famine

Wow! Fantastic image! Great job done

http://s05.flagcounter.com/count/ZWq/bg=FFFFFF/txt=000000/border=CCCCCC/columns=4/maxflags=12/viewers=0/labels=0/ http://2.s05.flagcounter.com/count/ZWq/bg=FFFFFF/txt=000000/border=CCCCCC/columns=4/maxflags=12/viewers=0/labels=0/

This is excellent cover page for Knut Hamsun novel, Usualy Munch picture is used for this purpose. Bożena work is much better (for cover page). I am really impressed. BTW only Alex caught the idea so far.

Thanks Lech. Knut Hamson book cover. Hmm.

There may be good reason why only two people "caught the idea."

Michael, you raise a very good point about the relationship between technique and expression. I think it's particularly apt here.

Good technique, particularly in music, usually means the listener doesn't notice it. Technique that calls attention to itself and is not seamless can be detrimental to expressing the music. On the other hand, I may come away from a performance commenting on the great technique because it aided in the communication of the music.

Sometimes, though, the technique is the expression. I'd be blind not to notice Jackson Pollock's painting technique, because in many ways it's the point of his painting. He is exploring technique, commenting on it visually, and making the technique a visible part of his expression. In other instances, when technique overwhelms message or expression, it can be a problem.

With Van Gogh, I often identify his paintings with his technique but that's because his technique is so integral and organic to his subject matter and to the way he sees. It's as if the content really is that way (and, to Van Gogh, I suspect it is).

It's often when the viewer perceives the technique to be something applied from the outside, or when technique acts merely as a non-integrated stylistic gesture, that it can get in the way.

Does Bozena's photograph improve if the title is removed so that the task of representing famine is no longer an issue?

"Does Bozena's photograph improve if the title is removed so that the task of representing famine is no longer an issue?"

Stephen, great question. For me, it does not. What I described in my initial post about how the photo itself looks would remain. Overwrought, a romanticized, arty approach somewhat obviously produced. A kind of denial of the photograph. And a kind of non-sequitur approach to focus and blur.

Yeah, I can see that, especially the "overwrought" and "obviously produced" aspects. I'm wondering, though, if Bozena had an alternative that would produce the same "basic" look (sharp but neglected outstretched hand, very indistinct hand hiding a very indistinct face in the background, all with an underworld tone to it). Fred, you may have hinted at a possible alternative with focus and blur, but I wonder if that alone would produce the gritty, grimy, destitute look that Bozena is probably wanting to achieve. I wonder if "overwrought" and "obviously produced" can ever become a signature style accepted for a particular photographer by a large group of admirers, especially if they can be described as photo savvy. I also wonder how reactions might be different if Bozena was described as a digital artist rather than a photographer; in that case, "obviously produced" might not be an issue.

How the photo or photographer was described or classified wouldn't matter much to me. I see what I am seeing and that's where my reaction comes from. How one labels or categorizes it would be of much less significance to me, though I can understand that might have some kind of effect in some instances. Regardless of what it's called and where it appears, I already was aware of the digital art aspect of it. It's right there in what I'm seeing. Don't need a label to make me notice that or change my aesthetic appreciation of it.

I've seen plenty of "produced" stuff I like, even "obviously produced." My go-to example is Man Ray. The reason I don't think much of the POTW is more holistic. It's not the obviously produced aspect per se. It's the obviously produced aspect along with the content and the kind of kitschy or cliché and non-sequitur-ish production I'm seeing, along with the visual messaging. I actually have no reason to think Bozena didn't get exactly the look desired. I don't think this photo was going for a gritty, grimy look (though destitute seems to fit). As I said above, it looks to me like the photo is in the genre of romantic art of a certain period.

Yes, I think "overwrought" and "obviously produced" can and has become a signature style with a large group of admirers. I'd offer David Lachapelle as an example. He doesn't appear to do it for the purpose of having his work look like something else besides what it is. Like his work or not, it feels authentic, personal, and bold.

Joel-Peter Witkin might be another one.

You might also consider Pierre et Gilles.

In painting, Goya comes to mind. It's hard to call a painting "obviously produced" in the same way we'd use that description to talk about a photo, but it's kind of there.

This is a dynamic/strong image. I can see this image used for charities seeking donations., or to focus on global environment issues. It gets a 10-10 from me.

This is a dynamic/strong image. I can see this image used for charities seeking donations., or to focus on global environment issues. It gets a 10-10 from me.

Fred/Stephen,

As to your discussion here, there was a POW a few years back, of a tricycle as I remember, that used unorthodox--maybe even what many considered bad--technique but, IMO, was a beautiful image. The reason was that it felt in concert with the whole of the image, organic if you will.

IMO, there are issues with the process here, as I stated earlier, that create some disparate results causing what I feel are issues of "Unity" within the image as well as some other compositional issues that don't seem to work as effectively within the image here. These are less subjective, IMO, than the issue of interpretation, which obviously have yielded different opinions. Opinions are more difficult to really discuss whereas one can more objectively support their position on things like unity, proportion and balance.

