Upside down

A very nice black and white result, Raffaele!

Bellissima idea! Questo mondo..."rovesciato-raddrizzato" rende molto l'idea (secondo me) di come...stiamo "perdendo la testa"!

Fine photo, Raffaele, which invites to go far beyond the title you have chosen. It is obviously 180° rotated, but you have taken the clever decision to crop away the people walking at the lake side and leaving their shadows. Without the crop the image would be without great spell. As it i now you have attained a sur-natural presence that leaves the viewer dreaming. Your title brings us back to technicalities.
Congratulation with the POTW, Raffaele.

Without yet commenting on the merits of this particular image (which I enjoy), I always like the way this kind of photo makes me not see what's there (water, earth or whatever substances participate in the reflection) and shoots me into a space/world that I can't see. I see what I can't see; it makes a space in my mind. Cool.

The picture doesn't hold much for me even though the original figures are cropped away. It's still a reflection photo and I know the people are standing there whether I see them or not. It feels simply clever or cute and doesn't tell me anything or show me much other than upside down reflections meant to play with my mind because they've been rotated. That, too, is so immediately obvious that it simply doesn't challenge me as a viewer. If there were some interesting lighting, something else interesting happening on the beach, some sense of character I could glean from the picture, I might be induced to become more engaged, but as is, for me, it doesn't go beyond a gimmick/decoration place.

I like it. It's not the finest of this type of shot I have seen, but I like its space and the way the top halves of the people become wavy due to the ripples - gives it a dream-like quality. Perhaps in order to be more impactful it needs some other items in the frame to make the illusion of reality more complete, or perhaps the people could occupy more of the frame. However, as it is I find its simplicity appealing.

I totaly agree with Fred's evaluation.There is too little substance (even with the ripples),and in the begining I did not see anything interesting, and if not the title, it was even hard to "read" it ,as upside down. The space is huge and empty and the people are not enough to feel it.

I'm with those who like it. Unlike Fred and Anders, I would have had no idea how this was shot had it not been explained, and I really like the use of space. I agree with Robin that is has a very dream-like quality. I'm not always a fan of B&W, but I find it suits this shot perfectly, and also lends to the idea of it being a dream. I wonder if the photographer saw this in his mind when he was out shooting for the day or if he set it up somehow. Both would be creative, but I'm especially impressed with those who can see such while they are just out and about with the camera.

Bill, it could be that this was neither set up nor seen in the photographer's mind's eye when shooting. It might have been seen this way when going through the photos after the day's shooting. It might have been cropped to become what we are now seeing. Not suggesting I know the answer, only offering some more possibilities.

It is not surprising, but still astonishing how we can see totally different things looking at the same image. In my mind I only see substance in the image of Raffaelle, because nothing spectacular happens and nothing is shown, which can occupy our attention. It is its visual silence, which is its substance. Everything in the image is only indicated and not fully shown (people, water/sky, soil). Nothing to entertain our curiosity. We are forced to be silent and let our minds disappear in the nothingness.

Whether that was the intentions of Raffaelle or it just ended up like that after being turned upside down, I can't tell, but the result deserves our full attention.

I imagine, from most of us here, it is getting it.

I'm not terribly astonished by different reactions to the same photo. It seems to happen all the time. I'd actually be astonished if we ever all saw the same thing or had the same appreciation of a photo.

Fred,

Yes, agreed. It's always fun to go through a day's shots and see something you did not see at all while shooting.

It's an interesting point Anders. Much of what we see in any art goes way beyond the recorded image. Two people can watch the same comedic film, for example, and one will laugh hysterically while the other will barely chuckle. But in the interest of not diverging from the photograph itself, I could see where one person might look at this and see tranquility and dreaminess while another might see a nightmare. Who knows where that comes from exactly.

The key question I tried to formulate was not whether something is surprising or astonishing, but what we understand by "substance". I see substance all over the photo of Raffaele. Others complain of lack of the same. A question of opening eyes and mind, as I see it.

