color There Are More Things in Heaven and Earth

Why does an image have to have a deep meaning? Can we just enjoy art for art? I do not think I am a lesser photographer or artist just because I want to create soemthing just for fun. Perhaps I am too simple minded in this view but I am not trying to change the world every time I take a picture or manipulate it. I am just enjoying the process.

Yea, Jeff!

Interesting debate that arrives again to the question of what is art, how we perceive it, or is there an absolute definition of what is art , which of course there is not.

 

I think that art in general is a human activity as a way to express one self and communicate with other human being. It is done in all sort of ways, like writing, music, the visual arts etc.

 

How we perceive art depends on what we bring with us to that world( of art creation) ,like cultural load, knowledge, experience, the ability to discern value of aesthetics, ideas, beauty, technics significance etc.

 

As we do photography, and mayself switching from painting to photography , knowing Jeff is creating in both as well, I will refer to the point uploaded in the discussion of differences and similarities in painting and photography.

 

I think that both are done with using light,ideas, composition, forms and colors !, both are individuals expression in their nature( I don't speak of quality, which is another issue, but related)) and srtrive to express an inner world, ideas and saying. both are striving to touch feeling, and emotions of other people looking at their work. and both ,when well done are trying to give it a transcendental generalization of our human world view.

 

Both has a history and influences from created works done before, movements of art that developed new ways of thinking and influenced the human progress to new horizons and way of creations.

 

The difference is in the tools ,and the way both ( if I refer only to photography and painting, which touches your work here, Jeff)are expressed.

 

Photography is a way of documentation an existing world, while painting is done on a blank page( or canvas) , painting is done with brushes and paint, charcoals,pencils,etc , while photography has already the colors and forms and needs the technic of using the camera. painting is touching directly the substance, while photography has it already ready( if we don't take into account the lab needed for film photos development, which is not needed with PS and digital cameras)

 

And here comes the real similarity of both! the creation skills, the way both mediums are used as a way of expression, the significance, and even combining both technics in one work, actions that were already done before( like scratching on films to get more feeling of substance, adding water colors to photographs, I tried it myself).

 

And at last I come to Jeff's last work that started all this,I appreciate the way you have combined the real nature, to the one you have created on the billboard Jeff, it is photography with painting qualitis. some will enjoy the aesthetic and idea execution , and some will find deep significance in it. I appreciated the creation here, the connection of two worlds the real( photography documentation of the found empty board, in the real nature) and creating one on that board, a "new" world, a man made one. I appreciate the ready made found and the transformation to what was presented in the last result. The way is very important as well as the out come .

 

I have tried at least to articulate my thoughts, which is not easy in English, I hope it makes sense.

Photography and painting start from different places, the former from an existing world and the latter from a blank canvas or paper. I agree that from there the same process takes hold, spurred on by the same motivations and drives. The end product is "this is me, my feelings, and the world as I perceive it and make sense of it," represented visually (and sometimes tactually).

 

 

I have a harder time painting. A blank canvas is horribly intimidating. For all my talk about painting and for the years I've painted, I can't say I'm all that good. Photography seems to give me an easier path in some ways, although the challenges of organization, color management, light, shape, and meaning are still required.

 

 

So before I lapse into further naval-gazing and high-minded pontificating, I'll simply say thanks. Your comments could serve as the foundation for an interesting discussion regarding the fundamentals of art and the artistic process.

I agree with you. I know it seems like I'm backtracking, but I don't think that it's necessary to pursue changing the world with one's photos. That's the motivation for some people, and more power to 'em. That's not what I was saying about me, though. There is a whole cadre of well-learned folks who spend their days arguing about specifics of technique and lose their soul in the process. A lot of the PS magazines seem to do that these days--an analysis of gadgetry, plug-ins, actions and brushes, all geared toward making us into digital marvels. I love the above-mentioned stuff. For myself (and I'm speaking only for myself), it takes me down a path away from being creative and more toward being technically astute. In your work, you somehow keep your eyes on the prize and are able to retain soul in your photos. I have a whole folder of flops, experiments that fell flat. What I was trying to say is that it's important to discover what is meaningful to you and use that as a guide. The "meaning" may simply be producing something beautiful or interesting to the eye. Many of my favorite works of art are merely beautiful to me. That's okay. Technique can be an end to itself.

