Wayang

ISIDRO; thank you for your comment re: my comment, re: everybody elses comments, re: marc's great BUT JUST A PHOTO...I think you understood what I was saying and I think I understood your reply. I call English and the practicing of it anguish. No where is that anguish more evident then when discussions like this take place. People say one thing, its taken as another. Two hundred years ago one such discussion over a photo like this would net photo.net enough money off the sales of dueling pistols to afford a new server...the elves could afford to live a life of sin. And now sin I must when I answer your question of Would you like to be praised for your artistic eye or for your choice of equipment and film used? Should I give credit to the camera and film manufacturer or to the photographer? The answer is neither/none. I used a camera, a lens, some film and fiddled around in Photoshop until it felt right. I did all that cause it felt good (selfish but true), its therapy for meit teaches me patience, forces me to look at my surroundings, helps me understand life. And if someone else enjoys it; all that much better! So everyone lets stop the jawin, take some photos, and share them with each other.

The silhoutte arm looks a bit weird, in my opinion. But a very nice picture!

Jim Vanson, just so I set the record straight and in order to prevent further misunderstandings, I find it necessary to explain that the person I addressed my latest comment, the one about this POW being just a picture is Blind Photographer whose link is:http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=605255

In this link you will find the two pictures which I make mention of; one is titled legs and the other is a Jesus theme, subtitled let there be light. The comment which I started with the words Blind, you have just shot down the whole reason behind the great bokeh of a Leica lens... was in direct response to a comment he previously addressed to both you and me (at least I thought he was referring to you and me). Therefore, and because, your latest post seems kind of blurry to me; and because (to me) it seems that you could be under the impression that I called you blind; and because, on one hand it seems that you thought I was addressing you and you responded back, and on the other, it seems that you gave a generalized answer to the question I asked Mr. Blind, I just felt I had to make things clear.

Peace!

This photograph has a beautiful tonality to it that is much more apparent in this sepia photo than in your colour version of it. I like both the b&w and colour versions equally. The photo is nicely composed and the vantage point is unique as well. Good job!

Should be published in a Design Textbook. The repetition of triangles is especially brilliant.

Is it art, I still don't know, and I still don't care, but while producing a fashion image, there has to be a theme, a specific approach - some may say "a concept". I thought that the end of this week would be the right time to answer some of the questions above about the general intentions I had when I decided to present this dress this way...

Why hide the face ? Well, that's 50% of the whole idea.

As Tony Dummett put it so well - " the picture is about what cannot be seen, as well as what appears in front of you."

Good or bad idea, I don't know, but that was indeed one of the 2 key ideas.

The 2nd idea I had was expressed by three of the previous posters in this thread.

"I wondered why you called it Wayang, and when I looked at the four Wajang puppets I have on my shelf, all was explained. The long, exaggeratedly thin arms and hands with the loosely jointed elbows and shoulders, enabling them to be moved in any direction, and the shadows cast on the wall, make your photo relevant." Hanna Cowpe.

"I tried to check in Google for what Wayang is -- everything is in a language I do not understand. BUT, I did get enough out of it to see that Wayang dolls were wooden shadow puppets. So, Marc, indeed, that is why the strange pose! More information, please! Another mystery solved!! " Margaret Meehan.

"Now, armed with the knowledge of what "Wayang" means, it is easy to see more. Puppet, manikin. The hidden face as signifying incomplete identity, costume as persona sans person. Fashion as a theater awaiting an animating spirit. A rather more complicated, many-leveled, provocative image, of which a great deal, indeed, could be said." Wayne Bellamy.

These 3 posts are saying the same thing, and explaining the simple idea I had before taking this picture: let's go for a paradoxical image where the model would have the rigid elegance of these Wayang puppets, and where the paradox between traditional Asia and modern times would be resolved, just as this dress is an harmonious modern implementation of an old asian traditional design.

Basically, Chris Battey's 2nd POW was a picture of a puppet that looked human, and I photographed here a human being, that was supposed to resemble a beautiful traditional shadow-play puppet...:-)

I was also trying to revive the traditional myth of Asian Women as mysterious and sensual creatures. This "mystery-woman" is not this or that particular women. She is just "an abstract", an "idealized" image of women as a permanent mystery for men. :-)

Fashion designers taylor the way women will appear. Fashion is about looking beautiful, fitting a sophisticated idealized image, where the real woman disappears, therefore becoming more mysterious, therefore more fascinating to us... less visible, yet more attractive... more artificial, but paradoxically also more herself and more valuable beyond these artefacts...

I wanted to capture the soul of fashion as being a show, an artificial wrapping to enhance the mystery of the true woman who hides in the outfit.

What's sealed and hidden isn't necessarily untrue or uninteresting - all the opposite in fact... What's hidden, when it obviously is, gets your attention first, and works on your imagination, exciting your desire to know...

Year after year, I have produced more and more images where faces disappear in the dark, or where faces are left out of the frame all together...

