks, friend.

 

 

Claudio: Great to see you back. And when will your little owls have new friends?

This is an image I had to look at large and return to a few times before the more subtle elements soaked in thoroughly. Reading David Myers comment made me realize that it is usually your digital manipulations which are most likely to leave me flat ( bad pun given the current image ) and I usually am most enthused by your works which rely more heavily on clever juxtaposition composition etc. than on PP. In this image I find a perfect marriage of both. I think I would still like the original file of this before the manipulation began. The saplings coming up and overgrowing the billboard, the weather scarring and wearing it away, it gives me the feeling of nature triumphing over human folly. Mother nature reclaiming what was rightfully hers.To add another layer to this sensation is the fact that the entire scene is contained behind a fence as if to ensure that it does not spill out into the world at large. The vertical lines of the fence and the saplings and the billboard all run up and into the clouds and blend impossibly. There is much absurdity and a hint of irony in this scene.

 

Your PP treatment of the image enhances that feeling of leaving reality behind, and pumps up the absurdity. The colour shifts, the impossible billboard, the improbable lighting, all these things leave me feeling as if I am falling into a David Lynch movie. One of your best IMHO ! 7/7 despite the fact PN insisted on knocking a point off each score.

What a juxtaposition Jeff...the colors are unique....so as the composition with the blue on the panel...the low light is superb....

Jeff, this is pretty artsy fartsy. I like it, your playing is an inspiration.

I was going to say in response to your response to John that give it a minute and someone will come up with a deeper meaning for you. While nothing may have been clanging around in your head when you made this, I can see how it could inspire a myriad of views and interpretations.

 

Well done,

Kirk

I think of it as an open-ended comment on advertisements along the road (of life even). It's almost stormy out, and this offers the artificial allure of the possibility of brighter times. Buy this car...Vote for this candidate.... It's clever, creative, surreal... and the dream is appealing, but I love storms,so whatever the billboard is selling, it wouldn't work on me.

I love your experimentation and think your creative willingness is really showing lately in your photography.

 

I respond mostly to the atmospheric lighting and the great capture of textures in this image, but not to the sky painted in, even though I love and respect that you would play with such an idea.

 

As with so many critiques, I'm well aware this says more about me than you. I guess I do ultimately think there's a difference between painting and photography, which is not to say there isn't a great deal of overlap and influence. Rest assured, I myself am a little confused on this matter, so any followup thoughts would be welcome.

 

I see the significance of photography as its having some touch with what's there in the world, even when it's an abstract and even though I recognize it is the photographer's vision of the world and not necessarily a strict representation of it. Some kinds of manipulation of reality are very effective in a photograph. I generally respond well to a photograph that provides an alternative view of the world as it's found. Obviously, there are many manipulations a camera can carry out, particularly blur effects. Cameras can also play with our sense of light, texture, and depth, and lots of other things by using various lenses and exposures, etc. Post processing also allows for a lot of creative decisions. The camera manipulations and some post processing ones seem uniquely photographic to me. The big question is, where I draw the line and where all of us do, if we do (and I'm aware many don't).

 

Here's where it gets dicey for me. Because it feels like I want to speak in generalizations and I will, but I know the danger of that because there will be entire worlds of exceptions. I'm not sure where my generic hesitancy to certain kinds of manipulations ends and where my particular problem with the image you've presented begins. It seems to me that, generically speaking, imposing things onto or into an image seems where I start getting uptight. Maybe that's it, it feels painted on instead of coming from the image itself. For me, it just starts to seem awkward and faked.

 

Funny, when Magritte puts together an image like this, I respond really well. When a photographer finds something that feels like this, I love it. But when the photographer adds elements in post to accomplish it, I turn off. I chalk it up to responding in different ways to different media.

 

Yet, I can imagine instances where a photographer would impose something on an image and I'd respond positively. I'd have to come up with some examples for myself and check out the differences I sense. It's interesting to note how differenly I'd feel if the billboard actually had a mirrored strip on it that was, indeed, reflecting a different part of the actual sky that had such a substantially different feel than the unreflected sky. When I walk around with my camera, I long to find and see situations like that, situations that if captured a certain way are so enticingly surreal. I find that one of the big thrills of photography.

Fred, how do you know the billboard is not a big mirror - I know, Jeff told us. But if he didn't we wouldn't really, really know. Our mind might say, this has to be conjured because the sky is colored differently in the mirror than the sky above it but you cannot see the sky over your head, maybe it is that color. The right side of your brain should be able to not like something without the left side telling it why.

 

I think you are to hard on yourself with these distinctions you're tring to work out. Why set a specific point in which you like or don't like something because of the way it was put together. (Isn't that for uptight, mainstream America?) As a person who is as thoroughly studied in art as yourself, I'm surprised that it seems you find it necessary to create rules, lines, classifications, pigeon holes on art and seperate painting from photography?

 

Maybe if you like or dislike something, just accept it and don't feel you have to justify it to yourself or worse, like or dislike something because it crosses a pre-conceived idea of a style that should end at point "a" and another pick up at point "b". Someone like myself, I could expect that from; someone as openminded as yourself, it just seems odd.

