King Kong´s new Girl

King Kong´s new Girl

Perfect montage and creative picture. I like it very much.

interesting. very interesting.

Photoshop is a wonderful thing. It means the photographer can enjoy the same freedom of expression as a painter presented with a blank canvas. The only limit is the human imagination. And that's where the trouble starts...

It's become all too easy to throw together incongruous elements into surreal compositions such as this. The problem is some photographers appear to get carried away with this creative freedom and end up producing artlessly absurd images.

 

Where to begin with this picture? King Kong was a gorilla, not a chimpanzee. The girl with her modern clothing looks as out of place as the classical architecture, and is certainly no match for Fay Wray. What's a ventilator grill doing on a Roman temple? The chimpanzee, although large, is certainly not big enough to punch an aeroplane out of the sky. Apparently not content with the novelty of an outsize chimp, we have a walrus thrown in for good measure. And then a lemur (?) and a stork... Now I know this is supposed to be surreal, and I may be reading too much into the 'King Kong' motif, but with great surrealism a lobster has its place; here it would be just making up the numbers. A little more restraint is called for.

 

Technically this is well done. But artistically, it's confused and misguided. Perhaps after reading their Photoshop manual more photographers should read illustrated books on the history of art in order to gain a better insight into the effective use of their new toy. Perhaps, Pavel, you've already done that, and I'm sorry for waffling on your page like this. I seem to be in that sort of mood this evening. I congratulate you on your digital imaging skills and hope that your vision will ultimately match the quality of your technique. Regards.

 

I agree mainly with with Trevor, I think the "surreal" feeling is there, but there's too much subjects inside the same picture... I would get rid of the morse and the stork, at least. And without mentioning "King Kong", it would leave the viewer more "freedom" for interpretation of the whole thing.

7/7 and no more comment.

7/7

I must agree with the commentary above that this work demonstrates an excellent mastery of Photoshop - though even there it could be knit picked. But there is a saying about too much of a good thing.

The scale is troublesome (the large chimp) and the blue cast on the stone to the top right - The blending of the portico with the more aged (yellow toned) stone. The image (due to the Chimp) is IMO left side biased. The vent.venetian blind is simply out of place even in surrealism. Don't get me wrong this is an EXCELLENT IMAGE but this forum is for commentary and suggestion. If you wish - write to me and I will withdraw my commentary. Suggest you open a discussion forum.

Congrats for again spicing up a bit another thread that could imo turn to be very interesting... Pavel, don't mind Trevor: he always makes some sort of sense eventhough I reasonably often disagree with one third or half of what he says...:-) Today again, I'm going to agree with him for about 50%...

With PS, "the photographer can enjoy the same freedom of expression as a painter presented with a blank canvas. The only limit is the human imagination." said Trevor.

Agreed.

"And that's where the trouble starts... It's become all too easy to throw together incongruous elements into surreal compositions such as this. The problem is some photographers appear to get carried away with this creative freedom and end up producing artlessly absurd images." - Trevor.

Agreed. It can easily happen indeed, and being a photoshopper myself, I can even say, that it can easily happen to me as well, and that I often only find out much later that a piece I executed was in fact just bad.

"King Kong was a gorilla, not a chimpanzee."

So what ?

"The girl with her modern clothing looks as out of place as the classical architecture. What's a ventilator grill doing on a Roman temple? ".

Of course ! You may assume that Pavel doesn't know that, but I'm pretty sure he does. "The vent.venetian blind is simply out of place even in surrealism", said Harry after you... Well, no. Sorry to disagree. The ventilation thing may indeed be out of place in this particular image, yes, but that needs a very careful analysis to decide. And no, you can't simply say that this is wrong or "too much" even for a surrealistic image.

My question to you is: how do you know when is too much ? To me, it's that simple: if the form in general, and specificaly any part of a surrealistic image, serves well the purpose of delivering a given message, then it isn't too much, and it is ok. If the ventilation system makes no sense at all, then we can say it's out of place - it should (probably) not be welcome just as a decorative element, but too often people forget to look for a meaning in such images. Sometimes there is none, but sometimes there is a meaning - and not necessarily an easy-to-find one... I have seen this shot a few days back, and I didn't understand it, so I didn't rate it or comment on it. Sadly, I haven't gone much further since...

"The chimpanzee, although large, is certainly not big enough to punch an aeroplane out of the sky."

