Alana

A somewhat dated (1967) but still respectable and relevant read is Marshall McLuhan's The Medium is the Message. I suppose he, too, could be accused of mixing metaphors. After all, if the medium is the message, why use the two different words. But that would just be silly, wouldn't it?

I don't agree with Fred that two photos of the same middle-aged man have the same content irrespective of light, angle, blur, etc.
If the content of our photo under discussion is "Motherhood" or "Pity" or "Tenderness", then Oleg has failed abysmally. I suggested that if the content is "Black Widow Spider", then Oleg might have succeeded. Surely other participants in this discussion can make better proposals for improving the content.
In my opinion the content emerges in the imagined dialogue between the artist and the recipient. That is, we can very well contribute to the content of Oleg's photo after he has shot it.

Adrian, had Fred (me) said that, I wouldn't agree with Fred (me) either, so I understand your disagreement, but it is not with Fred (me). You may have lost patience before reading my conclusion and the point I was actually leading up to which is at the end of my post (and sprinkled throughout the post). Here is what I concluded with for your consideration, with bold now added to emphasize what I was saying:

"Because the change of perspective and lighting, even though the face remains the same, changes the content for me. So I see form and content not as distinct but rather as symbiotic."

And here's how I began: "I think there's a lot more overlap than the definitions provide. Very often, I see the design principles in a scene I may be shooting as the content."

When I gave the example of the face and lighting, angle, etc. I was adopting the distinctions John proposed for the moment in order to show that those distinctions were false to me and that, just as you say, lighting, angle, and perspective are indeed matters of content as well as form.

Fred, I think you are continuing to make false separation. Form informs content. In fact, in the PROCESS of making art, one considers form as an important part of expressing the content. Manipulating the form a work takes is what imparts and amplifies the content. They are in fact symbiotic but not the same thing, but only chaos will result if we do not respect the differences as to what each is and instead try to talk about one as if it is the other.

There has been no movement to mix these two as you seem to be describing with those other fields. These are well accepted and understood principles when discussing art.

Here is a case where we can see that form and the manipulation of form became content and reinforced the idea"
http://georgepetrakes.com/ad_campaigns.html#54
(you have to wait for the thumbnails to load and then it will jump to the image I am referring to)

My only reason for emphasizing the difference is because their was a misuse of these concepts. All art consists of form and content, actually, all things visual.

John, we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks.

By the way, John, perhaps you will want to read the French philosopher Jacques Derrida on "truth in painting" sometime where he talks about the separation of form and content as a mistake of traditional representational and metaphysical thinking.

"There has been no movement to mix these two as you seem to be describing with those other fields. These are well accepted and understood principles when discussing art." --John A.

They are, indeed, accepted and understood principles. And many consider them anachronistic and repressive, which is all I'm pointing out. There are certainly critics of deconstructivism and perhaps you would be one of them. There are arguments on both sides. But I don't know what your own argument gains by claiming there is no such movement questioning these traditional distinction as I have, since there is, for sure, such a widely known movement. What the following writers have written specifically about art, I find describes my own photographic and visual experience quite well. I'm sure others will not. But the cat's out of the bag. It has been and is being discussed, and not just by me.

"Deconstruction is not only the analysis of concepts in their most rigorous and internalised manner, but also their analysis from without, to question what these concepts and their history hide, as repression or dissimulation. The Deconstructor . . . detects 'frame slippage': those moments when aspects of the signified move over to become parts of the signifier, when content fragments into form." (John Griffiths, from Deconstruction Deconstructed)

"The attempt in deconstructivism throughout is to move architecture away from what its practitioners see as the constricting 'rules' of modernism such as 'form follows function,' purity of form,' and 'truth to materials.' " (Peter Eisenman, architect)

Fred, we are talking the meaning of words which if convoluted cannot even express such concepts as "form follows function"--we would have no idea which form we were talking about. Or how does "content fragment into form" if the meaning of the words is blurred? As I said above, form is manipulated to inform content and thus I see no conflict in this statement at all.

The deconstructionist movement (postmodernism essentially) isn't attacking the definitions of words that make up the basis and language of art, it is just another movement in a long line of movements in the arts. It has much more to do with the extraction of meaning and the fact that meaning is not necessary set or lacks pliability---Gee, much like the opinions in the POW-no?!? It looks at challenging certain traditional (Structuralism for one) movements view of how something like Form and Content relate/interact/etc.

