SEEN BETTER DAYS by GERRY GENTRY

Michael, you might well have hit the nail on the head. I think that it is always a mistake in art as in philosophy to assume that one has arrived--and to get too prickly when the world does not share our current way of looking at things. Next week or next year we will either be doing or thinking along very different lines, and, if we are not, we probably are not growing.

I confess that I still like to think that philosophy might be "going somewhere," whereas in art I am not sure where that could possibly be.

--Lannie

The image is very striking, whether the piece was perfected to ones own liking or not. Personally, it feels 'off' to me, and that is probably what a lot of us feel. How to describe what that 'off' is has been given a shot by quite a few fellow artists, with a few thousand words, above. Mostly, the HDR seems to have done something to this image that makes it look unreal, and most of us don't like that effect. Some a lot stronger than others. I believe what got lost is that it now lacks true depth, and thus looks flat due to that, even though the scene, in reality, has depth 'visually' (we can see thing way back across the water, etc.), it lacks it in 'feel'.

With the first batch of criticism coming from those not liking the title, and with very strong emotions at that, I must say I believe the artist changed what was originally his subject and claimed, no, it was not the old, weather-beaten, leathery faced lady (found out to be 'mom'), but now to be the structure behind her, the one that looks fine and dandy. Really? You've got to admit, that's a real stretch, and personally, I'm not buying it... looks like everyone else pretty much did. And once I see how he reacted to all the other critiques further down, I'm even more sure of it. It is tough taking the microscopic criticisms that get dished out, I've pretty much stayed away when my two were put up here. He should have too. Just because it's his mom, it does not mean the comments were not valid on choosing a poor title to describe her, does it?

Yes, his mom might even like the shot, but I bet he never told her the title, and if he did, and she was not bothered still, that it was just her prerogative. Like someone said, what could her son do wrong? The image sure does not put her in a good light though, having captured a scowl almost, which was why we all thought it was someone he did not know. Besides, I'm sure she agrees, very few of us will have 1/2 of our younger beauty left at her age. I do believe that look makes the image more interesting though, it would not have had the same effect at all, if she had a pleasant smile, and I believe the artist knew this. He may of even got one with a smile, but chose this one instead. I would have too.

On a more positive note, the composition is very strong, and has triangular eye movement. The eye does not escape anywhere, although one tension point is a bit stronger than I would have liked, but her scowl is enough to bring out eye back to that side, and start our eye movement all over again; overall a bitter-sweet image if ever there was one.

My 74 year old mom likes this photo. She's reached the age where she still appreciates beauty but disdains vanity.

I like it to. Rather than hold it to some arbitrary standard by which all photos are judged, I prefer to regard it for what it is. At most I'd compare it to other photos of this type, using this type of editing choice. By that standard, I'd say it's a successful photo. It appeals to my sense of humor and appreciation for images that are both grotesque and empathetic.

I have to say that the setting for the shoot interests me more in this case than the model, but only in the sense that there seems to be a lot to explore in that setting--the background, for example, not just the structure. I would like to see it all in a different mood, perhaps a thousand different moods.

As for "mood," Gerry wanted something moody here. He certainly got that, at least to my eye. I would like to see him develop other moods in the same location, since I am the kind of person who enjoys coming back to the same place over and over, almost always surprised at how the light and season and weather have changed things.

One problem that I have with a lot of HDR is the heavy gothic mood that is often the result--and I say "gothic" for lack of a better word. There are some really good uses of HDR that do not do that, and I like them better overall.

The model? Well, of course she is interesting, and in saying what I just said I do not mean to demean or diminish her in the least. I think that she is strong enough to be worth a thousand tries in a hundred different locations.

I am not as worried about what some see as a disconnect between model and structure. If I knew nothing about the circumstances of the shoot, I would see it as enigmatic, and to me that sense of enigma is very important. I would not feel that any kind of statement of intent would help me or the picture. Let the viewer make of it what he or she will. Keep the mystery. It works.

I am rather sorry in retrospect that this thread started with mutual salvos, some offensive (including mine) and some defensive. Something might have been gained in all that, but much more was lost, to my way of thinking.