First off thanks to everyone for the illuminating conversation. I always feel humbled in the presents of those who know so much about art and give such deep consideration to the subject. Although I usually stay out of such philosophical discussion I enjoy reading them and often leave these pages with many new ideas to mull over.

 

Setting out with a deliberate message or point to convey is completeley alien to my work flow. Quite often there is no meaning deep or otherwise attached to my photos. I am most times wholly absorbed with the effort to find the most aesthetic way to present a subject. Sometimes it happens that during the process I begin to see something of my mind set, belief system,... whatever, showing through in the way I have approached the image. There are instances when, after the fact, I come to realize that the image has ended up meaningful in way I was not actually considering during the work. A lot of this is going on below the conscious level for me.Perhaps this is the case for others ?

 

Art ends up open to all sorts of interpretation once it heads out into the world at large. What we take to the image as viewers determines to some extent what we leave with. In this case I got a fairly strong message from this image. What I received was clearly not what Jeff was sending. After reading Jeff's thoughts I can see his intended message but the image still remains about something else to me. I am not American so I am not inundated with election campaign rhetoric at the moment and my landscape is not dotted with billboards. These facts leave me with a different set of references. I am often amazed when someone at PN looks at one of my images and leaves a comment about the meaning of the image, often raising ideas I had not considered at all during the creation of the image.

Jeff, I do want to say that your intentionality came through loudly and clearly. Your phrase "plausibly implausible" describes with flare exactly how I took it. To me, you were successful at conveying your intentionality. I never had doubt of your connection with this or your vision and skill at realizing the image the way you wanted. I'm with Gordon in that I don't think I would have gotten the literal message you talk about. What you do with that kind of feedback really depends on what you were trying to accomplish. I often work with what I consider to be a message but just allow it to motivate me and don't particularly care or expect viewers to "get it." I just hope they will get something. On the other hand, sometimes I do want to communicate something a little more directly and I would be disappointed if I felt viewers weren't getting what I wanted them to.

 

One reason I brought all this up the way I did was because I find it so interesting and helpful to hear about the processes, or lack of processes, others go through. Thank you for sharing about yourself. To me, this is precisely what the PN critique pages are all about. You've given me much food for thought, as have some others who've contributed. Thank you all.

 

On that subject, I experience process a little differently from the way you described it to Pnina. The difference seems to make sense to me and I think it may be one of the reasons we seem to learn a lot from each other. What often motivates me throughout the process is my connection to the tools and medium I'm using and, often, those tools themselves feel like they are guiding me. So, the specific tools seem to have an effect on me from beginning conception or impulse all the way to the finished product. While the end product, as you well put it, is all those things represented visually, I'd have to add that, for me the key is that it's all those things represented visually in a photograph.

 

Kirk, I wanted to add one thing about analysis and left brain/right brain stuff. I want to make sure to convey that I think it's perfectly OK to approach art from an analytical point of view (either as the artist or the viewer). I think there can often be a strange transformation from what begins as analytical to what ends up hitting someone in the gut. I'm thinking of Bach's music, Escher's prints, and Lewis Carroll's stories. I have a background steeped in analysis and Philosophy. I am happy to and don't think I can help but bring that stuff to the art table.

 

Joseph, I also don't think an image has to have a deep meaning. I don't think any great art has to. I think a lot does and I think different artists approach stuff very differently. A lot about art is about opinion and taste, not definitive methods or approaches. When I go to SF MOMA, I see and like a lot of stuff where I don't particularly think about "meaning." I think Lucille Ball was one of the great all-time performing artists. From the time I can remember sitting in front of that old cabinet TV all the way to today's reruns on Nick, I still watch her for the laughs. To me, she is a consummate artist.