I love talking the different theories of art and we can certainly see deconstructionism or nihilism or a host of other things in any particular piece, but it doesn't change that "Form" is the physical description of what we are looking at. Besides, deconstruction has been around since the 80's and certainly isn't something new nor is there any evidence that it has affected the widely and commonly accepted definitions we are talking about here.

For any idea or movement to define itself, there needs to be common definition in the words used. In the same way, if we are to have intelligent discussions in a forum like this, we need to use the meaning of words that are generally accepted or chaos will result.

John, when Adrien said, and I agreed, that expression can exceed content, we weren't changing the definitions of words. We were talking about what we see and how we perceive this photograph. He was making a nuts-and-bolts critique of the photo which I find coherent.

As far as definitions go, much contemporary philosophy and aesthetics is about changing definitions. It is "agreed-upon" definitions that are being questioned by various movements, since Wittgenstein in Philosophy for sure. It's the essence of much modern and contemporary thought.

You and I have been able to have a meaningful discussion because we know what we mean. I don't have to buy your traditional distinctions and dichotomies one bit in order to communicate with you coherently about the inadequacy I see in those distinctions you prefer to continue to make. I've been doing it for a couple of days now. The way we use words often actually informs how we relate to the world and, indeed, how we see. Adhering to a clear distinction between content and form will likely yield a certain kind of seeing. Allowing those distinctions to blur will likely yield a different way of conceiving the world, therefore of seeing.

Undermining these definitions leads, for me at least, to a revision of my understanding and some of my ways of framing things. I fully accept that you don't want to reframe things that way. But this discussion is not incoherent, though we have different visual and conceptual approaches.

Thanks.

Fred, "expression can exceed content" makes it impossible to discuss as by definition Content is the expression(idea). Anyone who has read me here knows I am not a stickler for rules, but an aperture does what it does, a shutter what it does, likewise, and idea or expression, which is dependent on the viewer as well, cannot exceed itself. Adrian's statement that a cow in formaldehyde has no meaning is only a self expression not a universal truth!

It appears we will certainly, in fact, have to agree to disagree here---thought that happened yesterday:))!

I totally agree with John's latest contributions but I am upset that that we don't use here more abstract concepts for the purpose of elucidating the photo called "Alana"; instead, we use them for the sake of philosophising in itself. I doubt we are capable of doing this here, however desirable it would be that every man should be able to philosophise anywhere.
When I suggested to go back to the initial question introducing the Photo of the Week I hoped to enrich the discussion and go beyond technology remarks. On the other hand, I assumed we will remain focussed on "Alana". My impression at the moment is that we lost our way.

Let’s talk about how the eye moves through this photo. Or, how my eyes moved. Beginning lower left, running up the model’s right leg, to her crotch, back down her left leg, back to her crotch. Well there’s a focus of attention. Her hand is clamped down on the seat. What does that mean to the hopeful male whose eyes were directed there twice? For an answer, follow her left arm straight up … to that face that telegraphs scorn. At which point you notice the two lights, and the model is saying, “Hey you filthy old man, I’m working here!”, a message punctuated by the positioning of her right arm.

Is this a clothing fashion shot? It doesn’t seem so, as the only articles of clothing that are highlighted are the boots, and they aren’t shown at their best. Is this an attractive composition? No, it’s repulsive. But it’s a superb composition with something to say.

Most commentators here are male. What do women think of this?

The photo looks like an interesting Photoshop Composite. If indeed it were taken in a studio and then distorted this way then it is manipulated into a piece of artwork and is worthy of that. The Photoshop skills depicted in this picture are indeed professional level. I love this site but have noticed many times artwork classified as a "photograph". There are many "raw photographs" (not PS in any way) that are true works of art. There has to be a distinction between technical and artistic ability to produce an amazing photograph vs a well taken photograph manipulated into a piece of artwork using Photoshop. Photoshop is a wonderful tool in CREATING awesome "photos" but what is a true photo and what is not is what makes a true photographer and what makes a graphic artist. As long as the "photographer" truly states what it is, then it is acceptable and honest artwork. In that way he becomes both. The best of both worlds. Always remember it is your reputation on the line. It can mean being fired from a job if it is not disclosed.(as in the AP photojournalist who learned the hard way) I always state exactly what my photos are. EX: Film photograph, digital printed, Silver Geletin photograph, Film and Digital photographs composited and digitally printed. Honesty as this creator has done in this photograph will enable prospective employers, etc. to contact you for your skills.

