Wayang

All good things come to those who wait... Congratulations, Marc. You've certainly earned this recognition more than most. I'm hesitant to join the chorus of those massaging your ego, for fear of it reaching dangerously swollen proportions! Suffice to say Photo.net is a much richer place for your contributions. (Although I still think you should get out more...)

 

(-: Best regards.

Yes, Carl, agreed... Besides that, the final picture seems now slightly too dark to me on the page, whereas it wasn't in Photoshop. It isn't supposed to be darker than the version on top of this thread... I'm going nuts here, I think... Trevor is right : fresh air is needed...:-))

Congratulations Marc. Fashion is one important side of photography, like it or not, and you represent it very well here on photo.net. I didn't think the original version was perfect with all that strange pshop blurring at her feet, but the last uploaded version is much better.

 

Simone

Marc:

 

Your always precise attention to detail is evident here in spades

-- along with your keen artistic vision.

 

Beyond your enormous talent, I couldn't agree more that

Photo.Net is a much richer place thanks to your contributions. In

the few weeks that I've been visiting the Critique Forum, I've seen

your thoughtful and often elaborate comments in dozens and

dozens of portfolios -- including my own. They are always

precise, detailed and, above, all constructively helpful.

 

Kudos, Marc -- and thanks!

"the unintended elements of the absurd. . . ."

I don't know who said it above, but I had to laugh out loud. I'm sorry, but the suggestion that the lips, etc., are "unintended" indicates that someone just might have missed something here. . . .

Those kinds of comments are like cosmic rays that constantly penetrate our bodies but cannot touch our souls, but, as someone has said, this photo has SOUL, big-time SOUL.Congratulations, Marc, but we knew that the stones would come. By the way, I like the expanded version with the right side of the oval visible.

Was there ever a component of your photos that was unintended, Marc? I suppose that there surely has been, but those lips surely were not. How long did it take you to set up the angle to get those lips just so?

Has there ever been a photographer LESS deserving of POW than this clown, this wordy buffoon, this bandwidth-wasting, PS-abusing, "photographer" ----

 

Um, wait. I meant, "Congrats Marc!" Yep, that's what I meant. (I wonder if the sarcasm in my first paragraph will come through in cyberspace...)

 

But seriously, I think this is a striking and interesting image, in both versions. Perhaps this comes from having done some theatre lighting years ago, but I can't help but see the shape of the light on the floor as a spotlight coming in from the upper right (thus the elongation down and left). Obviously, there's a second, strong light on the front of the model casting the shadow behind her, but I keep expecting a shadow down and left from my imagined theatrical spot. Don't get me wrong, I think the lighting is very well done here - it's just my reaction on looking for a little while to wonder where that shadow is.

 

A couple quick comments on the two versions: I think the light area above her right shoulder may be a little bright in the original version, so I like its value better in the second, but I think a slight blurring there to eliminate the "texturing" (for lack of a better word) at the edge would create a nicer, smooth line. Also, though I like the overall effect better in the second (especially the reduced blurring), I like the original in one particular - the incomplete arc of the spotlight on the floor makes it feel more dynamic to my eye. My only other nit pick is that it seems slightly oversharpened on her right arm (which has already been picked on, but for other reasons).

 

Very nice work, Marc. And deserving. Now, forgive me for saying all those bad things about you at the top of my post?

Congratulation! Excellent & classic shot. Heroic act to handheld RZ. :-) 7/7

Marc, you deserved to be rewarded in this place, a POW was long overdue. As many others I would have not picked this photo to honor you. But, never mind, this is the photo to comment: perhaps you wont like my comment but you are a big boy and can stand criticisms. If I had to rate this image I would give it 7 for artistry and 6 or 7 for originality, but still I dont think it has much artistic value. I comment on this photo from that point of view because the main reason for me to visit this place is to find artistic images, I visit it frequently and often find what I am looking for.

