Still - for Christmas....

What? No candles? No pretty silver balls? No red bows?

 

This is beautiful. Even original.

Very good.

In my opinion, this picture entitled, "Still - for Christmas," is in poor taste because it depicts a bunch of dead or drunken animals as a Christmas theme. So, from that standpoint, I found it asthetically and originally in poor taste (i.e. bad). That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I have no problem with hunting. Show all the dead animals you want ... I don't find that offensive per se. Emil is a great talent as shown by his work. But, you can't please everybody all the time. This picture (because of its title relative to its content) didn't please me, and my short comment didn't please Emil and others. And in retrospect, I agree that my criticism with no explanation was unfair. So to be fair, I'm going to try and remove my rating from the tally and just let my explantion stand as my opinion, only.

the comment above has been changed - so mine is now absoleete.. I grant anyone to have their opinions on my images - as long as they are followed by an explanation.. Thank you for that one... I did not intend to offend anybody eith my picture or the title, and was surprised to see the reaction showed in this long line of comments.. But that's actually the great thing about you guys... you care enough to take a stand and use a fair amount of time writing here...

This image reminds me of some old paintings of dead animals that I saw in fine arts class long time ago.... but I cannot remember whose paintings those were. Anyway, this is a great image, Emil, and I love it very much. Congratulations for this wonderful work !!!

nothing makes for a interesting photo like dead animals. this is an excellent take on a subject(christmas) that has been poorly interpreted for far too long. i hope you will keep photographing the dead-i know i will. if nothing else, annoying the mr. whites of the world will be the fruits of our labor. cheers

 

ps. the maroon border around the image matches the background far too closely and is a real disturbance. why a border, anyway?

I must agree with Howell; pretty bad taste. Strange as it may sound to you, I prefer to see pictures of life animals....

(No rating, I'm only refering to the subject)

Folks, we are not here to ridicule or disparage an artist because he uses imagery and subject content some may find distasteful. If you don't like an image, you should either keep your opinions to yourself, or state your opinion AS AN OPINION, not as a blanket statment phrased as an absolute truth, as those those opinions above on "taste" have done.

 

I personally have seen one photographer do an excellent series of photos of 'road kill', some of which were disgustingly graphic. While I found many of his images to be distasteful (and some nauseating), I could not fault his photographic or artistic skills, for both were flawless.

 

As for the image here, I find it to be an interesting blend of still life concepts that have been historically used by the Northern European oil painters since about 1600. Excellently composed and balanced with the choice of background color and the shading with the light-painting. My only personal complaint is that the image is too dark over all, making it hard to make out much of the details that I would like to see, and should be lightened up. But then this 'darkness' is consistent with this photographer's style as seen throughout his portfolio on PN.

 

Now pardon me while I leave a 7 for originality for his excellent blending of still life subjects, and a 6 for asthetics.

Well spoken Dennis .................. (-;

What happened to

 

"I have got to give you a 7 on all your photos for Originality. Asthetically they exhibit too dark a mood for my tastes. Nevertheless, you are a true artist pushing the envelope on new methods."

 

The deposit of a 1/1 on this image is insulting. To imply that this photo has no redeeming value whatsoever, even if it has somehow offended your sensibilities with it's "taste" is ludicrous.

I find this a successful comment on the excesses of the season, and on traditional still life painting. The blood red background is quite beautiful; I would keep the colours just the way they are. If I have any criticism, it would be that towards its feet the bird hanging down fades into the green cloth in a way that doesn't seem quite realistic, at least at this reduced size. The lighting, as in all your photos, is wonderful.

Emil, this is just fabullous... You have managed to bring together all the classical elements of still life painting in an absolutely dramatic way, and what's more, using the dark lighting of these old paintings, yet adding your personal touch with a very different color and with this really powerful irregularly lit red background. What amazes me is that this shot has become in the end something a lot more "stressful" than similar paintings... I would say that this is now truly a portrait of Death in Xmas colors...:-)

 

Maybe but still very original and not deserving of a 1/1

Love it.

Oh, deer. Poor Bambi! I'd have to echo the sentiments of those who think this image is a bit distasteful (in my opinion). And I disagree with Dennis where he suggests that nauseating images have merit if they are well done. Which is not to say that any picture showing death is distasteful; it's all a matter of presentation.