Today I can safely say that I find more truth & Beauty in any mystery, than there is in what's obvious... Basically, what's not reveals what is.

End of this ramble. And once again, thanks a lot for all your posts in this thread and for the very kind words - whether deserved or not, they were the real reward of this POW for me.

P.S: Dennis, no photoshopping, this week...? Just a global theory of art in 2 lines...? :-) That's all ?! I'm very disappointed...:-)

Mr. Gouguenheim himself once said of an obscure POW, "I think that this POW is actually doing a lot more good to the site at this point than I thought it would. It seems to raise the following question: if this is great, then what isn't ?" I couldn't agree more. If this photo ever had a trace of humanity in it to begin with, it has been leached out by the over-the-top lighting. Some may like to look at photos that are poor copies of minor perfume campaigns from the 1980's, but I don't. Time to uncork the timewarp and ride it to today.

"Mr. Gouguenheim himself once said of an obscure POW, "I think that this POW is actually doing a lot more good to the site at this point than I thought it would. It seems to raise the following question: if this is great, then what isn't ?" I couldn't agree more."

Fair enough. Your opinion is welcome. Maybe, to be complete, I would just add that I indeed said that, about YOUR POW. It was just an opinion I expressed, as you express yours today. At least, I posted a detailed explanation regarding my reasons to dislike your image... That's imo what a critique forum is meant for. Best regards.

It's nice to see a POW that offers so much to discuss: strong technical fundamentals, subtle [digital or otherwise] darkroom nipping and tucking, fastidious studio lighting of some complexity, and a model with skinny arms and great skin tone. Congrats, Marc.

It's not my favorite of Marc's photos and doesn't really even do much for me as far as fashion shots go, but that's mostly because of the high angle and the almost completely obscured face. Having done the Google image search on "wayang" and seen the puppets, dancers, artwork and the like, I get it, though--and I have a feeling this is a solidly effective fashion shot (especially in the warmer, more intimate final crop) in the Malaysian market I gather it was intended for.

(Q: When is it not distancing and off-putting to obscure your subject's face? A: When you're operating in a culture where that kind of thing isn't considered off-putting in the cultural context you're alluding to.)

I like how it's sexy without being lurid. I like the range of textures and the way the parts come together. Again, I'm not blown away, but it is a solid choice for POW from someone whose portfolio has a good number of discussion-worthy shots.Cheers.

Perhaps there is a translation problem, or maybe I don't need a thousand words to express myself. I dislike this picture because it's entirely sterile and soulless. It looks dated. It's all technique and no meaning. I'm pretty sure I said all that earlier, but just so there is no confusion, here is another try at it. Best regards.

A puppet with soul? Well, this one doesn't lie and its nose didn't grow. Thanks for the explanation, Marc. It makes a lot more sense now. Congratulations again.

Hi, Marc!

I always admired this one. There is so much simplicity and at the same time so much beauty in this shot. You are a master of photography. I prefer your final version with the croping showing more of shadows on the left. This picture is so clean. Best regards.

everything in this pic is prefect

Congratulations Marc !

this is an amazing studio shot which I believe is representing your work and style very well. The pose, lighting, diagonal composition and toning are striking.

Great lighting, pose and composition.

When I first saw this shot a few weeks ago the first thing that struck me was the assembly of triangles. I thought I might be nuts and kept returning just to see if anyone else said the same. Not a word from anyone. My nutiness was confirmed. So it's a great pleasure to return and see Larry Korhank is as nuts as me. Or that I'm not so nutty after all. And that injection of confidence leads me to the other thing that crept in to my thinking. There's something about the large shadow to the left of her bum and how it merges into the dress that had me wondering if may be the model was standing and leaning with her left arm against a wall or perhaps sat on a stool the legs of which are entirely in shade. I know shes on the floor and youre up a ladder. But the thought is still with me even as I look again today. Thats all I had to say really. Apart from well done. The accolade is long overdue.

Bravo Marc, je suis si peu ici que j'ai manqué ta nomination méritée, je découvere plein de nouvelles photos, que je me promet de commenter dans les prochains jours. A bientôt donc!!!

Jean

a la chinois... it offers good i.e.MSP however the sandles are not correct.... I have a collection of original prints taken by a secretary of my grandfather in Shanghai in the 1920s which is documentary of costume, and also very unusually of nudes (the chinese were very adverse to showing them selves in those early days of the foreign devil with his back box... but you have doe well

the light is wonderful and its a very good creation.

classy, mysterious and a good fashion sense incorps this image. Tight crop and lighting enhances the shape of the model and her outfit.

As with many of your images you have created a orient style, but all your work has STYLE!!!

Stunning... a fantastic piece.

Absolutely good! I like the pose, the tones and the lighting.

I really like the color tone and depth of this picture. Marc, I think you intended to mix 2 cultures into 1 picture here. The model wears a Shanghai Costum with a Vietnamese hat on her head... incredible!

Beautiful. This is A PICTURE!

Great photo. I liked too much the "movie light", just like the 50´s film photos.