A man - story of...4

Ask Goya.

 

Although I prefer many other of Piotr's shots, to suggest that he has somehow become fixated upon the dark and evil is simply a misrepresentation, as his portfolio amply shows. To suggest that he should always focus upon the bright and beautiful is simply an exercise in naïvete.

 

That said, some of these shots succeed, and some don't, in my opinion. I have already said that this is not my favorite, but number 3 from the same sequence has a sense of great authenticity, I believe. Persons are going to disagree as to which are better, of course, but the suggestion that photography should always be about capturing that which is bright goes against everything in which I believe. One of my own favorite photos (I won't bore you with it) is of an ominous, dark squall line. I wish that photos could capture the majesty of the various hurricanes that I have chased (and sometimes caught, including Camille). I would like to convey that sense of dark foreboding that I have felt upon driving into a storm of that sort, but I will never be able to. I think that Piotr has managed to captured something of the psychological storms of life, and these are the more profound and certainly worthy of capture. They are extraordinarily difficult to capture with models, of course, just as they are difficult to capture in the theatre or in cinema, but that difficulty (and a correspondingly high failure rate) should not make us think that the effort is an unworthy one.

 

I am glad that Piotr has placed his various portraits together in the same folder. We have the storms of life side by side with the sunny days, as it were, just as in real life.

Piotr's picture here, and others in his folder, have always left some impression with me. Partly I admire his techniques and sense of aesthetics (use of textures, composition, colour, space etc), but mostly because there is strong content to be found. I hear what Trevor says about expressions being "contrived" not being as authentic as would be found in genuine reactions, but for me they are totally separate genres. Environmental or studio portraits, as with photojournalism, are intended to convey some 'real' aspects and elements. However Piotr's work is clearly intended to be illustrative. It succeeds for me in the way that his pictures work like poems. There is a story whether we read and interpret as intended, or not. This sort of artistic photography attempts to relate more of the artist himself, rather than of the model or subject, who/which is but an aid or tool. Just like words in a poem are not actual emotion, but representative of emotive feelings, shared from the soul and experience of the author. With visuals, it is often not easy to read between the lines and see the intended meaning, but a hint can be picked up by viewers if they are open to deeper meanings and more symbolic representations. There will be a connectedness that occurs between viewer and artist - through the work. This has been demonstrated already by visitors who have made reference to words of songs for example.

So, for me this is an illustrative communication from the artist. He is using the model to share some feeling from within himself. How we interpret that is up to us, and influenced by our own experiences (dark or not).

Incidentally, I also see a glint of smile in the eyes. This single observation leads me to interpret the image as not wholly dark (or scary) at all. Rather, a person who has delved into the depths of the darker side of his nature, and yet survived with a little humour. According to my belief as stated above, I have to conclude I am describing myself more than the artist's intent. But I credit the picture for allowing me to 'see myself'. Should we see the artists intention too, then that would be a bonus.

Congrats Piotr, for this deserved recognition of your work.

ps sorry I didn't have time to read the whole thread.

Lannie

 

It is interesting you should mention Goya. At the Denver Museum of Art they showing the Phillips collection. The first room of this exhibit features two paintings of the Repentant Peter, one my Goya and the other by El Greco. The El Greco is luminous and draws my attention to the sublime. It is absolutely captivating. The Goya is very earthy and dark, perhaps Goya was representing the darkness of Peter's shame and sinfulness. In any case, the darkness represented something to avoid and not to wallow in. My concern was that too much of twentieth century art is about celebrating darkness without really appreciating what it means to be there. Case in point, a recent documentary on tv featured the effects of solitary confinement on female inmates and how they react by extreme self-mutilation. One inmate had not more than two inches of intact skin on any part of her body and another had gouged out her eye which was found dryed up and dangling on her face. I know these are horrific images and I apologize for bringing them up, but that is what I equate with darkness. Yes, it is black and white, but we have seen the darkness of war glorified in a similar way and than we have seen more realistic protrayals. One final note, in NT Piotr uses mud as a metaphor for the soul. Does he mean tormented soul or is that the general characteristic of our soul? If we view the soul in the latter way we risk failing to appreciate what it means for the soul to be embraced in light. It is that failure that ultimately concerns me.

Fun stuff, I guess. But mostly I'm with Trevor on this one.

I think I'd rather see the effects you've produced in PS here go towards landscape or cityscape work where it would have more true and real emotion for me (such as your 'Old Town' image, as a start), rather than some contrived, fleeting silliness.

A very strong portrait. Emotion, frozen, held hostage buy negative space and a lack of distracting visual content. Synthetic Tri-X grain to add a classic PJ tension and classic look. The only change I might suggest is the removal of the thin horizontal visual stripe at the top lower black boundary of the photo. While no doubt a part of the wall it IMO distracts a bit from the overall effect. Well done Piotr! Congratulations.