I have been following your work for quite some time and now I feel I can comment on your work. Even though this isnt your best compositionally or technique, I finally get a sense of true exploration with content. Dont get me wrong, your main body of work is great, but honestly, I have never felt any personal risk taking in your images. Most people here would disagree with me and what Im saying since most here really only care about technique and execution (and maybe seeing nudity). Most of your other work looks like it came out of Stieglitzs Camera Work. Again dont take that the wrong way since I mean that as a huge complement. I guess what Im trying to say is even through your images are stunning to look at, I think you are in the position to take things further. The risk in this image demonstrates that.

I'm not too excited about this arrangement, but I don't think it deserves a 1/1 score. It looks like an arrangement I would come up with, which isn't a good thing. I'll probably get slammed for this, but that's how I feel. I think your portraits are outstanding, but this one leaves me wanting a lot more.

 

Although I can appreciate the classic still life motif, I don't feel the composition is very strong. The space below the deer seems vacant without purpose. I feel the same about the space above the deer. The lighting is fine over all, except for the pheasant hanging over the table, which looks as if it has been cloned in from another photo. I think the red fabric on the left with the two tiny pheasants, which I guess is supposed to somehow harmonize with the two pheasants on the right, is fine, but the meaning or purpose of the two little pheasants is lost on me. Their inclusion actually seems corny.

 

I think because of all the unused space the camera is held too far away. If the composition could be strengthened and tightened, then the camera could be brought closer, and the image would be bigger and more interesting. This type of still life cries for complexity, but I don't see it here.

 

Having said that, I'm surely no master at this type of photography myself, so much so, that I wouldn't even attempt a set up like this. As for correcting some of these points, I don't know that I could do that, except maybe to suggest the pheasant be hung from the same level as the vase of scraggly vines and the frame trimmed to horizontal. I've attempted to illustrate my opinions with the image uploaded above.

 

 

With all of the comments about this image. I think that it has succeeded as an artwork by the old rule; "An artwork is a success if it provokes an emotional reaction from the viewer, it can be love or hate or something else, but the worst insult is to receive apathy for your work." This image has provoked quite a range of reactions in this forum of comments, from open disgust at the "tastless" use of dead animals, to the wonderfully perceptive comment from Kezia about it being a "comment on the excesses of the season." A concept I picked up on as well, but regretfully forgot to include in my prior comment.

 

And thank you Marc for your further insights on the classical stll life elements used here (for examples of this just look into any art history book under the Flemish and Dutch still life painters, dead animals were frequently used).

 

I think that with the many excellent qualities of this image, and for the volume of discussion that it has already generated, that this image would be a good candidate for POW. What say you?

'poor tastes' certainly is a valid critique, but certainly not deserving of a 1/1, since the photo has been executed perfectly. I give it 7/7, even though its content does not particularly appeal to me.

Well, here is another post in defence of this image...

1) Tasteless or not tasteless ? Well, I'd say this: I can understand that one may dislike the fact of "exhibiting" DEAD creatures. Yet, that respectable opinion is just an opinion about the subject, it seems... We aren't here to rate subjects per se, I believe.1 / 1 ? I don't think that's fair, because it is disregarding the fact that this image has a lot of aesthetical qualities such as light and colors at least. But anyway, that's just my opinion on the way to rate, and it needs not be anybody else's. Now, down to the real discussion on taste... Is it or not distasteful to show dead animals ? That's imo each viewer's prerogative. To me, death is the end of life, and as such, part of it - the last part... Why would death be a taboo subject if all other aspects of life aren't ? Besides, as stated above, dead animals have been on paintings thousands of times in those centuries when hunting was still part of daily life. I don't recall anyone critiquer ever writing that these paintings were distasteful. So, subjectively, it can be called tasteless because of one's own reaction to the subject, but that's that.

2) About Emil Schildt's work lacking content in general... I found this post very interesting, because I am not one of these persons who ONLY care about technique, and because I, on the contrary, find that Emil's work is probably the studio work on PN with the strongest content - which I believe to be true for at least 75% of his pieces uploaded so far. So, I shall use this page to explain where I personally see this content in Emil's work in general, and what sort of content Emil's work is all about - as far as I can tell...