Personally, I don't accept, or respect if you wish, the ever repeated message that we are all different and each one of us can think what we like about any image or work of art. If there are persons around who see children games and entertainment in Picasso's Guernica painting, others, better informed should have all rights to denounce the inacceptable ignorance. When it comes to this weeks POTW, it is still an open question.

I appreciate the white space very much. It is difficult (for me anyway - I can't speak for others) to make white space the primary part of the photo. This is like a breath of fresh air to me and I really can't stop looking at it. There is something really lonely achieved by taking the focus off the group, making them faceless and colorless, and making the white/grey sky/water take over.

Anders - I think we all see very different things in photographs and I don't think one person sees things in a more or less cultured way than the next. For that, I'm grateful. Life and art would be boring if we all saw the same thing, but we don't have to discuss that anymore. There is enough in the photograph itself to discuss for sure.

In a defiant gesture of unacceptable ignorance I find little of substance in this photograph. I stand denounced!

Thank you Antony! That you join in, put your response in play is what it's all about for me.

Art, or an attempt at art, or everything down the spectrum down to the homeliest snapshot is a move to communicate -- which is to say, to notice, to point out/at, something that otherwise isn't or wasn't or couldn't be noticed. If it were already obvious that everybody would know/agree with it, there'd be no need to point -- indeed, the pointing would be meaningless.
Having said all that, I denounce you, you fool!! (Just kidding ... )

Cara, I fully agree with you. There are lots of aspects to discuss in this weeks photograph and what each one of us sees as substance in the image, or the lack of the same, is surely one.

... cashing in the "yet" from my first comment at the beginning of this thread ...

There is a place, at the very beginning of a movie, where the lights go down and the movie "opens." Or at the beginning of stories there is either explicitly or implied, a "Once upon a time ... " opening-into from which the stories genesis is able/allowed to take root and grow. In those two spaces (or one; they are the same kind), I let go, I leave behind, I stop thinking about laundry and bills and problems or whatever. That lights-go-down and the first scene opens moments are like an open door on my bird cage through which I will/can go right now. It's a pregnant moment. A space that I love being in even without whatever it is that comes "next."

For me, that's the kind of space that I get from the picture, above. It's giving me a particular kind of charged space. The space in a bowl is different from the space outside of it; space in the open door of the bird cage (or any door, for that matter, except of course for the refrigerator door ... ) is different from the space inside or outside of the cage; what is that space to the bird or that opening space to the movie-goer or that Once-upon-a-time space to the listener/reader of stories?

Note that this is not the same kind of artistic use of space as Rauschenberg's white paintings or Cage's 4':33" which are working exactly the opposite direction; they intend to force you to look at what is in fact there -- the paint, the ambient play of light on that paint, or the ambient sounds. There is no door; look at the cage.

Poetry as opposed to narrative often works the same vein of opening doors rather than building structures. Or both at once:

The Egg Boiler
by Gwendolyn Brooks

Being you, you cut your poetry from wood.
The boiling of an egg is heavy art.
You come upon it as an artist should,
With rich-eyed passion, and with straining heart.
We fools, we cut our poems out of air.
Night color, wind soprano, and such stuff.
And sometimes weightlessness is much to bear.
You mock it, though, you name it Not Enough.
The egg, spooned gently to the avid pan,
And left the strict three minute, or the four,
Is your Enough and art for any man.
We fools give courteous ear — then cut some more,
Shaping a gorgeous Nothingness from cloud.
You watch us, eat your egg, and laugh aloud.

This image makes me think of an upside down reflection of 5 people walking on a beach an overcast and cold day. To me, the upside-down presentation of this image do not add any new meaning or interesting aspect. It only has the effect of closing the doors for the possible interpretations that the upright image might have had. And maybe that is the reason why it was rotated. The visual sense (at least my) very clearly registers that there is something unreal with this image. This makes for a huge distraction if one really wanted to communicate something else that unreality with this image (which I don't think was the intention, the title also suggests that)

Best wishes,
Frode Langset

I will say it straight away; i like this image. The ripple effect on the heads of the subjects feels to me like symbolized alienation or loss of identity, which is heightened by the dark tones at the bottom. And the ripples in the "sky" confirm that one's trail through life isn't always seen clearly.

