The Water Pump & Moon ( the controversial )

"What's love got to do, got to do with it...it's nothing but a second hand emotion"

OK, but I don't know, really, what "like" has to do with analyzing an image. We can like awful photographs because of what is in us that connects with them, it doesn't make them a good photograph.

When one creates an image, the idea of visceral response has much more of a place. We don't think but rather draw on the sum of what is within us--and maybe even parts we are unaware of. Hopefully, we don't worry about success or failure when we're shooting (except in commercial situations) but can determine that later when we are looking at what we did. If we shoot for success then we shoot what we know and our images look like what we have done before or what others have done. If we can allow ourselves to just respond, then maybe some magic can happen.

Critique is one of the activities we can undertake to expand that "sum of what is within us". If we only pay attention to like, we aren't going to expand much just as if we don't encounter new experiences, we sort of stagnate and make the same photos over and over. When we critique from a more objective point of view, looking at what is really in the image, how the person applied the principles of design and such, we can actually begin to grow. We see how the use of color affected the image, how balance or imbalance worked, etc. We actually can get behind our emotional responses, whether good or bad, and gain a better understanding of the use of these things (how they worked or didn't)--expanding that "sum of what is within us" rather than just curtailing it at like/dislike. And in the end, regardless, we might realize that we JUST like windmills or the moon.

Stephen asked: What are the characteristics of the photos that have the strongest impact?

That is the question of the hour.

As some might know, I have been arguing, mostly in a vacuum (although that does not deter me from doing so), that Photo.Net needs to shed itself of some of the the paradigms of technical impact, acceptable compositional dogma and cliché styles, and encourage responses (a "gut feeling" appreciation doesn't explain much for me in terms of an appreciation) that move to the additional level of artistic and emotional values and evaluations of a photograph.

Is the photograph able to illicit such artistic and emotional response from the viewer? Does it communicate something other than its technical proficiency or does it simply invite responses of how did you do that (e.g., the moon) or why did you do that (e.g., Gerry's post processing), or the like? Might it not illicit some considered responses that indicate what excites the senses and mind of the viewer and the relation of that to the emotional, symbolic, intellectual, enigmatic and transcendental qualities of the image, or what may in fact be missing in that regard in the photograph?

Perhaps those aspects of communication are not considered by some viewers to be the role of the photographic image? In such cases, the viewer or critiquer might then aspire to apply in his or her analysis some of the more powerful known parameters of composition. These are as numerous as they are powerful in visual communication and readily available to those interested in what makes art work. Often an image can be appreciated simply for its different physical aesthetic aspects, including those of point, line and form, their relationship to each other, the balance of masses (different elements, colors, light and dark) within the image, the relationships of color and tones, and various other physical factors (yet symbolic ones to the human mind in many ways) that contribute to the effectiveness of the composition. Of course, when these are enhanced by the human emotional and symbolic awarenesses, including the factors I mention above, the image can be appreciated for more than its compositional aesthetics alone.

The problem is to encourage at least some analysis of these artistic criteria in a POW discussion. Some have described why the present image excites their senses and mind, or not, but that is quite rare, especially in assessing the all-important why of artistic and emotional impact evaluation.

John, I was busy editing my own comment and didn't see yours. I think we are on the same wavelength for most of this aspect of the evaluation of a photograph. I refer readers to your series on America (I think that is the series title, it has environmental portraits of rural folk in several states). That series does communicate on more than a simple technical proficiency level.

Arthur, many of us do like illicit photos. :-)

____________________________________

I remember a quote apropos of what John A. has so nicely stated.

"Taste is the enemy of creativeness." --Pablo Picasso

There are many ways to understand what Picasso was getting at. It's worth stewing over a bit, and thinking about making and viewing photos as a driver of one's taste rather than always to follow one's taste, and sometimes even just to leave one's taste at the door.

Yes, thanks to Picasso, we need to think of what constitutes creativeness.

"I paint objects as I think them, not as I see them"

"The purpose of art is washing the dust of daily life off our souls"

"Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up"

Saint-Exupery wrote something in his well-known novel that may not refer to art as such but certainly to human perception and communication, including what I believe also goes into the making of a memorable picture :

“Goodbye, said the fox. And now here is my secret, a very simple secret. It is only with the heart that one can see rightly. What is essential is invisible to the eye.”

And one which Fred may appreciate in regard to both photos and text, again from "La Petite Prince":

“I shall look at you out of the corner of my eye, and you will say nothing. Words are the source of misunderstandings."

<<<As some might know, I have been arguing, mostly in a vacuum . . . that Photo.Net needs to shed itself of some of the the paradigms of technical impact, acceptable compositional dogma and cliché styles, and encourage responses (a "gut feeling" appreciation doesn't explain much for me in terms of an appreciation) that move to the additional level of artistic and emotional values and evaluations of a photograph.>>>

Let me start by saying you should critique however you feel best critiquing. You have much of value that you add to these discussions.