Am I not stating the obvious if I say that about every picture by Emil is as much about life and death as it is about the subject he chose to photograph ? Emil's portraits, for example...

a) http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=907375 is an incredible fainted image where life seems so far away that we would almost think of the return of a good ghost...

b) Then, at http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=900281 , it seems that the model is looking THROUGH the viewer and I see a real metaphysical depth in her eyes...

c) Then http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=994959 raises a lot of questions to me... This portrait by Emil seems to show a person fated to end up with flowers on top of her (grave, Death) and at the same time the flowers can be seen as a symbol of life, but their fall then means almost the same... While this model's eyes seem, again, to question Life as a whole...

d) The folder "Kill your darlings" is of course the clearest portrayal of life and death we can think of, such as this image: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=907819 ... "Vanitas" is a recurrent theme in Emil's work, and so far I understand it as the vanity of life for humans who are anyway fated to disappear... A classical theme well developped by many writers (Baise Pascal, french philosopher in the 17th century being the name that immediately comes to my mind) and painters like Gericault.

I could go on and on for almost every single work by Emil, but I suppose I'd better keep it short, since I'm sure everyone can already see my point. No content, therefore, just means to me that some people may have access to the content and feel strongly (as I surely do) about it, whereas to others, all this may just look like some kitsch well executed "grand" scenes just meant to copy old painting masters with a camera. The CONTENT exists in Emil's work, but then, it all depends how receptive one is to it, and that's that. A very subjective thing imo. To me, Emil is a great artist who proposes numerous portrayals of a few themes he's pretty much obsessed by, and I can only hope that more people would try to study his work a little as far as content goes...

Then, I could be pretty wrong here, but I always had the feeling that this particular image was maybe not Emil's most impressive shot, but an important one: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=906949 ... Do read Emil's comment on it... And Emil, maybe you can some day tell me something about this picture...

3) Now, back to the image posted here... and to Doug's comment about it mostly...

"The space below the deer seems vacant without purpose."

Vacant, yes... "Without purpose" ? Mmmm... Does every corner of a still life need a purpose ? Or do you mean, Doug, that it is a flaw in the composition ?

" I feel the same about the space above the deer. The lighting is fine over all, except for the pheasant hanging over the table, which looks as if it has been cloned in from another photo. I think the red fabric on the left with the two tiny pheasants, which I guess is supposed to somehow harmonize with the two pheasants on the right, is fine, but the meaning or purpose of the two little pheasants is lost on me. Their inclusion actually seems corny."

While I can see all these things you mention, Doug, I am pretty convinced that Emil would know pretty well how to compose a "classical still life" with no major "holes" in the composition, etc. I think you are here declaring that this and that details have no purpose, whereas Emil probably placed the elements based on how he FELT was right to express his feelings about the subject. This isn't a commercial shot basically.

"I think because of all the unused space the camera is held too far away. If the composition could be strengthened and tightened, then the camera could be brought closer, and the image would be bigger and more interesting."

I personally think that this sentence of yours, Doug, with all due respect, has more flaws than the composition...:-) A tighter composition is something you or me may go for on a commercial assignment, but "unused space" is just fine by me for an artistic image of this kind. The camera closer would indeed make each element comparatively "bigger" and "more interesting" in itself, but would also completely destroy the soul of this creation. The "break between left and right in the composition is absolutely against all rules, but justified by the fact that DEATH DOES NOT UNITE CREATURES, but rather SEPARATES THEM. This emty spaces were also left as they are to basically let the "red" in the background play its (important) role. What you are looking at is basically the red of blood flawing all over the frame. It is what impacts me most in this image, and what makes it so difficult to "digest" at first sight.

"This type of still life cries for complexity, but I don't see it here."

Well, I certainly do see complexity ! But maybe you meant a tight network of objects and animals ? Read Scott's comment again at the beginning of this thread... We aren't looking at a "pretty" product arrangement for a client here, nor are we looking at these close-up old paintings showing per se what hunters brought back home at the end of the day. We are rather looking at a strong portrayal of Death, where emptiness makes perfect sense and where blood spilled on the background sets the mood. The elements of this composition are not parts of a well united sum, but rather lost souls in a desert of blood. That's Emil's vision, and not a flaw to me - at all. All the opposite, in fact. This wasn't meant to look good. I hope Emil would agree with this general statement I'm now going to make:

The aesthetics of an image are not to be judged against a set of pre-conceived or learned rules, but rather MEANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD. AND AESTHETICS ARE, at the end of the day, JUST THE ART OF MATCHING THE FORM WITH THE CONTENT... ("style" being then the artist's own way to to match form and content)...