 

First let me ask you a question: do you think that this particular photo has artistic value? If so, what is it? I know you would not like to answer it, but I think you should, who else know better this photo than yourself. I am asking this because some things written above give important insights to evaluate it, such as the meaning of Wayang, the Chinese new year and so. Perhaps your opinion about your own photo would open it to people, like me, that can not read or understand it. It is not lack of modesty to be open about your work, if you are posting something here you think it is of value, would it be great for us and very very brave from you if you would share your meaning. Since photography and all artistic expressions are communications (of ideas, feelings, emotions, weltanshaungen, etc), thus they are languages, to get the message you have to be able to speak the language. Perhaps I dont share completely your language here, I am not sure about that.

 

As for my opinion. In fact I should have to show that this photo has no artistic value, but this is an impossible task for me, therefore I only can clarify why I dont see much artistic value in this photo. A subjective approach then. Trying to make it less subjective I tell you my references. In the first place I think that something woman or manmade has artistic value when reveals or clarify reality. It relates to us and conveys a significance that we get at different levels, sensuous, emotional, intellectual, social, whatever. The richer the work of art the more intense and complex should be our answer. This can be done by different mechanisms like recontextualizing, creating a different order, revealing hidden aspects of a known reality, kicking us off balance etc. In the second place I think that a work of art has an objective value, that our reaction is just that: a reaction to something that the work of art has. And the role of critics is to find out this objective value. Enjoyment of something is not a prove of artistic value, I enjoy horse races, sun setting in Valparaiso and Champagne, among other things, but this enjoyment has nothing to do with art, even if it has with beauty. Of course there are other dimensions to be taken into consideration, like craftsmanship, but it is so evident that you posses it that it is not necessary to stop by.

 

In fact this is what I miss in this photo. If I compare this one with for instance those experiments of yours with PS filters, where you call my attention and awaked my feelings and thinking to some features of contemporary culture: opacity, materiality as opposed to spirituality, directness, no-non sense etc. Or if I compare it with that marvelous series of nudes by Juri Bonder, that convey significances beyond a naked body. Or Ken Williams eggs that surprises us in the same way as Margritte does. That is what I miss here. This is what I missed in last week POW either, both photos share craftsmanship, professionalism and a lot of other qualities, but they finish there, within their own frame.

 

To be sure I dont think that a subject is more or less artistic than others, but no subject guarantees that you will produce works of art, we see here so often naked girlfriends, or family snapshots, or out of focus cars that should remain in the private sphere. Fashion or sport are as worth as any other subject. Although very difficult as a start point. Usually fashion or sport photos catch you, dont let you see beyond surface and in this way hide more than reveal. It is a real challenge to make good artistic photos from subjects like those. I think that some photos by Eolo Perfidio meet this challenge, last week he posted a portrait that had this quality. You have posted some with such qualities as well, but still it is very hard to do it.

 

I realize that I am to bavard to day, sorry for being so. I have many other things to say, your photo make me think a lot, but I dont want to be a bigger bore. Congratulations for your POW, I was very happy when I saw it. I apologize for my English, I should improve that but my time is so limited

 

 

 

I think the issue of whether or not this photo is "art" is irrelevant to its POW award....... but it's an interesting issue nonetheless.

 

Personally, I don't see any great evidence of art within it, which is not to say it isn't a successful and excellent photograph, because it is. As a photograph it succeeds on many levels, but as art, I agree with Guillermo Labarca that it fails to deliver.

 

I posted on one of the earlier versions of this image how I thought the execution of Marc's photography achieved its primary goal: As a fashion shot, I was drawn by the lighting, composition and styling to the garment and its features, and not much else besides that. As a piece of art, I wouldn't expect that to be sufficient.

 

At the same time, I don't expect that Marc set out with the intention of making a piece of art, but instead to make a piece of advertising, the end goal of which is more to sell a product or service. It's evident he used artistic talent, and artistic means, but the "art" that Guillermo refers to is not coming across to me either, but I don't think was ever intended to.

Nice post, Guillermo !First of all, you are not a bore at all, and if you have other things to say, many of us would probably be rather glad to hear them. What you are saying, I think, makes perfect sense. You are somehow in line here - at least to a certain extent - with what David & Richard objected about earlier, but I can relate to what you are saying, because I share many of the views you have expressed in your post...

Let's go through...