The reason you've been arguing in a vacuum, as far as I'm concerned, is that you've created a false dichotomy. Photography is a visual art. A photograph is not just something to emote about or which stimulates from or emanates from ideas. Artistic and emotional values, in art, FOR ME, are not separate from questions of looks, presentation, craft, and technique. If a highlight is blown, it has an emotional impact on me. Sometimes it's done purposely, sometimes it's an accident or an oversight or just can't have been helped. But no matter what, it affects me emotionally, as do muddy or rich shadows, certain compositional elements, and most stylistic choices. If a blown highlight stands out and the photo doesn't do much for me to begin with, I will mention it and move on, so the photographer knows it was a big deal to me and is something worth thinking about for next time. Providing a critique that helps a photographer to expose his shot toward his vision, even if only in a few technical observations, can be a very helpful thing in the long run. It will help him better clarify the photographic tools he is using to communicate his emotions the next time, if that's what he wants to do, though he may simply want to record something or memorialize something and not be interested in his or my emotions at all.

I see art as the integration of technique and esthetics. What a photo looks like -- from clarity to focus to noise to the reflection of lights on the glass of the picture frame hanging in the gallery -- will always be part of the story. Some will dwell on one aspect or the other. Some will integrate both into critiques. All are valid, IMO.

Not all photos put up for critique here are art or are intended to be art and so not all of them need to be critiqued in artistic terms.

Art and imagination are part of life, whether we accept that or deny it (Fred, I suspect that you personally do not deny it). Picasso's comment rings true for me in the world of photography which seems in large part gadgetery, consumerism and frequent me-tooism:

<<<Words are the source of misunderstandings.>>>

Sure. But pictures can be, too. Often it is misunderstanding that can lead to revelation. When we start out understanding, we often don't have very far to go.

There are many photos that are aided enormously by the accompaniment of words, particularly documentary work. In today's world more and more blogs are incorporating text and pictures to communicate about all sorts of things. They interweave nicely.

I read somewhere that "philosophy does not answer questions". This exchange is evidence of that. Curious how the author of that quote is trying so hard here to give answers. :)

Arthur, when you said earlier that we have too much technical discourse here I nearly fell of my chair. I think it's the other way round. Look at this POW as an example. It was justifiably pretty much done after 25 posts. Now the artistic argy bargy (mostly a rationalist style debate about the nature and relevance of art that has nothing much to do with this particular image) has got us up to 71 and counting. Art 1, photography 0.

From my own experience, the existence of an extensive empirical literature on a subject does not slow the philosophically minded down much at all. But for those of us that think science might have any answers, check out: http://www.jar-online.net. JJ

I think Jeremy opens up a vast and promising approach to talking about photography (or more broadly, artistic expressions) by applying science to the discussion. It's my impression that this approach is largely unknown let alone appreciated by most people involved in photography or the arts. In a parallel path, Sam Harris is arguing that science can be applied to the understanding and even evaluation of morality and ethics, subjects that are largely perceived as an entirely separate universe of human culture and belonging to the realm of religion rather than science, with a very distinct division between the two. Unfortunately for me now, this is a new and large field of study, and I'm not able to bring anything from it to apply to the discussion of Bela's POW today. But I do agree with Jeremy that there is huge potential there.

Jeremy, yourself, Stephen and I have come from, and probably are still using, what is probably a pretty rigorous scientific education. Does that mean that we can explain art by science? Probably not, I think. What can be done, via research on the human brain, is to explain the patterns of cognitive and other thoughts and reactions of the mind, left and right brain, that contribute to how we think when we approach new challenges such as a mathematical problem, what kind of vehicle or house we need, or how we may evaluate a poem, text, photograph or work of art. I am not sure that my science is of great use in determining how my brain (the site of "heart" and "soul" and "gut feeling", as well) works when it comes to evaluating my personal response to the perception of, or the nature of, an image.

Technical evaluation in photography is a quite wide brush and the specific discussions of Bela's image have followed mainly that trace. Compared to the technical discussions (real moon, collaged moon, exposure, angle of the different elements to the light, etc.), little discussion has come forth on how the content and composition of Bela's photograph affected the viewer. What aesthetic factors did it invoke or what symbolism or emotional content did it have (yes, one or two did suggest without elaboration that it created a sense of peace) or how did the elements of the image come together to provide a balance (equilibrium, or intended disequilibrium) of forms, or lines, or significant visual points, or colors (tones), or light and dark, etc.