Criticism doesn't have to be combat--and I blame myself as much as anyone for making it so in this case. I tried to back off, but by then the damage had been done.

--Lannie

Most parents learn that giving in to a child in the throes of a tantrum is a really bad idea. All these apologies are kind of making me ill. The initial critiques were honest, genuine, thoughtful, harsh, and deserved. The reaction of the photographer was shameful. Now, after learning some stuff about the photo and after days of sorrow and pity some are giving into some sort of guilt or whatever is motivating these apologies. I find this bizarre and unsettling. The photo is the same photo that was posted several days ago, with the same flaws, the same content, the same look. As a few have pointed out, what the photographer has said makes everything more, rather than less, suspicious. But, even aside from that, the fact is the woman and the place are portrayed exactly the same as they were originally. And the photo gives off the same vibe it did before any words by the photographer were spoken. The backtracking is disheartening and the whole thread is starting to feel very false.

‘The initial critiques were honest, genuine, thoughtful, harsh, and deserved. The reaction of the photographer was shameful.’ … perfectly sums up the story of this week’s amusing, and a tad strange, pow.
The photographers rant ending with ‘… the rest of you go to hell’ was quite the fantastic unsettling spectacle of a fragile bruised ego lashing out... For a brief instant I almost felt bad for the man.

This is not a photo! It is just a statement that the author handled very well the Photoshop. It is impossible to criticize this work by observing the techniques of photo processing. Poor Daguerre... Best regards.

This discussion could have been doomed from the start. Could have been, but wasn't. It began with one of the most basic ad hominem logical fallacies - questioning the photographer's motives rather than critiquing the photo itself. That set the tone for a rapid escalation and piling on effect of multiple participants joining in criticizing the photographer's presumed motives.

From that perspective Gerry's "go to hell" reaction was understandable and possibly the least of many offenses in this discussion.

Despite those flaws, on the whole this has been among the more colorful, revealing and, arguably, successful POW sessions I've read. I don't see the more nuanced opinions expressed by various participants as the discussion progressed to be in any way a flaw or backtracking. That is the nature of classical rhetoric.

Gerry set out to create a challenging treatment of a photograph that could have been considered "good" with a more conventional treatment. Without imposing or implying comparative aesthetic or skill values, the treatment is reminiscent of the work of Andrzej Dragan, and Lucian Freud - neither of whom will ever satisfy the personal aesthetics of every viewer of portraiture. The photo elicited diverse and passionate reactions. In that respect, it's a successful photograph. I happen to think it's successful overall as well.

Incidentally, I'm surprised so few viewers noted the cheeky humor in the title, which clearly (to me, at least) seemed to be a visual double entendre. My mom caught it immediately. Now she'll probably pester me to try this type of editing effect on some of my photos of her in her wheelchair.

Ad hominem, my eye. A term bandied about way too easily, IMO, and usually inappropriately.

The title of this photo and, indeed, the content and treatment of many a photo deals with values. There are all sorts of ethical considerations to be discussed relative to all sorts of photos. Certainly, there have been questions of values and ethics raised in relationship to many of my own photos, and I don't shrink from those discussions, even when my motives are questioned. As a matter of fact, I encourage them and look forward to them.

We are adults here, or so I thought, and we are photographers dealing with all sorts of images, all sorts of subjects, and many different political, social, and sexual judgments and values. To make such questioning off limits by terming them ad hominem is ludicrous. It's often at the core of what we should be discussing. If I see a picture of a homeless person and want to discuss the ethics of what I may view as exploitation, I have every right to bring it up in an adult discussion of photography. If I feel women are being exploited in a nude I may see, I'm going to discuss that, too. If someone has an issue with some of the portrayals in my own work, you better believe I want to hear about it, loudly and clearly.

Some may want to discuss technique, some how good a photo makes them feel, some the interpretation of the composition. Some may want to applaud a photographer for converting an image to black and white instead of color. All good. But the tougher ethical and motivational questions are also, or certainly should be, fair game. To suggest restricting ourselves from questioning a photographer's motivation is pure folly, utter nonsense.