 

I'm not saying accept anything called art to be art but why be like so many others in drawing lines in the sand about what is a photo, and what is photo art after being manipulated. I picture part of your mind liking a manipulated image - perhaps not this one - and another part, the analytical not liking the same image because it conflicts with the parameters it set.

 

I don't know if any of that makes sense or not.

 

Kirk

Excellent idea and very good realization. Best regards. Glauco

Just posted two italian politician-birds, Jeff!

"Fred, how do you know the billboard is not a big mirror?"

I knew it the moment I opened the photo, partially because I could see the texture of the billboard present in the space where the sky was inserted and part because it doesn't seem to me at the angle that would actually reflect the sky in this way.

"I think you are to hard on yourself with these distinctions you're tring to work out."

I don't. What I'm communicating to Jeff and others here is my process, and I'm trying to communicate it honestly. How I approach photography, decisions I make, are important to me. I photograph other people, and how I engage with them and treat them is very important to me. I photograph others' art and how I do that is extremely important to me. How I present the world I see and the situations I experience is important to me. So I think about this stuff a lot. In addition, I allow myself to let go and feel things and all that is how I come up with my photos.

"Why set a specific point in which you like or don't like something because of the way it was put together."

I didn't. A lot of my comment was about my own questions and process. Congratulations, by the way, you're the first person to suggest my being like mainstream America. :)

"it seems you find it necessary to create rules, lines, classifications, pigeon holes on art"

I don't agree with your characterization. I am always in a state of determining what works for me and what doesn't and I often think about why. Rules and pigeon-holes are different than artistic lines and classifications. For instance, I find thinking and talking about the difference in classification between Impressionism and Expressionism fun, energizing, and helpful. I feel similarly about the distinctions among media like painting and photography. I think artists draw lines all the time. When I frame something with my camera and opt to leave something in the periphery out, I've drawn a line. I've drawn a line for myself that I won't use Gauzian blur and many of the texture filters in Photoshop because they look silly and fake to me. I've drawn a line that I won't shoot homeless people without their permission as a matter of my own moral approach to art. As a matter of fact, I probably wouldn't shoot homeless people at all unless I truly believed I had something very important and unique to offer the world by doing so. I imagine there are painters who draw a line and won't use acrylics in favor of using oils.

"and seperate painting from photography"

Art is art and within the visual arts there are various media . . . painting, sculpture, photography, film, architecture, drawing, collage. I find there are overlaps and distinctions. I think each, while overlapping with the others, has its unique challenges and modes of expression. When I do photography, I am always mindful of things I've learned about painting. I probably do lean, myself, toward honoring what I feel are the unique aspects of each. Why? It just feels better that way to me.

"Maybe if you like or dislike something, just accept it and don't feel you have to justify it . . ."

This is a learning site and a forum for critique. I wouldn't feel right simply coming along to a photographer like Jeff who I admire and respect, a photographer I love sharing ideas with and learn a lot from, and limiting my comments to "I don't like it." I think explanations and justifications in these matters are helpful both to the photographer being critiqued (who can agree or disagree) and to the one doing the critiquing, who may be working out his or her own ideas and approaches to art at the same time he or she is reacting to others' work, knowing that at least some of the photographers being critiqued are thinking of these things as well.

"I picture part of your mind liking a manipulated image - perhaps not this one - and another part, the analytical not liking the same image because it conflicts with the parameters it set."

I'd recommend not trying to picture my mind. It's a mess in there. But I'll give you at least a little insight. Usually, what happens with art is that I respond first to my gut. I may or may not go to liking it or not liking it. Sometimes, I just react emotionally. Honestly, unless asked, I don't think I would ever give a thought to whether I like Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. For me, it's just kind of a part of the world that I accept. It makes me wonder, can we truly approach things impartially without actually liking or disliking them? Offhand, I think so. (See, I warned you about picturing my mind!) Anyway, I sit with my gut reaction a while. Then, sometimes, especially in an environment like PN, I will analyze and then communicate why I do or don't. There have been times when analysis has actually changed my initial opinion of something. I don't know exactly how frequently that occurs and I don't think there's anything wrong with it when it happens.

Sorry for opening such a large can of worms. I didn?t quote anything specific from your comment because it was a general feel I was getting that you simply dismissed this because it was painted in. After reading how you approach images, I think I may have been wrong.

 

You said you wouldn?t comment ?I don?t like it?, I wasn?t implying to comment like that I said to just accept it and not feel a need to justify it. Now, if you want to comment, of course say why you don?t like it and that is what you did. I just thought you did it too broadly. I got the impression that you dismiss anything that is added in and seems unnatural. However, in addressing my comment, you stated that you respond to your gut first, which is good.

 

I guess this may be more about me than you too. Reading about your distinctions made me think of many people that think when images are post processed that they are no longer photos (which I know you personally don?t). Its just an irritating pet peeve of mine when I read the comment ?this image came straight from the camera? ? not that you said that but reading about your distinctions with this type image triggered that.

 

I just hated to see a certain artistic technique get stereotyped negatively but everyone is entitled to like what they do for their own reasons.