It scares me that people can see anything meaningful or profound in this ,to me, daft and contrived

exercise in grotesquerie. It reminds me of the adolescent theatricals my friends used to indulge in front of my camera when I started taking photos in my teens.

Morey, it isn't my favorite genre, either, but I think that it has its place, along with attempts to elicit a similar kind of response through characters in movies, theatre, novels, and short stories. It is more difficult, of course, but it is not thereby unworthy, in my estimation.

 

As I have said all along, I still prefer Piotr's more upbeat work, or even other of his attempts to portray either anger or angst, but I have to respect the attempt.

 

That said, there is a type of work out there in all fields of fiction (can we call this "fiction" without doing violence to the various genres?) that seems to dwell upon the morbid, and too much of that is not good for me. I do not personally see that obsession in Piotr's work, but I appreciate your concern.

when I looked at this photo I felt:

 

That here was a desparate man in a hole and you are his only means of escape.....if he does not escape he will die. But I cannot help him.

 

So he has this look of desparation because he doesn't want to die and a look of anger because he knows I can help but won't

 

just my humble opinion

Congratulations on POW, Piotr. I'm affraid I'm one of those who aren't touched much by this picture of yours, and who think you have a lot better works than this in your folder. And I intend to explain why, but only later in the week, because I need more time to assemble my thoughts and write them down.

But for the time being, I'd have 3 questions.

2 questions for you, Piotr:

1) Why did you add grain, and why this bright grainy background on top of the man ?

2) Why the scratches, and mostly why do the scratches START OUTSIDE OF THE IMAGE, ON THE FRAME ?

And a 3rd question to Brian Turner (and others):

3) You said in your 1st line, Brian, that you *FELT* - this and that... Are you sure you *FELT* it ? Or did you rather *UNDERSTAND* it, or reconstruct this story based on *AN EFFORT OF THE MIND* ?

To me, there are certain things in the execution of this image (namely the grain and the scratches) that are flawed - both artistically and conceptually. And therefore, I can't FEEL anything at all. And therefore I can't appreciate the image. All I can do is try to "understand" it, and I'm left wondering what I'm looking at. Basically, this image doesn't reveal any hidden secret to me about despair. It's a surface effect for me, a gimmick, a caricature that lacks a real content. I'll get into details later hopefully. Meanwhile, I'd be interested to read replies to these 3 questions.

Clearly, I'd say that Piotr's best work is, as he said himself, his latest - the Autumn Series. Given the fact that Piotr has improved tremendously since I saw his first uploads a year ago, I feel this POW is an interesting image for discussion (because it's controversial), but it doesn't seem to honor Piotr's hard work and great progression margin, nor his recent and major improvements in terms of lighting. IMHO. Best regards.

Just wondering if this image was influenced by Peter Joel Witkin at all? Perhaps dabble

in some darkroom manipulation or try just manipulating the negative and avoiding

the computer, there is still much to say about craftsmanship in this media and this

image could benifit without the help of Photoshop. Keep up the good work P.K. great

portfolio also.

The man has problems (anger, rage, dementia, whatever) and the "film" has problems (scratches, grain, etc) that reconnect to the intent. By starting outside the film they echo the totality of his condition. Why add grain? To to degrade the image, as the man's humanity is degraded by his condition.

Marc, perhaps this answers some of your questions and I'm glad to be able to assist you in your inability to feel. Sometimes one can think past the good parts of anything.

As I see it, there are two kinds of people responding to this image:

Those who want an image to meet mechanical, or formulaic criteria before it receives their stamp of approval, and those who see the image as an execution of an integrated concept, however posed. The former personalities may be well suited for journalism, travel, catalog, and documentary, to name four. While the latter may be more inclined to succeed in the more profound areas of fine art, photo illustration and fashion...to name three

Ok, I'm stretching things a little bit, but that's the way it looks to me, straight off the cuff.

Is this the best picture in Piotr's collection? Who the hell cares? This isn't about picking the best. It's about picking one of interest. For that purpose, most of his work ably qualifies.

The image is set up? In my opinion, that makes this more than if he poked his lens through the peephole at the local asylum. Here we have a photographer with an idea, and I marvel at how well his rapport with the model, his use of light, composition, background, etc, and whatever PS, to distill his idea into visual form bounded by four straight lines.

Im with David Malcolmson. To me this is an exercise in the burlesque containing little evidence of real emotion. Its a nice bit of Photoshop work though.

