Untitled

Donna, IMO, "kitsch" summed it up well. I agree it's emotional. I'd say sappy emotion.

Here's a definition of kitsch, which describes how I feel about this photo. I understand that others get a lot more from it. That's fine. I just don't.

Fred, Warhol's soup cans are kitsch, American soap operas and sit-coms are kitsch, romance novels are kitsch, for heaven's sake Fred the early Beatles are kitsch.... i can concur that a turbulent sky, foot prints, stormy sea/sand, and a young girl are ordinary realisms, but the mixture of them and the PP skill make this image an impactful little fantasy. i'm rarely moved by geometric and technical wizardry in photos that lack a human element... in this image, however, we have human element within turbulent outdoor elements. as for sentimentality... well, hell, were the young girl in a far away village surrounded by the attacks of a military regime, such an image would include common realisms that we are unfortunately very familiar with, and would perhaps be an image with more punch, without sentimentality. a piece of art can be effective in many ways while being also sentimental.... perhaps the world needs a piece of art now and again that provides a bit of sentimental massage. this image isn't flat or pointless or disingenuous, which i feel is the argument being made against it. i respect the disappointment of the few commenters who are appropriating this piece to make a case against commercialism, but i think this little PP piece rocks ;-} that's all i can offer without repeating myself. thank you folks. ;-} dp

Donna, I think you are projecting a bit here. My daughter has been going to art galleries, museums and photographer's talks for several years now. Her last was a lecture by Henry Horenstein and she insisted that we go to the gallery opening the next day. One thing you learn about children is that you don't force the issue and you certainly don't do it when you are not convinced that the opportunity is the right place to try and make a stand.

I think it is great that you love this piece and that it speaks to you, it doesn't to me--or apparently my daughter.

Donna, as I said, I'm glad you like it.

(The early Beatles are not kitsch.)

Donna, as I said, I'm glad you like it.

(The early Beatles are not kitsch.)

It is mysterious..

Or a pissing contest? As much as I dislike Alex' tone of "critiques" (which they aren't, really), biting back to say his photos did not make a PoW yet is lacking the same amount of grace.

I think John made an extremely valid point by mentioning a great image is deemed great within a context. The argument expressed that some dislike this photo "because their portofolio shows they have a different taste in photography" is a very false argument. We're all photographers here, even if our skills vary. We're all equally entitled to our opinions, if we take care to express them in a way shows respect for others. This thread shows a lot of disrespect so far.

At least Donna, Fred and John are discussing the photo for what it represents to them, what they see in the image.

_______________

Yes. But that's where I get stuck. Part of me wonders what she's doing there then. It illustrates a situation, but what's that situation about? The stormy sky does not give me an impression of hope, of desire for a future... but neither does the image convey fear, struggle (as the sky would suggest). On top of that, the compisition is too centred and in a way too static - it doesn't show change, but it also doesn't show a scene that's going to stay as it is.

It's an image that requires context to fit in; as an image alone it's lacking something that really grabs me and pulls me in. In this way, I can understand its commercial success for sure, as it can and will adapt easily to the context you put it in. But as we're discussing the image here for its own merits, to me it's lacking its own emotional story. The image is contradicting itself and not compelling me to choose between the options.

It is so creative, imaginative and for that spectacular! I like a lot your two awarded pictures. You're so good in that abstract creativity.
Best from Kristina

Or a pissing contest? As much as I dislike Alex' tone of "critiques" (which they aren't, really), biting back to say his photos did not make a PoW yet is lacking the same amount of grace.

Isn't that what this site is all about? Ratings and critiques are all well and good as long as they're positive, dare to rate low or give a negative honest opinion then God help you. If the photos matched the photographers egos 90% of all shots submitted to PN would be 7/7.

Mark... when a viewer enjoys a piece of art, when a work of art speaks to the viewer, it is outrageously wrong to describe the exhilarating moments in art appreciation as an EGO PROJECTION. exhilaration from a work of art, giving it a "7", focusing in with an explanation about something in the piece that connects meaningfully to the viewer is ART DOING ITS JOB.... it is communicating and provoking. audiences would be fearful of feeling enthusiasm and connection if they believed that they are simply projecting their egos. dp

Mark, not my experience at all. I've seen enough people here who can critique an image constructively, honestly and in a balanced way. Without letting their ego get in the way. But usually it takes people with a big ego to be very sensitive about the ego of others. It's all a 2-way street.

Maybe I was slightly misunderstood. I love this POW and I think it is 7/7. But why ask for a critique or rating if you're not prepared to accept the good with the bad. Even well written negative critiques have been attacked by photographers on PN. The problem is we build up a band of similar minded photographers who will support our work regardless so when you get thrust into the limelight sometimes the truth can hurt. And I wasn't talking about the ego of the critiquer, rather the photographer.

[i posted while Mark was posting and, though we disagree about this photograph in particular, I see we agree about the critiquing aspect.]

