Education...

 

Each photograph has a concept. A photograph with a creative concept doesn’t mean a good photograph. This picture reminds me the movie “Chicago” but in that movie, there are very clear relationships between subjects and a very good story line. This picture should be re-shot, probably should consider the composition, how to emphasize the main character and relationships among characters.

Yes, this is education--education as to how to manipulate women. Like father, like son--teaching by example, typically. The son picks it up from watching how Dad does it, using up women and then throwing them away. (I'm trying to rack up points with the feminists here.)

Another metaphor that comes to mind here might have been the idea of a remote control wielded by the omnipotent Dad, with the women appearing as puppets on a television screen. Nah, wouldn't work, but I'm sure that there are some variations that might work.

Nice work, Andi. This one does not have a lot of visual appeal for me (nor should it, given what it portrays), but it provokes a lot of thought.

--Lannie

when i saw the photo and the title, it hit me right away. i laughed. a great photo! a great depiction. i like this conceptual photograph. i suppose i can decipher more looking at 2 women and one is done. but, no, ... very nice.
--osamu

Landrum, you pretty much got it right the first time.

The image portrais a concept. It is not an opinion or a personal point of view.

Thank you all for the critique.

Andi Popescu.

Very interesting photo!

I like your image very much Andi. I don't mind the differences in lighting between subjects because I see it as several parts which could stand on their own, but also working together in making a whole. I like the concept involved in it and the way you have put it to act. As said, I think you could have done without the blurred edges or winch, but it's insignificant. I look forward into seeing more of this kind of pictures from you.

Moderator Note: A reminder please - Take a look at the rules for posting to this forum. The link is in the intro by Patrick.

Critiques only please.

I think that Xiao Pai made reference to a concept, Andi, but I fully agree. Nor was I really making a political statement, but pointing out the obvious (to me): a photo like this could be used to make a political statement, and has to be evaluated by how well it makes that statement , since it surely cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of how effectively it makes an "aesthetic statement."

I am reminded of a quote attributed to Thomas Corcoran of the FDR administration: "You can't take the politics out of politics." Nor can one take social commentary out of photography, although some continue to try. Perhaps one could call the goal, "Value neutral, uncontroversial photography." Sounds boring to me.

To me this image does not so much advocate a particular political position as represent a reality: this is the way people do in fact use people (and one might find a way to reverse it so that it is women wielding the strings if one so chose). Therefore the point is not to argue for or against feminism here, but it is to recognize that in some sense the photo is about manipulation, and I do not mean digital manipulation, etc., but the CONCEPT of manipulation (in this case of a man manipulating women, but in another case possibly the reverse, or some other theme, such as Wall Street bankers or Madison Avenue advertising types manipulating consumers, etc. ad infinitum ).

How does one evaluate such photography qua photography? One does not do it by offering a lot of words on how terrible it is to manipulate people. (The photo tells that anyway, without the words.) Is there something in the photo itself that could be changed to better convey the concept or idea, since it is obviously about an idea, not aesthetics?

I confess that I can see no way to improve it in that regard. The idea is simple and easy to grasp, the photo pleasing or not to the eye depending on what kinds of ideas reside in one's mind.

In any case, I like it, Andi. It does what you meant for it to do, and, in my opinion, it "talks" about "education" in a non-didactic way. On one level it is simple. On another it is borderline genius.

I do think that the burning around the edges gives a dark and foreboding look, and the use of black and white was absolutely de rigeur on this one. (Can one imagine this one in color?)

One other thing that strikes me is that the primary model (the woman on the strings) is portrayed almost as if she were being projected onto the wall), and the man and boy are portrayed in a domestic context as if they were merely watching television. The juxtaposition of the profound and the banal is quite startling to me.

Andi, I think that you achieved your objectives. Congratulations.

Mary, I know that you might have a tough row to hoe on this one. Good luck!

--Lannie

I am not talking about the concept, but about the way how to describe the concept. I am not talking about an “aesthetic statement”, but an “aesthetic “side in photography.
Who is main subject? The woman on the strings? Apparently not if you consider the concept of this picture…

I'm sorry, i have to agree with Xiao. I love the concept and the story the image tells. But the light draws the eyes to the TV in the corner, not the "puppet", the father/son or the person on the floor who are all very dark. There are details that are lost in the dark, like the cigar the father is holding, the bottle of drink, etc. One can assume from the apparent care taken in staging the scene that almost every item was chosen with care, but many details are lost due to the lighting.