The scientific method, and related exploration and research, is used in many fields of endeavour, including history and archeology, and that method is no doubt important also in the JAR venture, but that does not mean that science and its principles are involved in it, in the categorizing, study, research and evaluation of art. The term PhD is not new and was used for scientists as well as other academic research pursuits before science even became a subject. Philosophy embraced science, or vice versa. There was little distinction. When I consult for my industrial client on high temperature chemical phenomena or some other expertise I have been lucky to acquire over the years, I am not using the same criteria and imagination that I bring to viewing a work of art or a photograph. I once made the mistake of unfortunately mixing the two when I submitted my thesis with some invented words that described somewhat unique phenomena, and received the considerable ire of the examiner. We don't need poetry, he said, or something similar.

What I argue for is not an "artsy bargy" discussion, but rather the evaluation of photography on the basis of our knowledge of what constitutes and are framework elements of a work of art. We can learn from the art world, present and past, and I wonder how many photographers take the time to go to museums or exhibitions of art in order to understand what makes visual art work, or have taken the time to read the many important works (by Kandinsky, Arnheim, many others) that explain the human reaction to and the aesthetics of successful art and what makes some art so powerful.

It would be nice to see some such evaluations of the artistic power of certain POW images, whether the author of the image consciously considers his work to be an attempt at art, or not. If we stay within the paradigms that is not likely to happen.

Arthur, I didn't find much artistic value in the photo. The one element that struck me in a sort of emotional way was the relationship of the arc highlight on the moon the more pointed highlight on the mass below it (for which I got into trouble for misidentifying that mass, LOL).

I don't look at all photos, actually most photos posted, as art. This photo holds little if any artistic power for me. Neither was I that interested in the discussion of the mathematical angles of the moon. But I kind of had to notice and even got off on the enthusiasm with which others discussed that, because it's such a different way of looking to my own.

To me, it's a created photo (somewhat of a collage, and I do appreciate the art of many collages) of a moon in a monotonous sky, with the clichéd silhouette of a windmill in the foreground and a messy and distracting bunch of land in front of that. It doesn't incite me to critique it as art. So I talked about some of its photographic elements that particularly stood out to me, for good and bad.

Hi Arthur, thanks for your post. We agree mostly I'm sure. All you say about the kind of discussion we should be having here makes sense to me. Was this what you were doing in your first post about this image? Just curious because I'm not sure I understand the difference between technical discussions and artistic ones. To me, light, composition, tonality, etc. (all things you mentioned above) are technical, photographic considerations.

By the way, I think you might be being a little pessimistic about the ability of science to give us insight in to why we do or do not respond emotionally to images. I agree that science can't explain art but only because I don't know what that would mean to be able to do that. Can chemistry explain apples? Best, JJ

Touché, Jeremy, although I simply stated in my first comment that the image did not excite my senses or mind (I had mentioned that you had already stated much of what I thought in your own initial points, including your last point that the photo had little meaning for you), and that for me it lacked "soul". Not very specific artistic terms, I admit, but I had little interest in adding anything else. If I had thought that some intrigue or symbolism or aesthetic nature lay there, I guess I would have commented to Bela on that and perhaps how he might even want to reinforce that quality. I found some images in his portfolio that were very rewarding from the artistic and emotional viewpoint, and in one case left such a comment.

very nice composition, the moon was bigger..., exellent!!, it's looks like the moon is near on earth.., i really like this picture and i will try it later.... hehehhe.., what lenses you use to captured that mrs. bela..???

warm regards
Meilky Morris

Impressive work, Bela! Congratulations!

Hi! I'm a member of the Fly.com team and I thought the Fly.com photo contest would be of interest to you!

You have an opportunity to show off your favorite travel photos, and best of all, the winners will receive up to $2,500 in prizes for their next vacation!

Go to the Fly.com Facebook page and click on the competition tab.
Upload your photos, and check back to see if your photo has been selected as a finalist. Fans will be voting on the top three entries for each category from February 11 – February 28. The winners will be announced on March 4.

Good luck!

Bela, your message has not been lost. Most of us, at least those of us who clued into the fact that the word 'desert' meant that it was not a peninsula, appreciate what you were after and have accomplished with this image. The intent is clear. The image attracts attention and has been appreciated. Great work.
Fred G et al. Get a room. Please. Forever. Photographers like Bela deserve much more that your self-important blather. There are other forums on this site in which you can bloat, at least not at someone's else's expense. Fred, why don't you create a forum called 'Fred's Blow Hards'.
A lot of us post on photo.net for reasons other than bravado or competition. My portfolio only reflects what I want to share with friends on this site. To have an image pulled from there and judged as 'my capability' would be entirely off the mark. To judge my capability based on this portfolio would be erroneous.
P.S. I just renewed my Photo.net membership for another 3 years. I'm not going away.

John, I'm glad you're not going away. I wouldn't ever have considered requesting that. I'm sorry you feel comfortable telling others to go away, but it's certainly your right. I'm also sorry that you can't handle certain critiques and think of them as coming at someone's expense. It's a defensive and non-productive way to approach criticism. And finally, I'm sorry you don't give Bela a little more credit to be an adult with confidence in his own work who can stand some heat and think instead he needs the juvenile defense you've offered.