__________________________________

I like a lot what Wouter has said. He's recognized both sides of the critiquing dilemma.

Ego is fine, to an extent. Most artists do and sort of have to have big egos. They are, in fact, projecting their emotions into their work, really putting it out there. That can, and often does, take a big ego. I think Mark was talking about the recipients of critiques often having too-big egos. What he's saying, IMO, is that if someone dares to rate low or critique negatively, there is often an ego-driven response from the photographer. But there are two sides to that story.

Some photographers, when critiqued negatively, even if it's with a constructive tone, get defensive and dismissive. That's the kind of ego that turns me off. Other photographers will stand by their work and their decisions passionately and with an open mind, because they believe in their work. I usually find that exhilarating. But only when it's done by looking at the work itself! IMO, when you really take to heart a critique and discuss the substance of the critique, you show an artistic willingness to explore possibilities. Reactions like defending your work with how many awards you've won or by putting down the photos of the critiquer don't show me such a willingness and aren't substantive. Critiques that are "brutally" honest often add a tone of voice that has nothing to do with substance or being constructive. Bullying is usually an over-compensation.

Ego plays a role in both art and art criticism. You need a strong sense of self to do both. But, both also require some degree of empathy. To me, that's a key ingredient, in a good work of art, in a good critique, and in the understanding of a good critique. There's a tension between knowing yourself, having a strong personal vision on the one hand, and being open to stand back alongside other viewers and look at your work objectively. Each of us has to find that balance. We often don't.

Likewise, when critiquing, one has to be open to the artist not agreeing and one has to know when to let it go and when you start doing more harm than good. Sometimes, your suggestion, even if dismissed, will get through on some level, and you just have to hope that eventually it will have some effect, even if it's rejected in the moment. Both art and a good critique can grow over time. They are not always instantaneously effective.

Mark, agreed with reading your second post, indeed misunderstood your first post. And by extension hence agree with Fred as well - especially the paragraph on empathy is excellently said.

Mark , is not about negative criticism , the truth that hurts or ego. Is about churlishness.
On sites were I sell photos , the criticism is very harsh, especially on Getty , photos are often regected.
But exacerbated criticism, when the critic wants to draw atention to himself , it pisses me off, indeed .

In my humble opinion it is nothing wrong in creating nice things (some might call it art) and sell them. I mean get payed for it. This does not influence or even diminuish the beauty of the created object. Even if nowadays some of those objects can be multiplied without any losses in quality. All siblings of an object contain the creators (I intentionately avoid the word "Artist") abilities, talent, taste and mainly his idea realized in the object he created. Ok, so far my opinion regarding Kitsch (if it sells) and great art (if only a few people claim to understand the ingeniosity of an object and therefore it does not sell)
Regarding the photo we are talking about (Or shall I call it Picture?) it somehow is fascinating. I think that the reason why it is so fascinating is that everyoune is searching for a horizon. And I think that besides technically perfection in realizing the picture (photo?) the success of it is that by whatever means Floriana managed to let the horizon dissappear.
Felicitari Floriana pentru fotografia aceasta si toate celelalte (cu sau fara succes in vinzari)

Rolf

Floriana I agree that the critique you refer to was not very constructive and the easiest response is to attack the portfolio of the critiquer. However it would have been far more impressive if you had taken his critique and responded as positively as you did with all of us who actually enjoy your photography. I have yet to see a POW that has received 100% positive feedback, that's the risk of being chosen. Review the post that offended you and respond as positively as you can, you'll feel much better for it I'm sure.

Fred and Wouter, thanks for making my original post make more sense with your accurate breakdown.

First, I want to congratulate Floriana on a wonderful image. I see myself walking into uncharted territory everytime I post a comment on photo.net...

There are already too many comments to respond to. I don't feel like it's a pissing contest as much as it is matter of the "Art of Communication". People make definitive statements, when in fact, it's just their opinion. It's one thing to like or dislike vanilla ice cream, but another to say that vanilla is no good. As we all know, there are some critics that are just better writers than others. They can simplify their comments, so that there's no doubt to the context of their message. The question then becomes, Is photo.net a community of photographers who support each other, or a place for "tough love". The POW recipient is in a odd position because they didn't choose the work that's being critiqued, and to have to sometimes defend or explain what they were trying to accomplish, to an unknown audience. An audience of their peers...............It's got to be tough to answer questions about an image that you yourself may or may not feel is your best work.

The hazy line between Fine art, Commercial art, and Applied art are being crossed all the time, with success by many artist. Almost every week I read a lecture on the meaning of art by someone here on PN, as if any of us has mastered the defintion...Love, Art, Ego...many songs have been written, many books, and as much as we discuss them, I don't see or read people changing their opinions because of these discussions. Very few, if any come in with an empty cup......