Hope this makes some sense... Best regards.

Marc I totally agree with all you are saying, I think you have missed my point. What you have said about his work is valid but my point is that the subject matter Emil uses seems safe. He knows it, he has it down. I don't see personal risk. Im not saying that all work has to be new and refreshing, but the reality is that this content and imagery has been done before. Again that is not a bad thing, BUT when you have someone like Emil with obvious talent and desire to explore, I think forums like this actually hurt him because of the overwhelming acceptance of his work. His technique is beautiful, his compositions are beautiful, his models are beautiful and one could argue that all three of these elements are practically perfect. BUT his iconography is predictable and safe. Why does he mainly use beautiful young nude women? Talk about tired imagery. You could use all the buzzwords of vulnerability, beauty, etc. for the use of the young nude woman, but art is beyond that now. Why is he painting with light? I could go on and on. Again all these elements he is perfecting, but how does it all come together? I think that is why he is so successful on photo.net where most people do not sit and ponder about work because of the inherent fast pace that the web medium allows. In an environment like this, great looking pretty images with quick and direct content work. Not to generalize here again, but most people I gather will think that all of that doesnt matter. If an image works, it works. Emil is to that point in his work. On the face his images work. Im wondering if he wants more then that. I think this image hints he does.

First a little note to Balaji...:-)

"Please don't look for inner meanings :-)))" you said ? My reply: "Please DO look for them"...:-))

I mean: I personally don't care whether what I see in a work of art was or was not intended by his author. What I care of, is what the work tells ME. If I'm wrong and happy, I'm mostly happy...:-)))

Chris, you are right that I completely missed your point. Now I got it - I think.

Let me just say this: I personally don't care how NEW a subject is, in arts. I care about the fact that an artist may RENEW old subjects. I care for artitic visions which travel in my mind and add something to my own perception of reality. I care about how happy I can be watching it and growing with it.

Some "totally new" avenues in arts are dead ends for me. Emil's work is rather an ancient door opening on a new horizon. Again, for me. If it opens little or no horizons for you, that's it, that's you, and I am in no position to disagree with a fact. Where you see old known elements, I see a completely new approach to the way they are used, and I think that's just my own private (and maybe delirious) imagination that sees what it sees, but I don't care. At that stage, yes, I believe art is subjective... or worse, it is even a personal affair between the viewer and the work. Regards.

I'm sure emil had a master plan with this and didn't just tumble everything onto the table and then stand back and throw some light on it. And I'm not so proud that I can't say I don't understand still life as a genre, so you have to consider that I'm commenting on something I can't do, and have little understanding of. But, I have eyes. And my eyes know what they like, and they are having a hard time with the visual relationships in this image, whether they are too obivous, or not obvious enough. I've seen still life's with Harmony, and this one doesn't seem to remind me of any of them. The idea above that death separates seems to me to be a struggle to pull it together when it's unraveling. You may well be right. In fact, you probably are, but my eyes see what they want to, not always what they've been taught.

"I've seen still life's with Harmony, and this one doesn't seem to remind me of any of them."

There is balance in this frame, Doug. Remember the art books explaining that there are 2 weight-machines (one roman, and one not roman)...

In short, and sorry for the difficulty of posting this within this format, one looks like this:

-- I --,

...and the other one looks like this...:

-------- I ---

To get the "needle on the zero", you need the same weight left and right in the first case, and you need a heavier weight on the right in the second case.

These are the "mathematical" graphs proposed by art theory books to illustrate respectively symetrical balance and assymetrical balance. You may notice or have already noticed that this picture exactly fits the second graph...

So, I take it that there is balance here, but indeed no "Harmony" the way I think you mean it, based on your previous critique...

Now my question would be this: why would Death be depicted in an HARMONIOUS manner at all ? Would that sit right with you ? Not for me, unless the message would be that Death is a world of Peace...

Why do I say so ? Because of this belief I stated above that Aesthetics are the art of matching a form with a content...

So, what say you...? :-)

(Emil, don't laugh, we are both just trying our best here...:-))

uhm... Because Death is part of the harmony of the cycle of life....?