Gosh, Fred, one dare not sound apologetic. . . .

First you took a shot at him, then Jim, then yours truly.

"Welcome to Photo.net! Pow, pow, pow! Michael Corleone says hello!" (Those were gut shots, not the acronym for Photo of the Week.)

I'm surprised that he didn't come back with something stronger than "Go to hell!"

As for ad hominem remarks, don't get me started. If I say that you are the master of the ad hominem, then I have committed an ad hominem.

Our 1-2-3 salvo was definitely perceived or interpreted as ad hominem, regardless of whether that was the intent. We could have been more sensitive. Context and timing are everything.

We could have done better. He could have done better. Is that fair enough?

--Lannie

I think Lex is right, Fred. You judged his motives.

Just an observation, not an ad hominem attack. . .

--Lannie

Agreed, generally. But not in this case. Ad hominem is not always a personal attack. Challenging the motives of the artist or speaker, rather than the content of the artwork or speech, is a form of logical fallacy closely related to the ad hominem fallacy. It may be - and probably is - valid in challenging the motives of images presented in the news media, and in published commentaries and politically oriented speeches. But in the more narrowly framed niche of the art world, it's tricky.

There were many value judgments based on presumptions, which might have been resolved differently (not to say better) by asking a few simple questions: Who is this woman? What was the situation? Why did you take this photo? Why did you choose this presentation style? What goal or message, if any, did you wish to accomplish or imply?

But I wouldn't claim that's necessarily a better way to begin a critique session. Gut reactions based on impressions may be as valid as any other form of critique. But the person whose work is being critiqued on that free form basis should probably be warned in advance to gird up thy loins, lest they interpret every unfavorable reaction as a low blow.

I'm not suggesting such responses be off limits. But the photographer should be aware that critiques may extend to challenges to his or her motivations, ethics and similar human value judgments. In turn it's reasonable to expect constructively phrased challenges - not merely "this or that sucks". However most of the critiques here, even the toughest, tactless and most blunt, are useful if the photographer is prepared.

Generally speaking I believe such challenges to ethics and motivations should be confined to photojournalism, documentary, street and comparable genres. Portraiture? Maybe, maybe not. I can see how the human element in this week's POW and somewhat nebulous categorization - is it portraiture, documentary, or other? - makes it fair game for such challenges. But I'd still prefer to see this type of critique prefaced with some basic questions along the lines of those I suggested above.

Does that also mean the motivations of those offering critiques are fair game for questioning or rebuttal? I'm not sure about that myself. I'm inclined to say that once this door is opened the traffic will and probably should flow both ways.

Lex, will you reconsider based on this:

http://d2bm3ljpacyxu8.cloudfront.net/width/916/www.photodownunder.com/swimmerII.jpg

(link from another contributor's post above, Richard John Edwards)

Imagine that the title of that untitled photo is "Seen Better Days". Certainly you can accept that, despite your own mother's enjoyment of the POW, others feel something akin to an unpleasant electric shock in the first second after viewing this POW? It's hard to get past the 1st second's prejudicial effect, an effect that's due entirely to the title. The processing, garish and harsh, contributes to its negative charge. Your take on double meaning is only possible from your having read Gerry's statement of intent because there is no clue in the photograph that Gerry's mother is the speaker of the title words, and nothing else in the photograph competes with her for the honor of looking as in a state of decay. If his mom said "Seen Better Days" about the bench and Gerry privately thought her remark an unwitting irony worthy of posting as a work of art, then perhaps he is as harsh as his processing technique.

Not that I dislike or like this photo. If that were my mother I think I would have adopted a softer more natural approach. The HDR here does nothing for her but make her look like a caricature. I feel no connection to her or the scene. I wish the photographer could put up his unedited version with maybe just minor corrections like fill light and contrast. I think it would be a lovely image if so. I think hdr is too hard on faces in general and older people in particular,but that's just my opinion.

<<<Does that also mean the motivations of those offering critiques are fair game for questioning or rebuttal?>>>

Sure, why not?