Xiao Cai, you're right that the radio is the central view point and our eyes start moving around from it to father and son in the armchair, following the strings to the woman attached to them, moving further to woman and doll on the ground just to return back to the radio. This is disturbing. And great. Because it perfectly supports the theme of Andi's work. The radio has a similar 'function' like the strings - you can argue whether radio and marionette are too stereotype but I think here they work well as easily recognizable metaphors thus supporting a clear message.
From my point of view the only slight flaw the image has, is that lighting of the 'source' photos is not coherent - the sharp shadows of the lying woman's leg do not quite fit to overall light in the picture. And I'm not quite sure how to understand the stain on the wall just above the lying woman's head...
Anyway, to close with a praise: great, artistic work, clear message, carefully planned and arranged.

Why is the central view point the radio, not main subject? What is main subject?
The reason why I notice the radio first is because three wall lines point to the radio, then I notice the woman on the strings second (from her head to her legs) because it is the most contrast of black and white in the picture; then I go back to the radio again because the wall line drawing me to the radio. So my eyes switch back and forth between the radio and the woman…

Maybe it's about our expectations. I agree, the composition centers the radio. If we expect the photo to have an 'anchor' = subject then the radio is not fulfilling it's function (to stick to that metaphor: like an anchor that didn't catch ground and the unhappy vessel is drifting off).
However, I presume Andi carefully arranged the composition and on purpose centered the radio. Now despite giving rest to our eyes (and fulfilling our expectations) it kicks them on a journey around the storyline of the image making us think about education, manipulation and (gender) roles. That's why I consider this a very good composition.

Wired.., it's not only a photo..., it's more, and I'm not sure if I like'it or not. I like the encrypted message, but not the fact that everything is "hand made". However congratulations Andi, you have a vivid (!?!) imagination.

Very good! A stylish way of picturing how men learn about dealing with women, or how they would like to deal with them. Father and son in a gloomy but home like ambiance and women puppets. I like everything about it, but the somber tone and character are the best features! Great!

very nice idea good work

Please don’t forget viewers. I don’t presume what the photographer was trying to do. I only consider what I am seeing and then what triggers me to think. Apparently in the first step I have difficulties to see what the photographer wanted me to see.

Please note that what viewer seen causes what viewers to think, it is not that what viewer think helps what viewer to see. The main purpose of a composition is to help viewers to see.
That is the reason why I said this picture is very unsuccessful, because it is simply interpreting the concept and don’t consider any photography techniques such as composition, lighting, focus, DOF and so on.

Actually, the vertical line running down the center of the photo is between the woman and the radio. Maybe there is something wrong with me, but I only noticed the radio somewhat later. The girl caught my eye.

Then there is the other woman lying dead (apparently) on the floor, along with a little girl. Finally, amidst all this chaos, there are the man and the boy placidly watching the woman qua "puppet on a string" as if she were a program on television.

Frankly, I can't seriously fault the composition in all that.

--Lannie

That would be the worst! Apparently the photographer didn’t know what the composition is, what 1/3 rule, and so on…

This pictures is consisted of multiple subjects, so it is very important to understand principles of a composition, which helps you compose a picture, otherwise a picture would be a big mess…

Felicitari. E placut sa vezi un nume romanesc la 'photo of the week'! Succes in continuare! Un pic misogina poza ta dar te iert. :)

Very clever, the whole set, with a significant story to tell.Centuries of bad human(or rather female) manipulation in a photo.Excellent.Regards

Very clever, the whole conception and the set, with a significant story to tell.Centuries of bad human(or rather female) manipulation in a single photo.Excellent.Regards

If there is no title “education”, can you seen what this picture mean? For me this picture just descripts how a family spoiled a child. They all are in one family. There is no any “bad human manipulation” meaning in this picture. Please note the title is “education” so the main character would be the child, the next characters would be father, mother (the woman on the strings), and sister (the doll on the floor).

Xiao Cai, do you know that the composition rules exist as a teaching basis and not as absolute and unchallengeable rules in photography?
Everyone who picks up a camera can easily follow them, especially that nowadays many cameras have focusing screens that actually divide the image into thirds.
If you are able to create an image that does not follow the rules but is visually appealing than it means you already moved away from the beginner stage in your photography career.
I'm sorry if I disappoint anyone but me as a photographer, and I’m sure many others, i don't create my images specially to be dissected by photographers but for people to look at them and say: "I Like it" or "I don't like".
Following this line of thought, does it really matter to follow any rules if 70%+ of the people who see the image say "I love it"?

Sorin Pascu, when you look at this picture, do you think the photographer knows the compostion?

Not following rules doesn’t mean not knowing rules!

"Everyone who picks up a camera can easily follow them, especially that nowadays many cameras have focusing screens that actually divide the image into thirds."
Are you talking about the composition?