"Since photography and all artistic expressions are communications (of ideas, feelings, emotions, weltanshaungen, etc), thus they are languages, to get the message you have to be able to speak the language. Perhaps I dont share completely your language here..."

I agree - at 500%...:-) Sometimes, I'm a bit irritated by certain pontifications about "what art should be". It should be what it is - a communication. Just like you said. And to communicate, we need a common language - no doubt. So, if we face a "communication breakdown", we all tend to believe that it's the artist's fault, and we say that he produced kitsch, crap, etc. We must imo resist this tentation as much as we can, because we should remember just what you wrote: that it is often all a matter of language. "I fail to understand what you are saying" is an objective statement. "You are saying nothing and you are a barbarian" is not...:-) "What are you saying that I can't understand ?" is the right question to ask, and that's what you just did.

"I should have to show that this photo has no artistic value, but this is an impossible task for me, therefore I only can clarify why I dont see much artistic value in this photo. A subjective approach then." you said...

Again, you should have to, but you can't ever DEMONSTRATE that a work has no value. Arts aren't mathematics. So the common effort between a photographer and his critic should be to find a way to replace the original communication breakdown that may have occurred by a successful (yet delayed) communication. Better communicate late than never... Trouble is that sometimes a photo can turn us off completely, so much so, that we wouldn't even try to understand it, but would prefer to just OFF the communication, and walk out ! :-)) (I'm glad at least this picture didn't turn you off...)

"In the first place I think that something woman or manmade has artistic value when reveals or clarify reality. It relates to us and conveys a significance that we get at different levels, sensuous, emotional, intellectual, social, whatever. The richer the work of art the more intense and complex should be our answer."

Again, I agree absolutely with you.

"Enjoyment of something is not a prove of artistic value, I enjoy horse races, sun setting in Valparaiso and Champagne, among other things, but this enjoyment has nothing to do with art, even if it has with beauty."

Correct as well.

"Fashion or sport are as worth as any other subject. Although very difficult as a start point. Usually fashion or sport photos catch you, dont let you see beyond surface and in this way hide more than reveal. It is a real challenge to make good artistic photos from subjects like those."

Glad somebody realizes that it is, indeed, quite a challenge... and by the way, SHOULD a fashion or sport photo always be ART ? I personally don't think so, though I might have a preference for more artistic images in these genres too...

Now, all this being said, am I going to answer your question, and to reveal what was my intention or my message, and basically what I was trying to communicate when I took this picture...? Well, no...:-)) At least, not now. I have done so in many occasions in the past, and I noticed that it actually doesn't help much, and often even stops people from wondering what they are looking at...

What I can tell you for now is that many of my pictures are meant to make people wonder what they are looking at. Not always so, but fairly often. Sometimes I want to be clearer and sometimes not. You said you missed something in this picture that would call your attention and pick your brains... That's possible. Now read the Elves' late comment : who is she...? I thought that just revealing her lips would at least raise this question... and hopefully more... If it didn't, the communication failed. Too bad, and nothing I can do a bout it. Yet, I will at the end of this week post a response to Lannie's comment above, and a little explanation of what was my intention...

Just not yet You all don't need that explanation just yet, whereas I need to see who has perceived what here, if I want to learn something from this page of comments. I hope you understand. Sunday, I'll post the answer to your questions.

As for the answer regarding this picture being art or not, honestly, I care only to the following extent: what does it tell its viewers ? Nothing to you ? Then, it's a communication failure between us. Something else than what I meant ? Never mind - if it revealed something to you or if you at least enjoyed it, I'm glad enough. If you received exactly the message I was trying to send, I call it perfect communication. So far, one person in this thread (to whom I e-mailed about it) has apparently felt the same way as I did about this picture, and saw what I was trying to show... and number of people seem to have received at least part of what I tried to communicate...

Then, I personally agree with Doug Burgess about this: "I think the issue of whether or not this photo is "art" is irrelevant to its POW award....... but it's an interesting issue nonetheless". I would even say that this issue is irrelevant in general as long as an image communicates something to a few viewers. The more viewers, the better, of course... And the more intense the communication, the better... But this communication can actually happen at many levels, and it can even be at a purely aesthetical level sometimes... If a picture reveals nothing at all, it is an empty shell, but it can still be a beautiful shell...

