Pinakothek der Moderne #2

An amazing composition indeed, the frames lined up lead the eye through the picture. Great tonal range also. Congratulations

Simplicity at it's best. Clean and engaging composition.

i like the picture but i think everyone is really overrating it. the line of photographs is pleasing to the eye and yes it's a good composition, but the subject matter is not anything spectacular or emotional and the reflection of the two men is a clever conceit at best - it does not add "meaning" to the picture.

The line of framed pictures offered a strong sense of movement - kind of like a roller coaster turned sideway. It creates a nice tension with the static figures.

 

The shadow of the men looks a bit funny. It looks air-brushed. The man in front has a strong shadow. The man a bit behind has little or no shadow.

 

I am not sure what to think about the upper-right corner of the image. The slightly shaded tone at the corner suggests a space that is either flat or infinite. It does not communicate the sense of a curved wall.

I think this one is just great. I love the curve and the converging lines, but this photo would be nothing without the people.

Sorry, the picture is really more or less technically perfect..but really now, this looks like standard school photography to me. I find it stale, and no different from the Euro-photography school that likes to take pictures of architecturally stale buildings jutting out toward the sky (In black and white, of course)Pinakotek der Moderne appears to be still stuck in the bauhaus mentality of the 1920's and yes I have looked at their netsite (also stale and with tiny print) I really don't see anything that has changed in this Euro-outlook of photography since the 1960's and I'm baffled as to why nobody has made some attempt at originality.

Clever shot.

Well composed with nice lines and the exposure is on.

Lukar has really used perspective and the curved walls of the gallery space to

his advantage here. The sweeping curve and the diminishing size of the

frames as they move away from/towards us really serve to pull the viewer into

this shot.

 

It's exactly this kind of shot that is so easy to miss or 'not see' when your

standing there. Lukar got it though. Nice one. : )

 

Someone mentioned the shadow looking 'airbrushed'.

 

Give it a rest already - stop the Photoshop paranoia.

Let's try to be objective for a moment...

Aesthetics: well, it's a very fine picture, well composed, taking advantage of the curved wall to produce a very graphical result that works very well. Have I seen many pictures with a BETTER composition on photo.net ? Nope. Have I seen many pictures AS well composed on photo.net ? Well, yes, or at least quite a few. I think one also needs to realise that the composition in this case is very obvious. There are cases where compositions are very difficult: a typical example would be Tony Dummett's second POW. Here, the potographer has a lead, which is the wall, and not so many choices for his framing. Does this picture represent an ideal of aesthetics for me? No. It's a bit too plain, too empty, too clean for my personal taste. But objectively, I think we have to admit it's very good, and I can see why this picture could be considered flawless. I think it is indeed close to flawless, eventhough it doesn't "arouse" my aesthetical appetite all that much.Conclusion: very good.

Originality: That's where I have to disagree with the majority.

1) Photographs similar to this one are everywhere. The subject itself is totally unoriginal.

2) How about the approach to the subject chosen by the photographer? Yes, there are many pictures SIMILAR TO THIS ONE, BUT NOT EXACTLY THE SAME though: the difference being the reflection in the foreground frames. This is the only real difference with most shots of this kind. Is this reflection a smart move ? Well, I guess it's not a bad move, but now I wish to ask this question: there is a reflection of the 2 men in the foreground frames. When looking for the best possible composition for this picture, any photographer would get closer to the wall in order to increase the perspective distortion, right? At that point, maybe the photographer decided to include the reflections in the frames. What does it really add to the image ?

3) An attempt at finding a meaning beyond the trick of this reflection... Photographs reflect their viewers. Does the photographer perhaps mean to say, or does the photo perhaps convey the meaning that photographs are as much a true reflection of the viewer's state of mind, opinions, tastes, etc...? Is that it...? If so, is that really such an obvious meaning in the first place ? And secondly, how interesting do you think that is ? In my opinion, it's perhaps quite smart at best, but is that really all it takes to please our brain...? Perhaps this is the best photo the photographer could come up with that day in that place, but does that make it a perfect photo ?

Regularly I see a bit everywhere that "landscapes" (or at least most of them) are rarely original. Regularly I read that portraits or artistic nudes have been done a million times and most pictures in these genres are unlikely to be acclaimed as original. Well, I partly agree with such statements, but then I can't really comprehend the passionate love I see all over this site for little smart tricks. A smart trick is a smart trick, and it isn't more original to me than a very interesting expression on an absolutely conventional portrait.

