girl of the poet

Ah, my mistake. I'm doing too many different things at once: listening to a lecture on the deconstruction of photography by some English pundits and wondering how the English can be so sarcastic to each other in routine conversation and not have every social gathering end in bloodshed; browsing Facebook and uploading some happy snaps to confuse people about whether I'm ever going to get serious about photography; editing some photos to make them more serious; wondering what is the correct amount of vignetting to be taken seriously; checking the cat's surgical incision and wondering why she finds that irritating as I suck the blood from some fresh finger punctures; wondering whether I have room for a fourth piece of pizza and third beer. When my attentions are so diluted by various distractions it's a wonder my confusing Vlad and Evgeniy didn't make your top ten list of stupidest things ever said to you. But not for lack of effort.

Disagree with Lex in spirit. Sure, I do agree that a picture of a gun is different from a gun. But pictures of guns make me think of guns just like pictures of breasts make me think of breasts. Pictures of naked women are pictures of, not pixels, but naked women. There's a difference but there's also a connection between the picture and what it's a picture of. Sure, sometimes the body of a naked woman, when photographed a certain way, looks like a landscape. But we know who posed for the picture and it wasn't Mount Hamilton. If the gun meant nothing in this picture, the gun wouldn't have been used. Put a cucumber in place of the gun, and though it's long and dark and hard, it will not give me the same visual, emotional, or symbolic experience as the gun. Exploitive pictures of homeless people aren't people, they're pictures, but they relate to the person. A portrait of someone isn't the person but it is most often some kind of likeness. Were I to reduce portraits to their pixels, I'd risk missing the picture . . . and the point. Of course the gun is a symbol, which is much more than a series of pixels, and symbols have much more life than the "inanimate object" you're trying to reduce this one to. You can't have it both ways. It can't be a benignly inanimate object and a symbol at the same time. As a symbol, it becomes filled with meaning and with associations. For me, it's a bad and violent association as used in the photo we're discussing. Sure, Vlad, it's poetry and metaphor. But, there's bad poetry and bad metaphor. As used here, it comes across as silly, cheap, and way too easy.

Kids used to dress up and play Cowboy and Indians; there'd be a mob scene if children were seen playing with plastic guns and bow and arrows today and their parents will be chastised.

Maybe there's nothing wrong with this picture at all, rather we've just lost a bit of our innocence along the way.

Well this discussion has livened up a little!
Firstly I will defend the use of sarcasm as a weapon of preference wielded by English people like me. Preferable to ending another human beings life with a gun, I think.
So like Jim no I do not like guns and do like them in images I view. But then I live in a place where I can walk out of my house without locking doors or feeling threatened in any way. Another place another life could have been very different. As an Englishman living in Wales I am conscious that there are people who would prefer that I returned from whence I came. For now they are not a threat to me but with increasing devolving of power in the UK those people may have the power to threaten my existence one day.
Even in rural idylls like mine it seems that many still have a thirst for violence via TV. Violence and guns are very popular with human beings. Weaponry plays a key role in most cultures and therefore is a perfectly legitimate area for artistic expression, be that gratuitous or intellectual. So I defend the right of the photographer/artist to create this image.
I would also defend the right of a viewer ( having no prior knowledge as to the origin of the artistic endeavour) to feel and verbilise the feelings evoked by an image. These may be far from what the artist intended to represent. Talk of misunderstanding an image is inappropriate in an artistic context to my mind. It is intellectual elitism. Freedom of expression works both ways for me, for artist and viewer.
As to picture itself. For me if I'm not instantly emotionally engaged by the characters/events in this type of image then my brain quickly moves on to the finer photographic detail. In this case to the downpipe meeting the womans head and the horrible highlight on her forehead. I still feel uncomfortable with a pointed gun, but nothing beyond that. However it has provoked some interesting and worthwhile discussion and, after all, is that not the purpose of art?
Regards
Tony

Jim, I am honestly honoured to be in your top ten. It makes me almost celebrity. You may want to try yourself in politics - you are so passionate and you have a gift to be misleading. Take care, Vlad.