I did try to communicate something here, an idea, not just to make the picture beautiful. But I didn't really try to make the message absolutely clear and accessible to all. It was a fashion shot, and had to remain beautiful by priority. Advertising is first about selling. To sell fashion, the first ingredient is often beauty. It doesn't necessarily mean that it should stop there, but it surely starts there...

Or, put in a fun way: asking a fashion shot or a product shot to reveal something about God and the Universe is a bit like asking your trash bin to talk...:-)) If it doesn't you can go angry and kick it, but all you'll get is rubish on the floor...:-)

Nevertheless, some trash cans do talk - but that's a bonus...:-) Best regards.

Nearly perfect Marc, or actually this is pretty darned perfect. Congrats on the POW selection. Your work is inspiring, highly professional and extremely artistic.

I'm imressed by you're photo Marc but I'm also very impressed by you're latest statement here. Photography at it's best can be an international language... And as long as we are communicating we don't go to war or anything like that. I beleave in communication and I beleave in photography. Thanks for you're contributions here on photo.net.

Regards from the Netherlands.

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!!

 

This photo was done as advertising and is not Art? Well, perhaps not to some of us. I think it's artistically done and wonderfully presented considering the Wayang meaning and the market. For all I know the Wayang puppets may have spoken about God, and all things philosophical. The advertising and posters in markets, magazines, everywhere are Art that we are constantly exposed to; and all the Art the majority of us ever see. That and graffitti in the subways.

 

Yo Bro'

 

What you do that fo'?

 

You say for cash

 

Just Talkin' Trash

Was it the 2nd time I read the word puppet in this thread...? :-)

An online english dictionary defines art in this way as well as many others:

 

Art: "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects;"

 

Why are people so selfish when speaking of art? For me, Michelangelo was a great artist, while some bad photographers (including me maybe) we can find here are bad artists. We are all artists when we create something, and even the dumbest advertising is a work of art, since each creation of human intellect has got it's own dignity. People who don't agree with this are actually going against any common dictionary, or have in mind an abstract idea of "perfect art" that exists only in Plato's philosophy.

Aesthetically, this picture comes across extremely sophisticated and elegant to me. So very well thought out and planned. Technically, I really am impressed on all counts: tonal range, choice of sepia, detail, chosen angle, composition of lines/elements, and the presumably solitary light source (my apologies for not having time to read all prior comments). The spotlight containing the form of the girl is very effective on several counts: she almost merges with her shadow (at the back of her skirt), which in turn merges with the bgrd darkness; the top of her hat breaks out of the oval spotlight providing some relief which might otherwise have created a feeling of being restrained; and also isolates the girl from her contextual environment, which arouses curiosity. Further mystique is created by the anonymous nature of the face hidden by the hat. I like the fact her right arm is provocatively on the hip, and in dark shadow it really provides a strong impact against the light. Also that shape echoes the pointed cone shape of the hat. Well that's the visual stuff....

I don't doubt for a minute (being a product of Marc G.) that this photo has a story attached, intends to represent something deeper than just aesthetics, or at least intends to integrate some emotive significance. However, I am sorry to say whatever it is, it surpasses me!

Having been lucky enough to see a forum posted polaroid of this idea in it's earlier stages of development, I can truly appreciate the dedication and determination that must have been applied to achieve the final 'perfected' result. Well in my opinion, it seems there is little to perfect here. I could do without the blurring around the bottom edge of the feet and material, but that's about it.

Bravo, and congratulations Marc!

Hello Marc. You are certainly in your element. I will not humor anymore declarations of a language handicap from you... your eloquence in English is exceeded only by your eloquence in the studio.

I found much to agree and disagree with in the above discourse, and you handle all of it well enough that I need not reiterate those points.

I am struck by how many people (metaphorically speaking) express dismay that "your apple resembles in no way an orange. While it is clearly a fruit, the skin is entirely too smooth, it is too round and the color is not like all the apples I like. It's obviously not organic but needed fertilizing badly. Were it placed in an apple crate, and red, it would look much more like the apples I see. If it were sliced in half (and tipped slightly to the right) , it would then speak volumes about the sweetness of an apple, the life it contains and we could see how each one has it's own personality, yet they all fall from the same tree, it's mortality and immortality would be revealed and why can't we all just get along?".