Why does it matter ? Because it's called "King Kong's new girl" ? Should it, just for that reason, follow the King Kong story from A to Z ?! Come on, let the artist be a bit free to re-interprete and reorganize elements. Don't judge a copy with the original in hand. Judge what you see for what it tries to be. Try to understand what it tries to be FIRST. I've been looking at this image so many times already, and I still don't quite get it... Maybe it makes no sense, but maybe it does. As a mark of respect for the artist, I will always assume it does, and then search for a content. As a "navel-gazer", I will often find a meaning the artist didn't even think of - yeah I know...:-) Some will then call me delirious, but that's exactly what surrealism was meant for in many cases - to bring us to think of various things from a different perpective, and to free our imagination as viewers. What's so wrong with that ?

"Apparently not content with the novelty of an outsize chimp, we have a walrus thrown in for good measure. And then a lemur (?) and a stork..."

Yeah, like you, Trevor, I also felt it was too much at first sight - and I still do, aesthetically speaking... Especially that bird is too much imo. BUT... I'm still looking for a general conclusion about this work before I can assess elements precisely. For example, maybe this is Noe (Noah, in English?) and his arch, that are here portrayed via a king kong title and a roman empire background... I doubt so, but maybe... If that would be the case, many animals would then be necessary... All I am saying is that you might have assumed a bit too fast that the artist had simply thrown in all sorts of animals SIMPLY BECAUSE HE COULD... He may in fact havea very good reason to do so - and maybe not.

"A little more restraint is called for."

Not necessarily, Trevor. I would tend to agree with you about this particular image, but I'm not sure yet. So if I had a critique to make at this point about the work done here, I would just point a to a few technical (not compositional) details, and then, I'd say this: "So far, I couldn't see any interesting meaning to what I'm looking at".

"Technically this is well done. But artistically, it's confused and misguided". That was imo closer to correct than your detailed analysis of elements involved in the frame.

To me, this image appeared at first sight as a real technical PROUESSE. I have generated a few complex images in PS, but so far only one, I think, that would come close to this in difficulty. So, for originality, I'd at least give it a 5 or a 6 for competent work. Not a 7 till I am convinced that the concept was good.

As for aesthetics, I would look into details, and I would find little flaws: 1) the highlight on the bird being the wrong side and looking artificial anyway, especially with the shadow of the bird behind it... 2) the black area behind the monkey, that looks like a second best decision due probably to a lack of detail in this area originally... (?) 3) The strange junction between the left wall and the columns...

As for a global aesthetical judgement, I'd say it does not appeal to me all that much - far less than the same outhor's giraffe shot for example -, but I'll wait to understand the potential content to render any verdict.

At any rate, I wouldn't rate this a 7 / 7 in the end, but probably a 6 / 6 or 6 / 5. Why ? Because this is madly difficult to execute in the first place, and because it is creative for sure. I do respect that, no matter what. And at least this image really made my mind work and picked my curiosity...:-)

Best regards.

The sense of humor in this cracks me up though!!!!!:-)))))))))))))

It looks like this guy was just trying to have a bit of fun. I got a chuckle out of it. OK, it's not high art, but let's not analyze it to death.

This is wonderful, so ful of life and creativity. Love the light on the building and everywhere, has a real twist to it.

I must say that the interaction between the added elements (Girl, bird, etc.) and the actual environment isn't too good. You can clearly _see_ that this is "Photoshopped" and that's never a good thing.

This not a photograph. A montage of digital images (some photos, some drawings) does not make a photograph. This does show a lot of digital manipulation skill and a lot of time on your hands. Your image is pretty nicely created, very humorous and excellent. It's surreal and passionate.

 

But it's not a photo.

I jump between photosig and photo.net and most times when I come to photo.net I nod my head and go back to photosig where the air is fresh and photos like this are taken much more light heartedly.

 

I enjoy this photo simply because it's enjoyable - it may not be a perfect scenario but who cares.

 

Keep your imagination flowing Pavel, don't let these critiques stop you from expressing yoruself and experimenting ;)

Keep up the good work. I seem to recall a few "confused and misguided" artists who went down in history.

Wow, tha's a big chimpanzee! The lighting is quite disconcerting, as is the fade of the facade. imho - I think a hard edge would have worked better.

Incredible PS work!

Very creative!

So cool!

Oh, come on Trevor, give me a break!

 

This image, which should be treated as a completely original invention of the author, in other words, a work of art, has all the elements of just that. The composition, moody lighting animals, especially the stork, all come together in an extremely imaginative creation.

 

Instead of just recording some event or moment, the guy CREATES his own story. He's done a great job here. Congratulations, Pavel. Your world is much more interesting than those countless "shots" I see here on photo.net.

 

Trevor, instead of muttering about art books, why don't you create something original yourself?

wow... 7/7