Questioning and rebuttal is one thing. "Go to hell" and "all you who don't like my photos are terrible photographers" is another. Now, the photographer was certainly allowed to say "All your photos suck." Not sure whether the "go to hell" line was within bounds of PN propriety and rules, but that's fine.

But "go to hell" and "your photos suck" aren't exactly challenges to any of the critics' motivations. I think any one of us could have handled being asked about our motivations for our comments about the photo. Perhaps even the POTW photographer might have gleaned some motivations from our words and could have made a case for why we came from where we came from. But that, of course, never happened.

The content of one's photos and, especially, the tone of one's titles, often leads to speculation of intent and motivation. Again, I see nothing wrong with delving into content and even technique in a determination of what the photographer is trying to say. That's what I did and I'd do it again, and will do it again, in a heartbeat. No, I often won't ask. Because I know from my own photos that I don't often know the honest answers about my own photos. The photos themselves are often more honest than I am ready or able to be verbally. There's the rub. When we post our photos, the cat is sort of out of the bag. And the truth is no one person's purview, certainly not the photographer's alone. The truth is the viewer's as well. I can't imagine why any photographer wouldn't want to hear a viewer's truth. If the viewer's truth doesn't ring true, it shouldn't hurt so bad.

Wow! What great shots, Charles (although I know that that was not your point):

[LINK]

I would offer this style of shooting as exemplary of the kind of post processing that I generally prefer, although HDR has its place.

I thought Fred would have had time to reload by now. . . .

Oops! I see that he's already back. Fred, no offense (and no ad hominem intended), but I am starting to cringe when I see your name appear on the screen these days.

--Lannie

Nah, Lannie. I'm not a wimp.

I am not a wimp.

I am not a crook.

I like the parallels, Fred.

You can come on strong, bro--as strong as this guy who told some of us to go to hell.

--Lannie

Lannie, believe me, I'm able to laugh off your opinions of me. Keep 'em coming, if you have nothing better to do.

No, just thinking out loud here, Fred--and reflecting upon your defense of your style of criticism above.

"Slash and burn" comes to mind. . . .

Oops! Wrong continent. I meant, "Sweep and clear," which replaced "Search and destroy" in the Vietnam War.

Won some battles. . . lost the war. Criticism as combat. Surely there is a better way.

--Lannie

Landrum, an image exposed on an overcast day would not produce such a platykurtic histogram. I'm trying to suggest that this image has a histogram that is atypical to normal, ordinary photographic images, no matter in what light they are exposed. That's why I looked at 12 POW images...to get a reasonable sample from which to draw.

My post was not simply technical in nature. I was trying to identify whether or not a subjective (perceptual) reaction could be explained, at least to some degree, by objective data. Perhaps the, "it looks wrong", "it's off", "it looks over processed" can be given some objective support. If, when working with an image, we see a paltykurtic histogram, this may give us some insight into how the image will be perceived by others even if we can't recognize it ourselves. JJ

Fred, it's not uncommon for performing artists to never read reviews let alone having to sit in an arena with a crowd of critics and having to defend ones performance.

POW goes further. It imposes the situation on a photographer and encourages critique. The idea isn't flawed in itself but can sometimes have the unintended consequence of escalating to critique-for-critique's-sake, almost as though critiquers more enjoy hearing themselves talk.

The skill of a photographer is in his photography and he shouldn't be asked (or be expected) to engage in discussions unless he wishes to. In fact I'd go as far as to suggest that a photographer should asked about his willingness to participate as a POW recipient beforehand.

Michael, I've already agreed with you above. I think a photographer should be asked for consent for one of his photos to be put up for Photo of the Week. And I don't think a POTW recipient is in any way obliged to read or respond to critiques of his work.

I've had much experience with friends who are playwrights. They very often have staged readings of their works before they are produced and staged. Often, the invited audience is asked for feedback and the playwright sits on stage, listens to the feedback and responds. I've seen it be pretty brutal. Though I've seen some feelings hurt, I've also seen a lot gained by this process. One friend came away from one of these readings quite hurt by some of the comments. That wore off and then he got to work making some key revisions to his script. His play became a success and I remember how thankful he was, in retrospect, for that very tough night.

