A man - story of...4

This is a photograph of strength and the will power of an individual fighting against some form of evil that tries to oppress his soul. This is a man under the attack of spiritual forces outside his realm, and knows not how to fight back. He knows that something strange is happening to him, something abnormal that has pulled him into a deeply troubling state of mind. He himself is not mentally disturbed yet, but feels the darkness is overpowering his sanity and senses the presence of an unknown enemy taking over his mind as he begins to loose control of the situation. This is why he looks straight up and stares his enemy in the eye as if saying: you will not bring me down. But he is not giving up yet, nor is he asking for helphe still believes that he can deliver himself by his own strength. By placing him in the lower part of the frame, the photographer is trying to show us that this mans hope is running out. The explosive background emulates the presence of the evil forces which are set against him, and the power of such. The scratches connote the battle which is taking place and its inevitable destructive side effects. He looks physically subdued but mentally defiant as he keeps fighting this thingwhatever it is, maybe to no avail. It is simply a matter of time until his strength fails him, and he knows this, but he will fight unto his last ounce of energy has run out; even unto death, if need be. He will not submit to his oppressor and will die with honor rather than bow down at the feet of his enemy. He has lived all his days in complete control of his life, and will die in control of it; no one can take this away from him. He is his own man, and proud of whom he is, even in his defeat.

Marc, et al, again, I am happy to help you through this difficult process.

 

"Plumbed," perhaps spelled incorrectly, is of nautical origin, I believe, and has to do with sounding the depths of a body of water. If that's not its actual definition, then this is nonetheless the definition I wish to use.

 

Carl, I will never tell. But yes, the quest for truth is unobtainable, especially by journalists, and others who seek not the truth, but to see their names as discoverers of the Truth, and who are willfully blind to their own bias. Morey's arch may well exist in the American West, but you will never see the same image as Morey posted. If Truth is eternal, then what Morey posted was his interpretation of Truth, and not the Truth itself. It's like this with the examples I listed. Certain classes of photographers may purport to seek "the Truth" but what they always do is reveal their interpretation of it, and in most cases they are in some way merely duplicating the work of a predecessor. Look closely at any of the catalogs arriving in the mail in today's market economies and tell me the images are not interpretations. Likewise travel brochures, news photographs and documentary work. All viewpoints selected not for their truthfulness, but for their interpretative potential. Whosoever is deceived by them is not wise. The second class of photographer, exemplified by photo illustrators, fine artists, and fashion photographers, seeks to reveal truths that are not evident rather than to proclaim the same old truths with different film, or a new lens.

 

I believe some here might benefit from the teaching of certain religious traditions which hold that God is too big to be put into a box, meaning (more or less) that Man's feeble mind is unable to contain the whole understanding of God's being, so Man, therefore, attempts to reduce God into shapes and sizes that fit his (Man's) capacity for understanding. This is how the idea that "this is not photography" limits one's understanding. To reduce photography into one or two quip definitions is to (attempt to) (egads, I'm writing like Tony!) limit the unlimited.

 

Others also seek to limit that which should not be limited by citing the works of famous but now dead artists, as if their success brought them longer, even eternal life, noting their attempts at discovery as either paragons of consciousness, or as standards to which we must all aspire, as if to say success can only be measured by how close one's work resembles the work of someone else, some other noted artist, for example.

 

We do ourselves a great disservice by means of this mimicry. Is this not what children do? In producing work that is similar to a recognized artist, what are we doing but digging in the same hole someone else has already dug? The joke says the more you take away from it, the bigger the hole gets. We sometimes find ourselves stuck in these holes, witless victims of our own desire for approval, our own need for conformity.

 

Here exists an effort to squeeze this particular work into a box of our own creation so that we may understand it. If we don't quite "get it" it is easier for us to lay blame at the creator, to compare it to known work, etc, and find that certain failures have been achieved because so and so, a famous dead person, said it should be this way, not that way, and we, like sheep, follow blindly. This is easier, socially more acceptable, and psychologically more palatable than it is for us to look beyond the box in order to understand a new and unfamiliar language. We recognize that languages are made of sounds generated by a common physiology which is able to produce a limited, finite range of utterances, yet from these few vocalizations the many languages of the world exist. What we have here, what we see as scratches, may be familiar to the eye as the certain basic noises released by the throat of our species are familiar to the ear, but to one mind they may not have the same meaning as to another because of their arrangement, or aural syntax.

 

Is photography the Universal Language for nothing? Some here would make that so.

 

The scratches, to me, are not meant to be perceived as "in the frame," but rather, in the film. They transmute the entire image, from base plus fog to maximum D, into a statement of one man's disorder. His mental state has been marred in like manner as the "film" Look not on the outward appearance of this image, but on its heart.