Phil, good points. Like with critiques and art, our ideas about what we discuss here change slowly and over time. Like you, I don't see much immediate evidence that I or other people change their minds (though I have seen it happen on occasion). But what I myself experience is that slowly, over time, stuff I read here does stay with me and penetrates and makes a difference. I sense that with a lot of other PN people I've discussed things with over the years. Slowly, we start modifying our views and our ways of speaking, we evolve, we change. I've seen a lot of change in photographic sensibility in a lot of people, including myself, over time. It's usually subtle, which seems apt. One has to stick with it and not expect immediate gratification. It's often the way I like my photographs as well.

Fred, I really appreciate your thoughts here and I agree that we do change...I think photo.net has helped me a great deal.

This image is an interesting image for discussion to me because I see it as having the potential to polarize. It's the brussel sprouts of photography.

I see this image as polarizing for a number of reasons:

1) It's questionable whether or not it is even a photograph. The levels of manipulation are so great that even a metaphysics prof might struggle to clarify whether this is or isn't a photograph. Some of us want this to be primarily a photography discussion others seem not to care much as long as a camera was used at some point in the process.
2) It contains a number of potentially cliche elements. The person walking away, the reflection, the big sky, footprints in the sand, etc. Cliche is not typically viewed positively by artistic types but is irrelevant to those just wanting something that appeals.
3) It relies on a controversial methodology for appeal. Some of us abhor the photoshop composite, others have no issue with it.
4) It seems to invite us to take an artistic orientation to it. It seems to want to be art. There are obviously many controversies in art but there is at least one common denominator. Art is highly subjective and so there will always be significant disagreement about whether it is good or not.
5) It is simple. Some of us love this and see it as skillful artistry, others get disinterested quickly thinking perhaps that simple=simplistic.
6) It is pretty. When an image is potentially "just another pretty picture", it's as if it can't possibly be art. Just like a pretty person can't be deep. It's as if beauty is a mere visual trick used to gain immediate but superficial appeal.
7) It is commercial. Some of us see commercial art as selling out, others see it as a humdrum reality of life. I know in my own case, the commercial success of my images has nothing to do with what I think of them.

So I congratulate the Elves for selecting an image that polarizes us. By disagreeing we are able to explore the points of view of others. Whether we think they are silly or not, we now at least know what they are. Thanks for another interesting PO the week discussion all. JJ

I think this photo, or this photographic composition if you want, has one important merit. It is as the author, Floriana, wants it to be.

As I see it, this is one of the most important outcomes of a photographic process. And Floriana is aware of it, which is important too.

I definitely "see" the scream that Fred perceives. This photo screams really. And I also see the mythological in it.

I also see John A's points, on the good execution of the photo, and also that he points out that it has a strong "curb appeal" but that is doesn't take him much deeper.
Most probably the "easiness" of this photo, even if, I repeat, well executed, is one of its strengths.

Beyond that we enter the blurred domain of liking/disliking, which might be important subjectively but does not qualify a universal piece of art.

PS I smile at all this talking about the "award" picture of the week, which is additionally made ambiguous by the "winning cup" icon. Actually the PoW is selected to discuss. As the Elves specify, it is not an award.
Even if most members here - and first of all those who produce the PoW - consider it a motive of pride.
Ah, vanity. :-)

For interest, the ratings for this image at this point are:
89 ratings, 6.58/7 average
How is that relevant to the discussion on the image? If 4 is average and 7 is exceptional, that straw poll indicates that the raters find this image exceptional or close to it. It appears this is what people want, or maybe didn't expect and then desired after seeing it. Is it familiarity, novelty or some other factor driving this?

Unfortunately, ratings are probably the most useless thing around this place. If people were honest, most images could only receive about a 3 or a 4 as most are average by definition. If someone gets such a rating they generally--or used to--spend a great deal of effort to complain about people who gave them such a low rating. Why do people think all their images are better than average. A 7 should probably be reserved for a seminal image that deserves to be in the Louvre!

Ratings are social, nothing more and nothing less--well, except that I think number ratings are also useless, words are where one gets valuable or usable information--but they don't get you to the front of the line in some of the viewing options here.

John, it has been my observation that most POW images receive a lot of ratings and the average of the rates is usually over 6. What

this tells me is that there are a lot of sheep out there. God forbid you rate a POW what you really think. It is good to see some robust

discussion here about the image and about process of critiquing and rating images in general. To me learning to objectively rate and

critique an image is just as important if not more important than creating an image. It is an opportunity to evaluate without prejudice

technical visual and artistic merit of an image and hopefully learn something new. Weather it be to your taste or not.

John and Richard, the ratings seem to jibe with the written critiques given before this image was chosen as the POW. Please don't get me wrong, I don't want to equate POW discussion with ratings and/or critique.
Given those 87 ratings and over 50 written critiques voluntarily offered before this image was chosen as the POW, I'm asking what makes this image as popular as it is?
It appears this is what people want, or maybe didn't expect and then desired after seeing it. Is it familiarity, novelty or some other factor driving this? Some discussion suggests that it is familiarity or kitsch. I hope it is not valid argument that raters and/or critiquers are to be discounted.