 

I also think there's a difference between images having deep meanings and people talking meaningfully about images and their creation and their being viewed. I think deep conversations can be had about relatively meaningless things. But, then again, I'm a philosopher. :)

 

Gordon, What you bring up seems like a fairly important consideration that is often left out of discussion. If I read you correctly, you're basically saying that what comes out is often different from what goes in. I agree that that can be very much the way art works. Artworks do seem to take on a life of their own. Meaning often emanates from works of art far beyond the specific intentions of the artist. I think that's because the great artists often are able to tap into shared human emotion and creatively play with symbols (intentionally or not) that go beyond what's actually there before us.

Thanks again for spearheading such a lively discussion. What a boring world it would be if we were all motivated or bound by the same things. Looking over the list of those who commented, I see so much variety in terms of interests, approaches, backgrounds, and so forth.

 

 

A final thought regarding the spirit of this photo. I left it the "theme" intentionally vague so there was room for other interpretations. I don't really care whether anyone gets the message because there really isn't one, apart from the thoughts that set the photo into motion. In other words, there's no right or wrong interpretation. It can even be a barn, if that's how someone chooses to see it.

 

 

Anyhow, it's always easy to lapse into sounding defensive when I'm actually merely engaging in conversation. For me, I see this photo as a success, not because it's all that phenomenal, but because it sparked a cool discussion.

Fred I was thinking the "Mainstream America" comment may have been offensive, the rest was just discussion, glad you didn't take it like that. Jeff, that's the comment I was apologizing for not necessarily the response to Fred's initial statements.

Gordon, you asked if others have interpretations made that they did not intend to communicate. Happens to me all the time, of course, it depends on who is viewing; some people look at an image and gage it on if it moves them, has an impact, etc. others may be reminded of something that triggers a series of thoughts and emotions.

Your approach to convey what you see is my goal as well, sometimes, I feel a message but most times not; I certainly do not have as much clanging around in my head as Jeff has - mine makes more of a dull thud sound.

As evidenced by your last palm tree image, you, my friend, have mastered what you set out to do. When I looked at that, I immediately saw the sunlight coming through and felt the life and movement in it. However, it was not a still picture of sunlight coming through; you visualized an image of sunlight coming through the fronds and using your creative technique, you then used your years of developed technical skill to produce that which you envisioned. Message or not, when a photographer accomplishes that, s/he has reached the summit. Not that the summit is the end but reaching that summit allows more time and effective use of that time to convey and express what you intend.

 

Fred, you're a shit stirrer - in a good kind of way!

 

Kirk

Fred;

 

" If I read you correctly, you're basically saying that what comes out is often different from what goes in."

 

Yes you read my meaning exactly. I meant this both for the artist working on the piece as well as the viewer. I sometimes end up finding a meaning in my photos which I was not consciously aware of when I set out and sometimes others find meanings different from the meaning I see.

 

Much like you ,I also find myself influenced by the tools at hand. If I learn a new skill in PP I will take that knowledge into consideration, sometimes even at the stage of taking the image. A new wide angle lens will send me out looking at the world differently, before I even put the camera up to my eye. Technique has the same effect. When I decide to do some motion studies I begin to see the scenes around me in terms of how they would look after I have stretched and distorted them adding the effect of time and motion into the equation.

 

Kirk;

 

Pre-visualizing an outcome is something I do most of the time. The fact that what my minds eye sees is not always what I end up with as my capture, is the driving force behind my desire to learn and continue to experiment. To my way of looking at it, this is a distinctly different activity to trying to infuse an image with a message or meaning. Pre-visualizing I do on a conscious level most of the time , infusing my images with meaning I do unconsciously if at all.

I didn't read the entire conversation, but then again, you can't blame me :)))

Jeff, personally I find this image highly original and wonderfully composed. The colors and their composition is remarkable. I could easily see this as the centerpiece in my living room!

Everything has been said. You are an artist as well as a photographer. Did you know you were going to do this when you shot the billboard? Very very good work. I wish I had your creativity.

Fred Frank, the following is a quote from Jeff in his response above to Fred G and me.

 

Jeff said, "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."