Not to play a symantics game, but images don't have hearts,

people do. I'm quite sure that the several posters who were not

moved by this image in the same way that you are are fully aware

of the photographer's intentions, or at least can make some sort

of connection which could be considered a reasonable

interpretation. After all, none of us can be sure exactly what is

intended, as indicated by the differences in interpretations that

we've read so far.

 

I'm a bit troubled by what I perceive to be a generalization on your

part regarding photojournalists' intent to deceive. That implies

an attempt to hide the truth while putting something else in it's

place as opposed to showing part of the truth, and yes, one's

own personal slant on the truth, without a conscious attempt to

mislead or cover up. The same is true of mimicry. How can you

tell when someone shoots to emulate someone else or impress

others, as opposed to simply shooting what appeals to them?

I've had the experience, and I suspect you have too, of getting a

shot you thought was unique, only to find later that many others

before you had seen the same thing and interpretted it in very

nearly the same way.

 

Perhaps there is a fundamental difference in personality or life

experiences that cause people to respond to what they see more

literally rather than symbolically. Of all the art forms, photography

is perhaps the most confusing because it has the potential to

present itself as truth, at least in part, or as a fabrication . . . and

in various combinations.

Thank you for poping in :) Just to answer your 2 questions:

 

1- why photographers like to use gariny films ? Why this effect was implemented in many soft packages ? There was something about UNDERSTANDING or FEELING in your post ...this time I just felt that it is what I need. There isnt any more sofisticated explanation. I think Doug is acctually getting right where my thoughts were when I was to plan the final look of this image. And I have actually stated before that this elements , like grain and the scraches are a part with the background used to display his ( models ) mental state. For some it may only be a ps manipulated background without any visable link to this what is on the image , for some it may be just what it is for me.

 

2- scraches ..as above . regarding their placement ,to explain the reason from my point of view - the scraches where aplied to the whole size frame in the process of creating them . I was going to keep the image clean and croped when finished but decided to leave all in the shape as it was after scanning , I found it a tad more original and a bit different from my other tries and work so , liked it the way it is ..there is not any special meaning.

thank you . pk

Doug,

Hi, how are you ? Still angry ? :-)) Don't know whether you realize that most of your previous posts are, alas, conjectures about other viewers and the way they understand or fail to understand what YOU understand. In French, for about half of this last post of yours, I'd use the expression "Precher un converti". Which means basically: to try to convert somebody to a religion he already converted to long ago. In short, you made what I would call absurd and dogmatic generalizations about journalism, and stated the obvious in the remaining part of the post. This is not about whether or not to accept the Original Truth as an artist presented it; it is about seeing whether or not the way this Truth was presented succeeds or fails, and why. Unless of course you believe that ANY creation attempting to reveal a Truth is "above all rules of common sense" and to be taken for granted. If you do believe so, you would also have to believe that symbols mean exactly what the artist wants them to mean. Sometimes it may well be the case, but we can't just ignore entirely the History of symbolic arts nor the existence of archetypes and over-used symbols, when considering the interpretation of a work at hand. For example, you can willfully ignore that red traffic lights mean that you need to stop, but then don't be surprised if you end up dead while those who paused for a while may survive. :-)

More interesting is Piotr's reply, since he's the author of this image. And I am not surprised about what I read - not even with the smile after the "thank you for popping in". :-) I've been bothering Piotr with criticism on about every single shot of his for a long time, on this and on another site. And I hope he can still bear with me today, but basically, Piotr is highly talented and has impressed me month after month with many interesting works, and indeed NOVEL approaches to quite a number of themes - the ballerine series (male and female) for example. This is why I persist in chasing this man with a rigid mind that is exactly opposed to his way to create art. For really FANTASTIC work to come about in the art of revealing Truth in Images, it takes a lot more than most people think to hit your target. It takes inspiration and imagination, yes, and Piotr has loads of both, but it also takes an amazing sense of what's right. It also takes conceptual accuracy, to tell any Truth about anything at all. Basically, an artist creates, and that's that, but behind the scene, there is the subconscious mind at work, on both the artist's side and the viewer's side. If we neglect this very fact, we MIScommunicate. A lot of people have no formal education about symbolism all together, and they tend to follow their own instinct to make their artistic decisions; that is fine if they are incredibly gifted, and even then, not always, but it can also fall flat for many viewers. I know what it's like: I've personally failed in most (if not all) of my purely artistic attempts at expressing a Truth in a creation so far...:-))

Let's see what Piotr had to say:

"This time I just felt that it is what I need. There isnt any more sofisticated explanation."

Let me interprete this reply. It says: I haven't thought that there was necessarily A REASON for me to do this rather than that. I "followed my feelings" - "felt".

"For some it may only be a ps manipulated background without any visable link to this what is on the image , for some it may be just what it is for me."

Well, yes. And for some, like me, it needs a justification - which Doug has provided us with in his first reply - so that we finally UNDERSTAND it. But while we understand, we just don't FEEL. That was my point. Whether it was executed in PS or not doesn't matter to me at all, per se, in this category of work. What *does* matter on the other hand is whether your PS addition makes me FEEL something almost immediately - like Van Gogh's brush strokes for example - or whether I need to sit and think to decode the picture's background, whereas at first sight it looked more like a cheap and easy effect applied by someone for lack of a better way to express himself.