 

I apologize if I made any offending statements Fred, I have the utmost respect for your knowledge and outlook. Didn?t mean to read the riot act to you.

 

Kirk

No offense. I see it all as part of the learning process. I appreciate nothing more than being challenged and being allowed the opportunity to get personal.

Thanks so much for your analysis of the shot. I'm really not a Photoshop aficionado, although I do like to play around from time to time. Some of my heavily altered photos have been recently removed from the mix, and I'm trying instead to work in a different way, using tricks to enhance existing shots rather than simply doing it for the sake of doing it. I had my eye on this billboard/screen for months before I traipsed out and took pictures of it. And I kept it for another couple months untouched before I figured out what I wanted to do with it. I think your line about exaggerating the absurd explains my motivation here. It's a fine line between creative and cartoonish, and I'm always teetering on the edge when I try to be too digitally inventive.

Thanks. This merging of storm and sunlight seemed interesting to me after toying with many alternatives. I hope you are well, and we've missed your presence 'round these parts.

Jeff, I can add nothing to the critique. It's all been said.

 

But I can add this thought: this one page is a "Who's Who" of the best that PN has to offer. And they've all come to sing your praises. Now THAT's special! (as is your fantastic photo abstract).

 

Bravo!

Philosophically and emotionally, this shot is connected to the other shot with the chloral hydrate. We've been inundated with political coverage and campaigning, each candidate promising a brighter tomorrow. Yeah, right....

 

 

Your take on the photo put into words perfectly what I was thinking of. False advertising. False promises decaying around the edges and a real storm brewing behind it all. The title from Shakespeare suggests that there's more to the story. Thanks for such an eloquent and lovely comment.

Thanks guys for your comments. It means a lot to me.

Thanks. I'm sensing more debate than praise, but all in all it's more fun that way. Peace.

I almost feel a little hesitant jumping into your conversation, but since this photo served as a springboard, I'll go ahead. First, I appreciate the time and effort you put into your comments, which were thoughtful and thought-provoking. I think you both brought up some interesting points. Fred, we've discussed some of these issues before, but I feel like revisiting them not to be defensive in any way but to review them for my own sake. Kirk, I agree with your points for the most part, and I'll tell you why.

 

 

This shot is one of the most intentional shots I've done. I thought about it for months before I put the pieces together. I've seen this blank billboard for several years, looming behind my office building, and for a long time I've wanted to use it to make a statement of some sort. I just didn't know what I would do with it. You have to admit that the original is not awe-inspiring or even all that interesting. Fred, what's odd is that I had Magritte in mind when I chose to place the blue sky against the stormy backdrop. I liked the surreal effect that it created. And even though I don't like Magritte all that much, I've always liked the way he depicted the sky. I'm not a big fan of surrealism, although I like it more in photography than painting for some reason.

 

 

I fully intended for this to look unreal--to look plausibly implausible. If it ended up looking poorly rendered or cartoonish, then I've failed. Personally, I liked the result in that it turned out roughly similar to the picture I had in my head. Of anything here, I like the color scheme even more than the digital wizardry.

 

 

Returning to the philosophical underpinnings of our discussion, I tend to categorize things from time to time only to make sense of them. When I use the term "expressionism" or "surrealism" or "cubism," I have an idea of what a piece is probably going to be about, both visually and thematically. For myself, I would feel very confined to be operating solely within a the limits of a label. I respect folks who are masters at one genre, but that's not how my mind works.

 

 

Lately, I've been trying to mix photography with painting. Watercolor with charcoal. Oils on top of acrylics and so forth. So, superimposing a blue sky on a billboard doesn't seem like a stretch for me, nor does it seem like a violation of photographic principles I might hold. I don't think photography has to necessarily capture reality, but it has to represent my reality in order to be true. In some way, a photo has to reflect the feelings, philosophy, ideas, conflicts, history, and vision that constitutes my reality. Of course, this photo doesn't look real at all. Nevertheless, it represents ideas that are very real to me.

 

 

I'm shying away from heavy-handed digital alterations done simply as a goal in and of itself. I don't have anything against digital transformations, but often the processing gets in the way of the statement. The same is true of painting. There are artists whose work is so technically astute that I'm taken with their technique more than with the meaning. That's not the type of work I'm interested in doing, so Fred, your comments serve as implicit warnings for me (whether that's what you meant or not). I don't like heavily airbrushed pictures, over-saturated landscapes, and so forth, but that's just a personal preference. It doesn't reflect any set rules that anyone should adhere to, besides me. I think that's what you were saying Fred regarding how you set your own parameters regarding how you've defined and honed your work.

 

 

Kirk, I personally didn't see your comment to Fred as critical, but as representing an interesting and well-stated counterpoint. Fred, I never really agree or disagree with what you say, but you certainly can kick up some good questions that always keep me challenged and make me think. Discussing art and the artistic process is a vital part of the process for me, as is civil debate. I don't think there's ever a need to apologize for a respectful, but firmly stated belief on a subject. And I don't think anyone has the last word on matters such as these.

 

 

So, guys, wishing you much peace. Your discussion outclassed and outshone my mediocre little photo, and I'm grateful for it.