 

Jeff, I thought this was a barn. I had to look pretty hard to figure it was a billboard. I thought it was the refleciton of a metal roofed barn. Guess it was the vertical lines that threw me.

 

Fred G., what I just wrote to Jeff, I forgot to mention earlier and is why I questioned how one could be sure what they are looking at was not a mirror; afterall, I thought it was the roof of a barn. Initially, I did not see it as being photoshopped in at all until I started reading the discussions.

 

Anyway, I know what you're saying about going from your learned experiences and analytical that does make sense. I think that process is most easily recognized when analizing art at least in conveying our spatial thoughts to others. I guess some have a systematic way of looking at things to and if that works for them, that's fine.

 

I was under the impression when I read your first comment above that if an image contained painted-in elements done in photoshop that you would automatically dismiss that image as dung, and that to me sounded out of character for an openminded person such as yourself. I probably should have re-read your comment before writing mine.

 

Kirk

I'm very late to this converstaion, and now I'm exhausted from reading and scrolling, so I'll keep this short. I think this is a great image, a kind of photographic "magical realism" that I find enchanting. It is wonderfully crafted, artful in conception, and strangely beautiful.

... Okay, I surrender. Jeff. I'm going to take a couple of more days to read and digest all of this ... the luminaries listed on the comments ... yikes. As Chris H(SoCal) might say, "Holy Moses!".

 

Your part of the deal, Jeff, is to stop anyone else from posting so I can catch up:)

 

By the way, I agree with David Meyer and the others who think that your best work is emerging now. Maybe you've just reached a point of confidence with your tools, but this piece is not only a finely done work of art, but also shows some of the effortless that I associate with mastery. That is, perhaps, why you yourself denigrate it to the degree that you do. Great stuff.

Too many words boys. Way too many words. If Jeff meant to evoke emotions and feelings and moods or make a statement with his image I am sure he intended to do so VISUALLY. By dissecting it as you have with words certainly drains whatever meaning it may have to any viewer, which is why I tend to skip over particularly long winded critiques or comments and as a rule never leave any. You know what Jeff.....I like it. Fred

Excuuuuse me Fred, by your comment, I realised you did not read Jeff's comment above that actually addressed the question you had. All I did was copy and paste Jeff's comment to answer your question "Did you know you were going to do this when you shot the billboard?"

As for being wordy, dear Fred, check my original comment to Jeff, it is 3 sentences; maybe shorter than yours.

 

Kirk

This is a Great artistic and creative photograph, Bravo! Way to think outside the box........

Wow!!!

 

Not withstanding the image, which clearly is a remarkable piece of "out of the ordinary, you will not forget it in a long time" piece of work, the discussion here has really blown my mind.

Beginning with John, Joseph and Chris commentaries, this has been quite a journey, and I say that precisely because of the amount of time I've had to invest just to read it and the huge number of neurons burned in the process of understanding some of it.

So, where to begin.....I think Kierkegaard once said that the art of observing consists of nothing less than to discover what is hidden. (Don?t panic just yet, that's about as far as I dare to go in quoting Kierkegaard) My point is, that regardless of what our thoughts about art are, we've all given this photograph our deepest and most engaging share of observation; being as it may, that by itself speaks dearly about the profound feelings it has left in some of us.

This leads me right into another line of thought, one that?s been mentioned here already. The fact that art and feelings are so deeply intertwined that they can, and should not be separated at all. (less we break something)

 

So here we stand, in awe of one of the best pictures posted by Jeff (arguably as it may seem, the majority seem to coincide), one that has left a profound mark in many; well, at least in me it has ;)

 

Jeff, I can not thank you enough, for sharing this with us.

 

Geeeezz, Jeff. Is that the best you could do with a dead Billboard??

 

Of course I'm kidding!! Just couldn't resist after two hours of reading, 12 eye drops and a Valium.

 

Seriously.....I do like what you did with this... rusting the upper clouds to blend with the billboard, yet keeping the billboard perimeter a darker rust to accentuate and provide more apparent depth.... the forest of young vertical trees matching the rust verticals of the lower half, seemingly reaching for the brightness of a more natural sky/heaven. You put a bit of work into this. Well done. The accolades are well deserved.