The problem I see here is that this image can be seen in 2 ways: A) As a pretty (and very well executed) picture of 2 persons watching artworks in a gallery, or B) As an artistic attempt to convey a message.

If we are in case A), then this is no better than a very pretty landscape or portrait with no soul to it. And if we are in case B), then this picture falls flat for me due to a fairly uninteresting and shallow message that tells me basically nothing new. As Paul Klee said, "art doesn't reproduce what's visible, it makes new things visible". What important "new thing" does this pictuire make visible ? To me, nothing much. It's a clever trick and a very good looking photo of a fairly boring subject; the photographer raised it above the ordinary aesthetically, but I see no imperial idea or image treatment that would make a statement and give me food for much thought.

Conclusion: it's a smart picture that looks good, but nothing close to a photograph that moves mountains and reaches the heart or the brain. A very good picture, but as interesting to me as about 2000 of the pictures I saw on this site. And there are probably a thousand pictures I would have found more interesting to discuss than this one. Yet, I've written all this, so perhaps it's actually a good pick for a controversial discussion. My point is: should we satisfy ourselves with "smart tricks" or should we demand a little more before calling a picture "excellent" ?

As Paul Klee said, "art doesn't reproduce what's visible, it makes new things visible". What important "new thing" does this picture make visible ?

Marc, that's just one view of what art does. Stephen Sondheim put it another way when he penned for Gypsy, "Ya gotta have a gimmick!", as resounding an indictment of commercial manipulating as it is about what the ruling arbiters of "taste" have expected of artists since at least Picasso, which is to find new methods to "affect and disturb" the viewer to "act or feel". Well, whoopie to that! Because, most times too many artists and photographers telegraph that sort of thing with all the subtlety of a roundhouse curveball.

Yet, I agree with you fully that this type of photograph, for all the reasons you gave (save one), clever gimmickry or not, is in short "old (art-house) hat". But that doesn't mean it's not worthy of POW just because it's not fresh and "original" to you or me.

After all, we can't all be photographic pioneers who break "new ground". But what is truly empowering about photography is that many of us can be "artists", if only for Andy's 15 minutes here and there, rather than simply being spectating admirers of a few "designated" artists' work.

My view is that the elves made this call: There's always a new generation of viewers and young photographers to whom this sort of thing is photographically fresh, original, unique, and yes, inspiring.

Finally Lukar you get the POW, I have seen your image been selected few weeks in a row... what a suspens ... but many people then get familiar with your picture, may too familiar that originality started to fade away...

I like the design of horizontal and curvy lines cut by the 2 vertical lines of the viewers. Aesthetically, a very pure and sober image IMO... boring image? not exactly, I dont feel boring but more relaxin', peaceful... the abundance of white makes it a bit cold though...

To be viewed poster size IMO, as a result it is widening the space of a room if put on the wall

dont be offended, it's a compliment........ I imagine easily this picture on the wall of the waiting room of either a famous specialist,... a very expensive Psychoanalyst office for instance..., either a High profile Business Consulting company ;-)

I like this image. I like the curves, the simple lines, the contrast, even the crappy trainers on one of the guys. I like it in the same way that I like modern art or modern architecture. They don't speak a great message to me, apart from "get rid of the clutter!" If I can't practically live in a modern appartment with minimalist design (my 15 month old makes that impossible), I can bring some peace and tranquility into my home with this picture. Yes, I'd hang it on my wall, and to me that's the only test I need.

 

But...

 

The only thing I don't like about it is the reflection. As soon as I noticed it, it distracted me from the simple lines of the image. I'd still hang it on my wall, but to make it better to my eye I'd have to Photoshop out the reflection!

 

Thanks for an excellent image Lukar

This photograph troubles me because I have managed to convince myself that I have seen something very similar to this in the past. This photograph could be cropped significantly and still retain most if not all of its attention grabbing quality making it well suited for illustrating a newspaper or magazine article. It looks like a photo you would see in the weekend lifestyle section of a newspaper, advertising the opening of a museum exhibition or commercial art gallery. I suppose that is not a bad thing but does it make this rise to the level of a stand alone example of fine art?

