Brothers in arms

Dariusz,

 

I felt that I should look at your portfolio before commenting on this image. You have a very respectable catalog of images and a "good eye" for seeing and creating images. People have rated this image highly and it certainly has a lot of feeling in it. On to my critique...

 

I see art here. It is the art of the sculpter. A tourist or casual person veiwing this scene carrying a camera might just aim and shoot at the scene. Here you did more by selecting a key part of the sculpture to capture. Still, it seems that you are presenting an image that is almost entirely the creation of another artist. You took a well cropped image of it.

 

To be fair, I and other photographers are constantly capturing images of other's art or man made creations. My concern is a matter of degree. Often the photographer adds to such images by introducing additional, unusual or other interpretive persectives of the orginal object. Someone might shoot the Statue of Liberty but with an interesting sky, as a sillohette (sp?) or with the gaze of visitors all looking up at it. In such instances, the photographer has made a creation, not just captured someone else's.

 

In your portfolio, there are excellent examples of creativity with man made creations. The images of windows and the selectivity in framing these objects and other parts of the buildings or homes is very creative and independently pleasing. In this image, there is selective cropping but, it is a straight on image of the sculpters creativity. Other than that, I'm not sure where your creativity is on this one. All the emotion is from the sculpture alone.

 

I certainly hope that you are not upset by my comments. It is clear that you are an artist in your own right. The ratings suggest that my view not shared but, I think it is worthy of considering. I hope to see more of your work in the future.

 

To be truthful, it's a fragment of a huge relief with a lot of detail on it. I chose to ephasize only a very small fragment of it, as it drew my attention.

My aim was to show just two heads of soldiers symbolizing a concerted effort on the part of those who must be brothers in arms!

Thank you for your remarks, they are worth considering. I shot it a long time ago, and cherished similar doubts before posting it on Photonet. :)

that picture is a think for war and friendship..

John is quite correct when he states that the photographed object is entirely the work of another artist. His example of the 'Statue of Liberty' is also correct, but this particular crop and angle shown, is an original and unique interpretation by the photgrapher. To 'Photograph' (v), is to 'capture on film','get a likeness of', 'record', 'reproduce' etc. 'Photographic' (adj) is 'exact, retentive in detail','precise','realistic','true to life', etc.

If a unique door_way entrance, is photographed, there is never a comment that this is the work of another, in this case, the architect, so why comment when the subject is a sculpture?. Basically photography is the 'reproduction' of a scene, an object, .....anything...., but it is the unique ability of each photographer, to capture, reproduce and present his work, in a manner pleasing to others. So, I do not agree with John and all the others who 'question' the merit or creativity of the type of photograph shown here. I think this shot is very well done, conveys the messege it was meant to and shows the talent and artistic ability of the photographer. Nice work

ohh come on. people photograph buldings all the time. they were somebody else's art? as cubism defines landscape art as simply copying nature? then photograhy is plain copying nature? i think not. good composition. i think it;s eye catching.

Mohamed,

 

In your post, you cite the image as featuring good composition and that the image is eye catching. Both are correct. To use your criteria, however, I could present an eye catching well composed image of one of your photos and you would agree that I made a worthy creation. The reality is that you would complain about my image and justifiably so.

 

Nothing I wrote suggests that I would argue that landscape photography is copying nature. Nothing in it suggests images of other creations are themselves uncreative. I wrote about there being a matter of degree. Roger recognized this and presented a logical and persuasive argument that there is indeed creativity in how the sculpture is presented. He sees a strong degree of independent creativity despite the image as being totally of someone else's art. You suggest that my position is merely that images of other's creations are not creative. If that is what you concluded, you misunderstood what I wrote.

 

I would like to add something to the ongoing debate. In the last century there was a wave of artists, using works of art or part of it that were created by other artists, adding something new of their own,that gave the created object a new meaning, and it was theirs saying.I understand that it is only a part of the sculpture, and the angle is very impressive. I see it as a citation ,that the decision where to crop was the photographer's decision, and therefor, his work of art as well. Pnina Evental

If I take a picture of a lighthouse, I don't credit the archetect or the builders, if I take a picture of a sunset I don't take credit for the creation of the atmosphere, or placing the clouds where they are or personally rotating the Earth to where it needed to be. Photography is the art of seeing, sometimes natural things and sometimes man-made, sometimes beautiful and sometimes ugly. I think he has focused on a specific segment, like so many photos taken of the Vietnam memorial in Wash DC, etc... Good photo.

John Henneberger said:

 

"In your post, you cite the image as featuring good composition and that the image is eye catching. Both are correct. To use your criteria, however, I could present an eye catching well composed image of one of your photos and you would agree that I made a worthy creation. The reality is that you would complain about my image and justifiably so."

 

On the contrary I say "what an honour for an artist than to have their work photographed!"

 

Quite honestly, if you were to capture and present an eye catching image of one of MY creations I would be amused and flattered and wouldn't complain in the least.

 

As an artist, my philosophy is "create it and let it be free".

 

DARIUSZ is not claiming to be the sculptor, he is simply presenting a photograph so that we may appreciate his impression (and form our own impression) of the sculptor's work. He is stealing or plagiarising nothing.