It's not always true and it can vary in success and intensity, but that old adage "no pain, no gain" has some ring of truth to it.

_________________________________

In terms of critics sometimes wanting to hear themselves talk, I agree. And I do it. Sometimes my critiques are meant for the photographer. Sometimes, I find them helpful to myself, merely in articulating my own feelings and getting them down on paper. Not sure what's wrong with that. As Lannie said above, he's talking out loud. Sometimes, we need to do that, even if it's just to hear ourselves talk. That can be good feedback, if even just for ourselves.

Often, when I read critiques here, I realize it's more about the critic than the photo in question. That includes me. But it tells me about the other photographers here (in hearing them assess another's photo), how they think, how they process, what's important to them, how they look, how they see. I get a lot out of that. Again, where's the harm? It's all useful information, it's passion, it's reality. When I'm being critiqued, I always try to remember that it's about the critic as much as if not more than me. My feelings get hurt, sure. I then put that into my next photo, or at least I try to. Otherwise, I've wasted my passion on feeling sorry for myself.

Since this thread began, I've been trying to figure out why the image under discussion, its title, and the strongly negative reaction to it seemed so familiar to me. Lex's comment about his 74 y.o. mother finally triggered my memory.

About 15 or 20 years ago, my mother was in the last years of her life, living in a nearby apartment building for senior citizens. Another resident of her building was an elderly gentleman who made beautiful, detailed, large B&W pencil line drawings. They had a flat but highly detailed look not that dissimilar to modern digital HDR B&W images such as the one being discussed in this thread.

At one point, this man began a series of sketches that dealt with sad / wistful moments in the lives of his neighbors. As I recall, they had titles like, "My Children" (depicting an emotionless family, backs all turned, leaving as quickly as possible after a visit); "The End" (depicting a crew (ambulance? undertaker?) passing through the lobby, removing the body of a resident who had passed away; "Dinner", etc. It would not surprise me if he had a sketch with essentially same title and a similar theme as Gery's "Seen Better Days" image.

His sketches were absolutely loved by his neighbors (eg, "He tells it like it is".). According to my mother, only a handful of her neighbors didn't like them, and these comments were always along the lines of "they are too depressing" rather than questioning the validity of the content, the intent of the artist, or his technical skills.

Initially, the building management enthusiastically allowed him to display his work in the lobby. However, as my mother relayed the events, his sketches were intensely disliked by many of the families that visited, obviously making them quite uncomfortable. It would not surprise me if their negative comments to the building management were along the same lines as the negative comments expressed in this thread, e.g., "false pathos", "simply awful", "does not seek to discover or understand", "another exploitative image", "insensitive", etc. Shortly thereafter, the building management asked him to take down his display.

However, the local government office that deals with the elderly caught wind his talent and theme, and honored him by giving him a show in their office building. As I recall, there was even an article in the local newspaper about him. It wouldn't surprise me if some of his works were still hanging in their offices.

Of course, the subjects of his sketches and the local government officials were far from the articulate and knowledgeable critics one finds on photo.net, but it is absolutely clear to me that work very similar to Gerry's appeals to and resonates with at least some very important groups of people, the subjects and people trying to help the elderly.

Obviously, my recollection of events and the quality of the work by this sketch artist may not be accurate, so it's possible that the analogy I'm making may be flawed. Unfortunately, I tried to find links to the artist in my mother's building, but was unsuccessful, otherwise I would have been happy to post the links and allow participants in this thread to make up their own minds on the matter.

Tom M

The photo obviously has something, or else we would not still be talking about it.

Tom, you might well be right that it has to do with the idea of aging, specifically how it is that that issue resonates not only with us as we age but as we watch our parents as well.

Perhaps the reminder of our mortality makes us a bit edgy, but I cannot believe that that is it. I am still trying to figure out the dynamic of this thread. It has not all been about rehashing the reasons for the anger, after all. There is something more profound at work, certainly something more profound than post processing techniques (my own emphasis early on, but not the primary focus of Fred or Wouter).

It is destined to be one of the most memorable Photos of the Week ever. Why that is so might be a source of some continuing puzzlement.

--Lannie