Adrian, I am probably at fault for taking it somewhere else, but I thought getting to a distinction might lead us in the right path.

When I read your original post, I thought it interesting how you mentioned that the question you read in the introduction e-mail hadn't been answered. I hadn't seen the e-mail and so had no idea what you were talking about. It is interesting that such questions, leading in their own way, appeared there and not in the intro above. But having been sent on Thursday, when these things have generally run their course, might be best to try and stimulate additional conversation.

For me, I just find it interesting that any philosophical discussion of this sort came up under this photo instead of some that have certainly been more thought provoking and much less commercial in nature.

My first reaction to the photo "Alana" was sexual attraction in the same way in which a brothel is attractive to men. Then I perceived the photo as repulsive, again, in the same way in which a brothel is repulsive. In both moments I had the impression that the photo is shouting at me, although I could not exactly make out what it is shouting about. The ambivalence of my first two reactions felt like disgust. Because I did not want to accept my disgust in my consciousness, I overcompensated it with my desire to "save" the photo and make an art object out of it. That is why I proposed a different title.
(In my opinion an art object never shouts, never has a grandiose Form and a lilliputian Content; if this is a case, I deal always with some sort of pornography, vulgarity, etc., which is not art by definition, (of course, again, in my opinion).)

i have already said that the image is worthy of discussion, now i am updating the rates i have given to originality as from 6 to 7( LOL, i cannot find the rating button now) , full credit goes to the photographer and it is a controversial one which is proved by the large number of response here,

after these discussions i have had a quick look at the portfolio of the photographer which suggests that he has several high quality images except this image (forgive me if i am wrong),

people are trying to find several meanings, from this image, which i feel quite irrelevant (forgive me i am not up to your standard), it is simply a psychology working behind those guys, i think, that as it is selected as the photo of the week, so it should be an art of DALI standard, what is art? my answer is everything, it is completely subjective, this image is indeed an art,

i have placed critique in this belief that i can learn something from this, but the discussion is going to take place above my head, LOL,

i am asking the photographer, can you please say something about the shot...

This photo as well as your portfolio show a professional creative edge. Beautiful work.

I am getting bored of this tired, cookie cutter PP.

Post processing I assume that stands for. Would love to hear an expansion of your reaction, Nathan.

Seems like Alana is anything but boring. At least the discussion interests me some even when it gets a little airy as these do. If not the commenter way above was right in judging that the elves have their cranials inside their glutials or somewhere equally unpleasant. Alana may appeal to some tastes for some purpose. I would not put it on my wall or in my clothing catalog. If I had a line of leather I mean. The distortion spells "ugly."

Very uncomfortable look.

[This comment does not specifically refer to the photograph, Alana]

Gerry, interesting discussions can come up around boring photos. Earlier in this thread, and on many PN critique pages, it was assumed that the high number of comments said something positive about the photo being spoken about. I don't put much stock in that correlation either. A photo can stimulate a lot without being good or even interesting.

Adrian, I often think and speak abstractly. Some photographs are more significant to me as they stimulate ideas rather than anything specific to the photographs themselves. Sometimes, I react to others' stimulating comments more than to the photograph in question. But that's just me. The Internet is big enough to accommodate both of us and the POW discussions are open and free enough to allow me to approach a discussion my way and you to approach a discussion your way.

All the trouble of positioning and lighting the shot and then the hand closes the skirt?
Doesn't work for me.

Strong, strong, strong.

Fabulous portfolio.

Photonet newsletter arrived

- Oleg real nice port - many outstanding images. Impressive and diverse.

!!! - to all involved in their creation.

Fantastic fantastic fantastic! This is  a fashion shot from people who live in our times: it's strong, fashionable and  sassy;the tones and colors work well and i love the endless legs... very cool.