I find it interesting that I am completely anti-gun (as in the US situation), but this picture worries me not a jot in terms of imagery of the gun. It is the reverse for Jim who is a gun owner and yet dislikes it. There's all sorts of interesting psychology in here although this is not the place to go into it, but I do agree with Vlad: this is a Romantic image (with a capital R).

There's all sorts of interesting psychology in here although this is not the place to go into it

Why not? If it's related to the image, the psychology of the gun's being used and the psychology of responses to it seems an appropriate thing to go into. A general debate on gun control would be inappropriate, but discussion of the psychological derivation of the gun's use, expression, and its eliciting of psychological response ought to be in order.

If this image truly embodied Romanticism (in the classical sense), it would contain expressions of intense emotion. I don't see that on the part of either subject. What I do see is the potential for such emotion or, better still, an implication of it. The photograph contains a statement that desperate human beings occasionally resort to desperate measures to address problems. Therein may lie the sort of psychologism to which Fred refers. If this was Evgeniy's purpose, I think he has succeeded, hands down.

I'm not sure I see Romanticism so much as a nod toward the Neorealism influences on Cindy Sherman (particularly the partner to this photo) and the surrealism of Orson Welles' adaptation of The Trial. This photo is very reminiscent of still photos of Anthony Perkins from that movie, including Perkins' knack for seething, repressed emotion and conflicted role identity, which invariably bubbled up through his filters into expressions of intense... discomfort. Particularly around women. It was a sort of anti-emotion, rather than non-emotion, the result of an intense effort to repress feelings. It's unique to 1960s cinema. Perhaps that's another reason this photo appeals to me.

Point well taken, Lex. I should have noted that I was responding to Robin.

The feeling of having someone pointing a gun at the back of the head strikes me as a pretty strong emotion even if it is not manifested as a tortured expression on the man's face. If the man is feeling this (assuming the image is not depicting reality in the strictest sense) it implies a man tormented by fear. I don't see the image as neorealist myself: the dress, antique pistol and the photo treatment seem a nod to the 19th century.

In my previous comment I have critiqed the compositional technical components of the POW via the point of poetry ... I have two ponits to add to the discussion.
A work that is chosen to apload , especially as a POW, has an emotional impact as well as intelectual one.

I did not like this work in general,especillay beause it was dull ,and was refering to as poetry and romaticism by some of the comments in the begining.

Ido agree with Jim's point of view that it can influence young and adults in a wrong way.( and we read a lot of tragedies of this kind in schools).
the second point that I was refering to in the past is : to choose photos of members that are active at the site, so viewers can ask questions, and /or the photographer can react as well,( Fred, excuse me for refering to your example of POW ,which I still think is one of the best). This is a perfect example,the member is a short time at the net and have not even even one comment, so he is an annonimous personality, and could have been a real interesting part of this important discussion.

You ask why the photographer hasn't engaged? Hmmm. Reading his image "sucks" and and then having one commenter "stick a finger up" at another? Why on earth would he?

Though I also--completely a personal opinion--am not often drawn to images with guns, I think this photo is thought-provoking and creative. The one thing I don't particularly love is the texture - only because it looks like it was a bit of a post-production afterthought. If it were toned down just a little, it would add to the grittiness of the subject.

PS. The photograph was uploaded in April, so I'd say he's still "active," unless what you are asking for is for those that choose the photos to only choose photos by the people that comment in this forum?

Dear Cara
I'm sorry that I was not cleare enough. My thought was to choose members that are active regularly at PN, and not ONLY at the POTW.
i hope it is clearer now. Thanks.

The girl is aiming at someting te man looks at, but her eyes are focused on camera. The plot is not well constructed and impression arises that figures are pasted from different shots. The mans face is interesting and I cannot quess his mood. The girl wants to shoot at something poet thinks of but wants to compose herself well as an actress before the mirror. The couple is not well matched indeed.

Robin: Granted that it is quite possible to feel an emotion without necessarily expressing it, I see no evidence in the image itself that either subject is feeling anything, other than what the viewer infers from it.