David, I'd like to see some of these teenage theatricals you are referencing. Granted, this is a dramatic creation, but in my opinion, a well done dramatic creation. I notice unscientifically that those most unimpressed by this image are also those whose own work is either not posted, or is more straightforward in style and content. I wouldn't expect one versed in street photography, travel, catalog, or documentary work to be much impressed by this. Photographers of this kind are after the ever unattainable "truth" and are the most ardent, in my unscientific view, in their resistance of truly creative and conceptual images. Show them a real nut in a real nuthouse, and then all they can complain about is depth of field and other technical issues.

 

Creative photographers, those who construct powerful images from the studio floor up, can see the craft in this, that it is more than simple mugging for the camera. At a base level, it is, actually, mugging for the camera. But it it mugging for a purpose, for an idea. Photo illustrators, fashion photographers, fine artists can see this clearly, that before there was nothing, and now there is something.

 

Piotr is an example of a photographer who doesn't go out there looking for something to record. His work is built on the bare elements and pulled together into a single image. He is part photographer, part director as he ellicits from his models moods that they don't feel, but which carry forth in his photographs.

 

There. I've said it.

What Piotr's work does not do is relish, or celebrate the darkness. That idea is fictional. Piotr uses darkness to celebrate light. His subjects are carefully revealed, brought forth out of the darkness by creative placement of light and shadow. For one to comment that the darkness is prevalent is to betray that one views the image backwards.

I see you are in a good mood. Try not to exhaust the moderator too much...:-)

You wrote: "Photo illustrators, fashion photographers, fine artists can see this clearly, that before there was nothing, and now there is something."

Okay. Great. Looks like I passed the qualification stage. So, if we assume for a moment that I somehow feit in the "fashion" category - perhaps even in the photo illustration category, but not in the fine arts category -, am I still allowed to express my opinions ? Looks like it. Will hope so. Will assume so anyway for the time being...:-)

So... "can (I) see this clearly, that before there was nothing, and now there is something" ? Well, yes. I can. But is it ok to perhaps discuss WHAT is there ? The question is not whether Piotr made something appear, but rather WHAT appeared to you, me, or others.

So, what I see is a "surface PS effect" and a "flat" - i.e non tri-dimentional - image. And that's basically what I'm trying to make sense of, artistically speaking.

The face has a very strange and impactful expression, yes. But then the symbolism is what I'm questionning here - as well as the aesthetical value of this PS effects. Your explanaton about the outside of the frame being scratched doesn't convince me at all, i'm affraid. A desperate man, imo, feels oppressed, and despair is infinitely DEEP. It opposes the inner mind of the desperate man to the World, and this mind is oppressed by the outside World. In that sense, that's how I would justify the man's low position in the frame. But flatening despair with effects is not right imo, artistically and conceptually speaking. Because DESPAIR JUST ISN'T FLAT. What say you, O Doug, Master of Color ? :-)

I was really looking just to comment photo insteadof answer a question, but if I must, the subject is portrayed, to me, as if in anguish, be it insanity or anger. I tend to lean towards the insane side, though, especially since I can relate a little with the subject: The insane picture of the insane man was captured on film on my insane birthday. This, and all of Piotr's portofolios', is wonderful work. I wish I could have half of his talent. I will certainly be watching for new Piotr Kowalik photos.

Actually, when writing the above, I wasn't sure which side you fit in with. I could see you crossing both categories, which is good because you can argue both sides.

What is there? I was once asked what color an orange was. Orange, I replied. Then, I was asked What if what you see as orange is what I see as green, yet we have both been taught to call it "orange" With that I answer your rather ponderous question: What did Piotr make appear.

Well, Quite obviously, Piotr created what we so plainly see. That some people see only ps effects and mugging for the camera is a mystery to me.

Have we yet decided what the emotion depicted here truly is? Is it despair? Is it lunacy? The search for depth begins there. With despair, yes, I agree, there are depths to despair. But with lunacy, what of it? Can lunacy be plumbed? To what depth? How deep can a sane person penetrate into their own persona before reaching that level where lunacy and sanity begin to merge? And can photography follow?

To search for despair in this image, is, in my opinion, a false direction. I don't see this as a depressed individual, but one who has no self control. As such, the scratches and grain are appropriate as they also are photographic symbols of a loss of control.

Granted, your experience with Photoshop goes farther than mine, but for that I'm sometimes happy because I feel it destroys an aesthetic experience you could be having. Instead of accepting the grain and scratches and trying harder to understand their aesthetic value, we may find ourselves evaluating the mastery of their affectation.

Susan got it. Happy birthday, Susan.

Also, Marc, What is the artistic significance to you of starting the scratches inside the frame? I see that as a non-issue.

Greetings.

 

This picture is not photography. As soon as I saw it, I saw a drawing and not a photograph. Photography is capturing time--not changing it.

 

I can accept lighting compensations, red-eye corrections etc, but creating something that did not exist through the viewfinder/lens is not acceptable.