I'm sure you and Fred G. realize that my comment was not meant as a put down in any way. I only mention this as it is hard to read emotion over the interenet. I certainly wasn't trying to imply that we shouldn't have discussions over images. After all, how can we possibly learn without communication. I read the responses at lunch break and one of the Fred's comments struck me the most.

"I also think there's a difference between images having deep meanings and people talking meaningfully about images and their creation and their being viewed. I think deep conversations can be had about relatively meaningless things. But, then again, I'm a philosopher. :)

I think that is a very straighforward thought but a very interesting point. It got me thinking about the thought process of taking a photo and of viewing the results. It occurred to me that, hey, not everyone takes photos for the same reason , and by the comments above, it is obvious we all have our own views on the subject. Funny , but I never really looked at it that way. I think the most common reason , among the average point and shooters, is to remember an event. It wasn't until I bought a dslr that I stopped shooting to remember and started doing it as a form of artistic expression. In a very simple way to put it, I take images ( and manipulate them ) that are interesting to me and that others would hopefully find to be interesting. In other words, I want to make visually good images for the sake of enjoyment. Now of course I hope that my images have my touch in them, but I cannot say that this is true in everything I come up with It would be nice if all of my creations stirred up an emotion or inspired someone in someway but ,hey, if it looks "cool" then I'm going to go with it.

 

Extreme dream-like quality exuded by this image. Very nice.

 

Cheers,

 

-Ade

Diana: Thank you for your nice comment. Perhaps I should start a business of living room photos. Starting with a blank billboard, I'll advertise, "Insert your daydream here." I'm always happy when you stop by.

 

 

Fred Frank: I don't mind the philosophizing and deconstruction. Sometimes it sparks my interest. Other times it gets in the way of enjoying a photo or whatever. It depends on how the wind blows. I am grateful for your comments. By the way, I was really taken with your reflection photo. A bit of the surreal in that one as well.

 

 

Joseph P: Thanks. "Magical realism" is a nice label for a genre of "wouldn't it be nice if the world really looked that way" photos. Wishing you well.

 

 

Dennis: Thanks for the vote of confidence (or shot of confidence, whichever fits). I think I'm becoming comfortable enough with PS to stand back and use the tools naturally without letting them take over. Perfectionist that I am, I always see flaws more clearly than successes. I appreciate your kind words.

 

 

Tim: Box? What box? Thanks, buddy.

 

 

Juan Carlos: I like the Kierkegaard quote. I like photos that allow for some mental wiggle room so one's mind can run amok. I agree with the idea of art and feelings intertwining. Sometimes meaning is a logical/analytical endeavor, other times it is merely being moved wordlessly. Thanks.

 

 

Doug Bays: Valium? No wonder you were tired. I keep a bowl full of chocolate covered espresso beans for moments such as this. Thanks for mentioning the color, which was the the part of the photo that I liked the most. Appreciated.

 

 

Ade: Life is but a dream. Thanks for being part of dreaming.

I appreciate you both contributing to such a great discussion and helping me appreciate this photo and the process of making photos. I was thinking of how different people are in museums. Some walk through the halls quickly and happily, thoroughly enjoying being bathed in the experience. Others walk slowly and silently, hands behind their back, thinking and thinking, trying to make meaning, and quietly appreciating what they see. Others (like myself) are chatterboxes. Did you see that? Did you notice that? I wonder what this means? My wife consistently wanders off into other wings of museums because I talk too much. She goes for solace, meditation, and inspiration. I go for ideas, meaning, and discussion. Different strokes. And thank God there are different folks in the world.

A lot has already been said about this composition, so I'll just emphasize how beautiful it is and how I like the wonderful light that adds to the heavenly feeling of the magic and majesty of mother nature. I like very much too the blend of classical landscape photography and the more off-beat occurence of its repetition into the sign, which opens room for interpretation and imaginary thinking.