By the way, with reference to

I don't know if that would be true or not. I shot a series of posters for a food bank over several years. We did humor--a man sitting on a can, with the tag line "don't sit on your can, donate" which was extremely successful--very affected, stylistic image.

Another relatively successful one, also with a very definite technique, was a little more heart string pulling, two little boys sitting in what appears to be a corner under a bridge. It was effective, but close to being too manipulative probably. They loved it and it did well for them.

The final one--they didn't ask us again!--was much more in your face. Not exactly what we have here but maybe conceptually a bit closer in its undertones . They weren't happy, but we were doing this pro bono and thus they agreed to have the posters printed. I don't think they were ever distributed. It was a mass of silhouetted hands with a can floating down through them--hey, what can I say, it was a cool, innovative image using several rephotographic techniques--way before digital!)

(the point of pro bono work is to create pieces showing off creative work and then, hopefully, meeting the client's needs as well!)

Heart strings are one thing, but I think images like this, and the "can grabbing" just are too much for such uses....

More likely, these latter types of images are more effective for editorial work or a book cover.

". . . what I feel are issues of "Unity" within the image as well as some other compositional issues that don't seem to work as effectively within the image here. These are less subjective, IMO . . ."

John, I wouldn't want to get into preferencing anyone's comments here by claiming they were more objective than others' way of talking about the photo.

Some may find opinions difficult to discuss. Others may not. I'd question the legitimacy of any one person claiming their thoughts on a photo are not "opinion." I firmly believe that some opinions are more expert and experience-based than others. But I have no doubt they're all opinions. You could find, right here in this thread, some astute photographers who don't find the same disunity in the photo as you. Then what do we do? Whose analysis gets to be more objective?

Besides, sometimes it is disunity that is at the heart of a photo. Someone may find disunity here and like that. They are not being less objective than anyone else.

Fred,

As usual, you sort of pick an argument where none exists.

There was nothing in my statement that said we can't discuss any opinion here, just that pure opinion, feelings, reactions and likes/dislikes are different than one's objectively stating why, based on the visual structure before us, something is off balance, which can be countered by similar objectively based, visual rationale. You of all people should recognize there are differences in these things.

What I was suggesting, in light of the exchange you and Stephen were having, that regardless of the technique or interpretation of the photo as to the opinion on its content, there were underlying issues that I saw as diminishing the effect of the image that were more objectively defined than a personal reaction or preference--which I supported with objective analysis.

Certainly, if you disagree, tell me, with objective analysis supporting your opinion, why you don't see those things the way I do--I am open to looking at it a different way. But, otherwise....

I meant to make the point that emotional and interpretive responses to photos are an equal for many to compositional and technical ones. To me, truly objective data would be stuff like what shutter speed was used and what the aperture opening was, whether the shot was hand-held or not, the focal length shot at. Compositional assessments are much less objective. John, it might be objective to say that part of this image is in focus and part is out of focus, something many of us have said. But calling that disparate and suggesting that disparity affects issues of unity is an emotional response just as interpreting this as overwrought is an emotional response. I tend not to look at photos as scientifically as some others, which does not mean I don't get a lot from hearing the more technical analyses made by others. I hope that people who respond to composition and technical matters learn things from the folks who respond more interpretively and emotionally. Taste and opinion are so much at the heart of photography and art. Therefore, they are significant aspects of critiques.

Again, basically no argument, but I do disagree with the objectivity of compositional principles like Balance, Unity and such--although I don't think they are as widely understood, in general, as maybe they should be.

These things can objectively be observed/described and ARE very important to how an image is read and how effective it is. Now, my analysis of the balance might be wrong and someone could show me how they see it differently. Certainly, we might reach an impasse, but there are things that can be measured and observed.

On the other hand, whether we might feel the balance or imbalance works or doesn't certainly can get into more of the subjective realm. A good discussion could ensue but it is less objectively argued (argue is a good thing when it isn't made personal!).

My contention would be that many times our reactions can be described in terms of the principles of design--but certainly to personal, subjective contexts as well. That is what I tried to do in my opening comments, suggest how the image didn't work with more objective reasons than just because I thought so--which would probably end up similar to your own position.

Your own reaction might be less objectively supported (doesn't diminish it) but is less actionable by the photographer, who might not even relate to the response or see how it could be interpreted that way.

And you know as well as anyone that I have proffered many observations of that sort myself here, but I do, generally, try to suggest visual elements that support when I think an image works or doesn't--or what might improve one.

@ John A and Fred G,
The fact that this photo has generated many different responses, means that the photographer has succeeded in his objective.
I think it is futile to try and analyze others views . After all is not Art subjective ?

@ John A and Fred G,
The fact that this photo has generated many different responses, means that the photographer has succeeded in his objective.
I think it is futile to try and analyze others views . After all is not Art subjective ?

And kudos to the elves to post such a provocative photo!! Isn't this really what the POTW is all about - generating a spirited dialog?

Great image - harkens back to a Victorian approach. Perhaps the title is a bit strong as I suspect the subject is not suffering famine. I would have picked something less traumatic such as "Beggar" or "Mendicant".