Congratulations on this bestowed notoriety, I'm glad you have the capacity to enjoy it and thereby bring serious conversation to photo net (but not from me!)... t

[ad hominem comments removed by moderator ...] In this thread the response to my sincerely felt reservations about this POW has been an attempt to rubbish, rather than accept that I have a right to my opinion. Several other brave souls have raised their heads above the parapet to say the Emperor has no clothes, to little avail. There have been enough gushers here to solve the U.S. petroleum (or should I say gas) shortage for the next decade. Of course you could say that Photonet is a microcosm of society, and the sad fact is we live in a very superficial society. So this kind of confection is just what Joe Public seems to look for, something slick, cool, fuzzily emotive and not too demanding for the gray cells. In an age where individuals have become consumer units, it needs people to stand up and say just what advertising stands for, an insidious manipulation of our emotions in the name of relieving us of our hard-earned bucks. It might explain why I detest most forms of this weasel art, advertising photography, including the fashion variety, as represented here, because its allure lies in its power to seduce the senses and overpower reason . To return to the thread, it saddens me that some have found inspiration in Marcs work- are their aspirations so impoverished, as to strain towards the flashy and jejune products of this hothouse genre? [edited] [Marc has said that people haved loaded] kitsch on the top pages, so that is why I asked in my first post in this thread exactly what it was that distinguished his photo from theirs.

Very soft picture... very frustrating aslo. I would like to see more, face and body, expression. I very much appreciate your western way/mood of catching asian features in that shot. Congrats Marc!

I dunno. I've worked with several excellent photographers and they all had pretty big egos. All of hte big shots I ever did didn't get anywhere until I started behaving like a primadonna, so maybe it's a requirement, just like it is for being president or king...?

Great picture. I love the tonality, the mystery, the Hogarth S-curve composition, and the lighting, all contributing to a first class, elegant photograph. Thanks so much for sharing - and congratulations on having this be selected to be photograph of the week (week of Feb. 3, 2003)!

I think this picture would be much more interesting if the camera was at a lower angle so we could see part of the model's face.

 

It also looks as if she is sitting under a spotlight which I don't think works too well.

 

Without wishing to offend anyone or seem rude I think there were probably much stronger photos uploaded this week e.g. the work by Piotr Zaporowski. And certainly some of the other photos such as "the fix" in the winners portfolio I think would make a much more worthy winner.

 

Just my humble opinion of course.

yes, hmm. technically well executed, nice balance of tones, compostion and all that, but doesnt quite reach me at all. for me: too clean, too clinical, too contrived. even for a fashion shot this is lacking in personality and interaction. the model does not even evoke mystery, since she is captured in a way that accentuates form to the detriment of character. she is in a sense dehumanised, but not even in an interesting way. would work well in a shopping mall in shanghai or beijing, and for some other commercial purposes, but this doesnt make it a wonderful, superb, photo.

This is an outstanding fashion-like studio photo with excellent lighting, toning, pose and shooting perspective. I particularly like the silhouette of the right elbow and the projection of hut against the bright as well as dark background. The picture really evokes some feelings of mystery as the elves pointed out. Congrats to POW, Marc.

 

Measured with the high standard of the professional fashion photos (considering Marc's background as a professional photographer), I just noticed a small "blemish" in this picture. For my eye, the stuffs right to model's left hand a bit distracting. Actually, I failed to figure out what they were, and I couldn't see the clue how they contributed to the whole picture.

What a lot of sevens, Marc. Is this a lucky number in the East? It

seems you've got grief for past comments and not for the current

picture. In general personal attacks do no one any good, be a

guerilla and post a better picture, is my thought. Would you give a

7-7 to it as your choice of best photo in your portfolio? I think the

photo is very accomplished-technically, slick and eye catching. At

a human level it is controlled and a bit soul less and

unengaging. Therefore I wouldn't want to see it again and again,

so a good image but not great and probably not one of the top 52

in the last year.

Louis