 

As far as the composition goes the symmetry is ruined by the photograph on the left side of the frame. Everything else works very well moving from left to right in perfect geometry until we stop at the frame on the left which is crowding the top edge of the photograph. I can appreciate the idea of the reflections in the frame but honestly they dont do anything for me visually at least not at the small scale shown here.

 

The position of the two main subjects is unflattering to say the least. There is not enough going on to add much human interest such as the standard cliché shot of a prudish old woman in a coat and hat standing in front of painting (or photo) of a naked young goddess. In other words, there is no tension, drama, or compelling human element except for an interesting arrangement of shapes in space that falls slightly short of some viewers expectations. This looks like a photo begging for a caption telling us the significance of what we are looking at. (284 words, is everyone happy?)

Nice shot. Actually I found I have a similar one. I took the picture

at Arlington National Cemetery on June 1, 2003.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1980717&size=lg

 

The Lukar's picture is better than mine.

This is the first time that I have commented on a POW photo (I think), but this one was so simple and yet so powerful that I had to contribute this time. Am I allowed to call it a 'Masterpiece'? I believe that it is one...

I've noticed this image a while ago on the site, it was in the "top rated photos" series.

It's just perfect. IMHO the author should start searching for a publisher or send it to

Magnum. They'd like it too. www.magnumphotos.com.

I just deleted 9 comments which where either rude or replies to rude comments... come on everybody, please try to stick to the guidelines on posting comments. Let's not turn this into something nasty, but rather: let's try to learn something about photography: composition, art, technique, planning (staging?), decisive moment etc.

This is an excellent photograph. The way the two men are

standing one behind the other enhances the effect that all

elements in the picture (with the exception of the floor)flow from

the left hand side edge of the first picture frame outwards into

the composition, gives great dynamism and a strong line of

action (along with strong silhouette). Given the scene that

presented itself, I doubt it could be done better- differently,

maybe, but not better. The reflection of the figures is an added

bonus. I don't see any deep meaning here, or attempt at it, just

good old fashioned photography. Lukar- well seen, well caught.

 

Tom

It is a great composition and the photographic excecution is (almost) perfect. But I wonder if this photo is able to stand out long hanging on my wall. It is so clean, so theoretical.... without much emotional attractive capabilities.

This is most beutiful photo that I have ever seen. After looking keenly, I was thrilled to see the viewers reflection on the first frame. WELL DONE.

 

Senthil

great pic... just love it!

this picture catches the eye and let it follow up to the two gentleman. it seems that they are "surrounded" by art.

 

good work!

Good job....but!

 

I didn't read all the comments, but I think that the reflexion is not good, and that the shadow of the two men on the wall isn't good as wel. It could have been a very strange atmosphere when these to things could be avoided. Then the pictures will hang in an open space and the men will stand on a mauntain or something like that. Result will be surrealistic!

 

right now I only see a good composition in a museum!

Go back and fix it! ;-)

Interesting. I love this image. I showed it too my wife (non-photographer) and she loved it. I came to work and showed a bunch on late shift (non-photographers) and they loved it. There was not one negative comment about the reflection (they thought it was cool - LOL) or the shadow on the wall. They loved the leading line in the shot also although they didn't call it that.

 

This is truly an outstanding image that invoked a lot of emotion from a lot of people where I sit. This is a magnificent example of photography... Just my 2 cents...

 

Dave

Very nice composition and well executed. Fairly dry as a photo. Depicts a typical gallery viewing quite well.

there is a disturbingly staged and/or manipulated feel to this photograph. these are perhaps just a few questions to be answered:

why are the two men studying a picture(s) nearly together with no one else around? why are the pictures inside identically matted glassed-in frames all the same size and format? why are there no information plates about the works to be seen? if indeed the wall is curved then why aren't the two men reflected nearly evenly in every successive picture, not just the first one? and, why do the receding successive picture frames show increasingly larger reflections of other frames?

no. there's more here than meets an inquiring eye. this is all too neatly packaged to be believed. upon closer inspection, once plausibility is doubted, the reasons that this photo was chosen POW begin to fall apart.

Peggy: There is a European and perhaps, very German concept that basically goes: "Bare is beautiful" This minimalism can be very beautiful, has some potential in architecture and design, but appears to have become culturally embedded, repetitive and overdone, hence my protests above.