 

There's a difference between photography and made-up photography. Time was not captured here. Manipulation, the imposter, crept in as photography.

 

The picture belongs in the category of Drawing Photography.

 

PhotoShop took away the photography.

I'm never quite sure if you actually believe the things you say or if

you're just being provocative. This notion of unattainable truth is

curious. When Morey shows us his shots of Mesa Arch, they

sure look truthful to me in the sense that I would expect that

when I go there eventually, I will not be surprised, shocked, or

disappointed. It isn't 3-D, but I think I can make that translation

myself, as I have done many times when I've seen images, then

visited places like Babcock State Park, West Virginia. My own

abstract images turn your notion on it's head because they are

truthful details that those with an open mind and who tend to be

more observant of the world around them can visualize and

appreciate. I've seen people look at fairly easily identifiable

detail shots and have no idea what they're looking at. What are

they thinking about as they got about their daily lives? What does

it really mean to be perceptive?

 

Maybe some of us who see a model and some scratches have

already dealt with some of these issues you find so compelling -

or at least we need a more genuine environment in order to

explore them further. When was the last time you were in an

environment where the residents were clearly on a mental plane

different from yours? I thought Marc's point was on target when

he was wondering what it was that compelled people to make

associations either intellectually or emotionally (or perhaps due

to social pressure :-))

You then assumed - a bit ligtly, in my opinion, that I had no idea what pathos was. If only you'd know me better, and most importantly know the people that I have been surrounded with in my life... most certainly you ould then refrain from making such assumptions.

On top of it, it may be of some interest to you that I have actually studied various forms of pathology in university - and rather in depth, in fact.

"Have we yet decided what the emotion depicted here truly is? Is it despair? Is it lunacy?"

Do you think a lunatic - which type by the way ? - is somebody who's never been desperate...? I hope not.

The following seems more interesting:

"With despair, yes, I agree, there are depths to despair. But with lunacy, what of it? Can lunacy be plumbed? To what depth? How deep can a sane person penetrate into their own persona before reaching that level where lunacy and sanity begin to merge? And can photography follow ? (...) I don't see this as a depressed individual, but one who has no self control. As such, the scratches and grain are appropriate as they also are photographic symbols of a loss of control."

"Can lunacy be plumbed ?" I'm not sure I understand this in English. But for the rest, I'd say that there are 2 main caracteristics to most mental disorders which lead to "loss of control". Lack of distantiation between mind reality and external reality and on the other hand multiple personality disorders.

So, perhaps this man would be more related to the 1st type of disorder. Because I can't think of a FLATTENING effect as a symbol of a MULTIPLIED personality. So, could this man have reached such a level in despair that he wouldn't be able to distantiate himself from this huge dark ocean behind him ? And could that mean that his mind is all that's left, and that it has spilled onto reality to such extent, that all would become a surface to him ? Yes, I think that makes perfect sense.

But are the scratches and grain as they are applied here a very good symbolic transcription of this ? Well, maybe so. But that's perhaps where I am just seeing a Photoshop effect. Visually, for demanding viewers, I think flatness and loss of control are not an elaborate enough way to send out the message. Imho. But if it works for some and not really for me, definately, it's my loss - not their's. That's given. Scratches ON the frame's edge are still a gimmick to me, because the frame refers to the picture as picture, and this image is not about itself. But now at least, you have explained the flatness to some degree. I still don't think it is really the right way to send the message, nor that the execution is very good, but it makes more sense now. So thanks for your explanation, which was very interesting...

As for this, Doug...

You wrote: "Also, Marc, What is the artistic significance to you of starting the scratches inside the frame? I see that as a non-issue."

This is real nonsense in my opinion. You can no longer assume that you can use a frame effect in arts with no regards to the frame effects that have been done in the past by so many other artists. Read Derrida's analysis of Adami's work or Deleuze's analysis of Francis Bacon's work, and you'll know what I mean. Or study Escher perhaps and read the critiques about his work. basically the frame itself, once used as part of an artwork, become a meta-representation of the work itself and invites an infinite dialectic reflection between form and content. Basically where the scratches start is of great importance to a whole lot of philosophers and art critiques. At that stage, I hope Lannie will join in...:-)

I 've already posted a comment on this image... I forgot to post an answer... better than long words IMO...

Cheers Piotr!

I am not so sure which one is the most mentally affected: Piotr's model or mine, or both, or photographers themselves... =<:o]

The 2 expressions could be very easily consecutive ones, 2 seconds difference, a reactive rictus... What would be the next expression is an interesting question ... I wonder...

Scratches can be hiden deep inside ... Piotr may have wanted to suggest that this picture escaped from destruction, although the scratches are a bit too gentle in that case... or that the man scratches the camera lense itself not to be witnessed...