Not go away, Fred. I didn't say that. I suggested other forums were a better place for essays of self importance.

I see. Thanks for the clarification. That's so much more gracious of you.

What would happen if the blessed ones (you know who you are) took a hiatus from the Photo of Week discussion for 4 weeks?
I doubt if you are up to it. I will not peep as a measure of good faith for 4 weeks.
Bela, I'm sorry this conversation is happening on your dime. It is truly a shame that your work has not been the focus of the 80+ posts to this thread.

John, it's my understanding that the POW was set up expressly for this kind of dialogue. I have a feeling that if Fred (or others) had been very taken by Bela's photograph and had discussed in detail why he/they liked it, you would not currently be critical of Fred et al. (perhaps including me).

Any critical comments are directed at the specific photograph that was selected for the POW; they're not directed at any of the photographer's other work, and they are especially not directed at the photographer (unless it is initiated by the photographer, as we saw a couple of weeks ago; but that's exceedingly rare).

The POW itself is not a selection of the "best" photograph that has been submitted within the general community, and it's not a selection of the photographer's best photograph (I know you know that). In fact, a really great photograph would lead to a pretty boring POW, in my opinion. While I like to receive praise for my photographs, frankly I learn the most from comments that point out shortcomings, or offer reasons why a particular individual may not like an aspect of my photograph, or alternatives that I might have tried (some of which might be better for one reason or another).

A number of folks have suggested that the photographer be contacted prior to the POW and give his/her o.k. to be the POW photographer. Some have also suggested the forum be changed to the "Critique of the Week" to dispel any notion that the photograph is the "best" and that the photographer is to be congratulated for the honor of having been chosen as having the best photograph. The gold cup that is used to identify a POW participant is also misleading, and I think it should be changed to better reflect the nature of the POW.

I can see some merit in having the POW photographer kept anonymous, because then critical comments would not be see as personal criticisms. However, it's usually very useful to have the photographer participate in the POW discussion, and many reviewers like to look at the photographer's portfolio to place the POW in context with the rest of the photographer's work. So anonymity would probably less useful on the whole.

It's true that the discussion sometimes takes off on a tangent that applies to photography in general and not to the specific POW. Personally, I've gotten a lot out of those discussions, but if anyone wants to get back to the specific photograph, all it takes is a post. Sometimes the moderators will steer the conversation back, especially if the tangent gets personal and negative among the participants; your initial comment to Fred is a good example, unfortunately. I think we've had good specific discussion as well as general discussion on Bela's POW.

I really think these disagreements happen because people have different understandings of what the POW is or isn't; I wish we could get that more clearly defined by changing the name and the symbol. Over the years I've gotten much useful feedback from Bela on my own photographs, and I've seen some other photographs from Bela that I thought were outstanding. Any negative comments that I may make on this particular photograph regarding an altered moon, or a cluttered foreground, or any other aspect has no bearing on the regard I have for Bela (which for me is very high) and the anticipation I have for continued interaction with Bela in the future. It's only about this photograph. It's simply an opportunity to discuss in detail with a bunch of other people the pros and cons of one specific photograph. That just doesn't happen with photos submitted for regular comments and ratings. I usually get a lot out of this aspect of PN, whether I like the photo or not; if I'm not getting anything out of the discussion, there's always another chance in the coming week.

Thank you for presenting your very measured and fair comments, Stephen. You are very right about Bela. First, that his work is of a very fine quality overall, including some outstanding pieces. Secondly, he has the experience and artistic sense to help others better see their own work and improve it and I am grateful to his clear and revealing thoughts made recently on a few of my own photographs put up for critiques. That is the nature of Photo.Net at its best in my mind, and most of the posters here I believe are trying in their own way to meet the high standards displayed in the evaluations and communications of Mr. Molnar.

@ John Rowsell, Thank you. I would hope that the mods on this forum take a look once in a while and keep things on track as per the guidelines.

Usually I evaluate the POW as it is presented to the viewers, but later on It is important for me to see the other works and get the context of the entire work of the chosen photographer.As I never met Bela's work before even though he is at PN nearly the same years, as I'm a member... it was a good idea (for me)to evaluate the POW while seeing the whole.

So first of all it was a good meeting with Bela's work, as he has many works that I think are very nice, well composed and knowledgeable. IMO this POW is a nice one with an artistic touch ,as I see the round moon connected to the round windmill and both are nicely placed on the frame, as well as the contrast of sky and earth has merit becauuse they are different in reality as well., but I do think that Bela has some much stronger/impressive photos, and that it is probably why the elves choose this one for discussion ..

In any event,Bela ,nice to meet you and your work. One of the benefits of PN!