Congratulations, Raffaele!

One thing I ofter wonder when viewing a piece of art is how accurate the interpretations of the viewers are. Like Michael, I looked at the ripple effect on the heads and thought not only of anonymity or alienation, but, as the images dissipated into the space above, the disappearence of the human race. But Raffaele might have simply seen an image that he thought looked 'cool.'

I'm reminded of a modern poetry class I took in college where we often sat around trying to interpret the meaning behind the words, perhaps providing the poet with great amusement as he looked upon us thinking, 'ha, I just threw some random words together as they popped into my head. Good luck fools.'

Bill, my own experience is this. I tend not to interpret, though photos often do strike me a particular way. They will make me feel something and they will often show me something. I may describe those feelings at length but it's rare that I will give specific meanings to things. Some photos strike me as particularly symbolic, and in those cases I may derive some particular meanings. So, for instance, regarding the POTW, I can relate to Michael's sense of alienation but the further move to "the disappearance of the human race" is probably not a place I would go to. Still, I'm delighted to hear Michael take it there.

Very often, interpretations of my own photos go well beyond what I was contemplating when making the photo. I tend to accept those interpretations, though, because I think photos can stimulate people in all sorts of ways and I like hearing the associations people make with my work. I think most visual artists are in touch with the visual in a sort of primal way and, often, the interpretation and meaning are secondary to a way of seeing the world. However, often, when we step back from that, we may see enough consistency in a given photographer's work that we do start giving some literal meaning to it. I tend to stay abstract in my responses, but sometimes even with my own work, seeing some concrete meanings in certain things can teach me about myself and can round out the picture nicely.

While I might not look at this photo and get as literal in my interpretation as some others, were I the photographer, I'd appreciate hearing those (even if I also got a bit of a chuckle from them) because it would be a way that the viewer connects with the photo and that I can connect with the viewer. It's all part of the shared nature of photography and art. In looking at Raffaele's portfolio, I see directness, concentrated use of negative space, surrealism (for me, a bit heavy handed at times), starkness, and a sense of shape. I don't go much further in attributing interpretive meaning to the particular images I see.

And certainly, saying that a photo is alienating is not saying that that's what the photographer intended. And enough alienating photos from a given photographer still doesn't mean that's what was intended, but it might still say something about the photographer!

Sorry . . . was not Michael but Bill who talked about the disappearance of the human race. My mistake!

I wouldn't necessarily talk about art interpretations as accurate or not or as having to conform to what the artist was thinking or intended. Interpretations are often just what a viewer brings to the table and don't have to align with anything in particular. Having said that, I've read some outrageous interpretations and just chalk them up to an active imagination, sometimes seemingly having little to do with the photo or artwork being interpreted.

That is fine Julie H
As a father of 4, now medium to very large, children I became resigned to foolish ways long ago!
Having been apparently disparaging of Raffaeles photograph earlier I think I should now give it the respect it deserves.
Its an abstraction, an image which I would look at in its own right without reference to its origin. I have no problem with this type of presentation and have some in my portfolio. However judging by the title given, Raffaele is telling me to see it as an image presented upside down. That is not what is of interest, rather the forms and composition are the points of interest. Whether you rotated the image in processing or took the photograph standing on your head is irrelevant to me. To me it needs a title which relates to the image before the viewer (for me a sort of stepping stone into the image), perhaps relating to what the artist feels or where it was taken etc. I think this would have helped me to engage with the image.

As somebody fascinated by reflected images myself I want to like this but in the end, although I like the composition, those forms are just not doing anything for me. I would encourage Raffaele to try more of this type of photography having made a good start, after all, others have been very positive.
Regards
Tony

It 'was very interesting and even fun to read your interpretations.
I walked along the beach and saw that people were reflected, i thought the movie "Upside down" that i had seen a few days before, where mankind lived a near two worlds and opposite, where the rich were high and the poor in low.
I thought i could be anything, reflecting the souls of a world in the other.
I waited for the arrival of four souls, and i photographed.
Thank, ciao and good light
Raffaele
P.s.: Sorry for the english Google translate