"2- scraches ..as above . regarding their placement ,to explain the reason from my point of view - the scraches where aplied to the whole size frame in the process of creating them . I was going to keep the image clean and croped when finished but decided to leave all in the shape as it was after scanning , I found it a tad more original and a bit different from my other tries and work so , liked it the way it is ..there is not any special meaning."

What you are saying here, Piotr, is this:

A) that you changed your intent half-way during the process, without giving much thought to this change, B) that it was "more original" this way, and that originality mattered more than the meaning since C) "there is not any special meaning".

Well, this is exactly what I felt when I saw the effect: originality for the sake of originality, not in orther to communicate a clear and meaningful message.

It so happens that scratches do not look good to me - I agree with Jacques Henry that they are too tiny and look computer-generated, therefore not sincere, and therefore don't match the rage I see in the expression. It also happens, that I feel meaningless - or rather wrong - to have the scratches go over the frame. Why so ? As I said above, because the frame identified the picture as a picture and makes the image its own subject, whereas it seems to be about the man. Could it be about both at the same time ? In a way, yes, ut we would then have to assume that this is a self-portrait of the photographer. If it isn't, I'd say the frame effect is out of place.

Finally, and most importantly, I feel the reasons you stated and which motivated your artistic decisions about the background are gratuituous, i.e have no reason to be what they are. And I don't believe symbolism can be successful based on random decisions.

As for the fact that I feel computer-generated artefacts as soon as I look at the image, I feel it doesn't fit the subject. A scream is not a calculated cutesy effect meant to be original. A scream is a scream. It's from the inside. Nothing is more authentic than despair or loss of control of a man's mind: therefore I would discard immediately as wrong any effect that appears as an effect for tis sort of work, as INAUTHENTIC. IF the effect grabs me and immediately communicates a feeling to me, then I'd say it works for me. If not, it fails in my view.

When I have produced effects on an artistic attempt, I have generally given it much thought, and have found some reasons to do it this way rather than another way; or at least I must feel convinced that the effect is in harmony with the subject and "integrated" well to the work, so it looks "authentic". Despite giving this much thought, I have generally failed; and to me it means that it's not easy at all to produce effects of symbolical value in PS, especially not effects that look authentic. Inauthentic-looking effects are gimmicks of art, not successful art imo.

This being said, I criticized this image based on the heighest artistic standards that I am capable of, and all this may sound very harsh, whereas I do not feel this POW is BAD - at all. It's still good work. But the expression was quite something, and imo, you failed to give it the background and context and authenticity, that it deserved. Whereas you succeeded wonderfully in 2 images in your autumn series...

Thank you for in depth comment ...I just finished it ..and really suprised how much can be said about it ..anyway : Having read your comment Iam not too sure if it is me or you have misunderstood some of this what I said . basicaly some of your expalnation of my image is not accurate or it may apear so when red in your comment ..so I have decided to post it once more just incase I was not clear ( not to abset you just to clear thing out :) :

 

A) that you changed your intent half-way during the process, without giving

much thought to this change, B) that it was "more original" this way, and that

originality mattered more than the meaning since C) "there is not any special

meaning".

 

a- of course that it was thought tru ..the fact that I decided to keep more space and create "cage like " frame was a move I liked from the begining ..what I was saying is that PLACING SCRACHES in the outer part was not as important to me...

b ,c - special meaning ..why there isnt one ? because as already I said it had a meaning alocated in his feeling . It was already represantig his state of mind ( now it makes me feel like in the school when repeting the same thing over and over again - but I know it was not too clear first time ) so ...it did not mean the scraches were meaningles it just meant that I was not looking for more then alread been said ..so I assume you have gone a bit too far with your observation and forgot what the meaning of them was ..no metter if they in or out ..Originality - I mentioned was refering to strictly my work ..and would not make anyone thinking twice about it ..as only I could say that ..as it was refering to my work only..So to finalize it : The scraches have meaning no metter if they in or out .., originality - refers to my own way of working and to placement only not to meaning which we all know now :) , NO SPECIAL MEANING - your point C - refers to placement in outer part .

 

And the last bit - which may be not too clearly said by me was about the way they were created ...

 

"As for the fact that I feel computer-generated artefacts as soon as I look at

the image, I feel it doesn't fit the subject" -

 

The scraches actually are a real thing and were done with a sand peper, there was nothing artificial about them apart form them being created on a separate image (slide ) and alied over the image we see. But surly they are a real thing :) IAm not too sure why you say they do look computer generated , or if they really looks so (?) . Their size and layout 100% scan ..but Iam not too good at doing it .so that is why it may apear not the way you excpected. Still it is a real thing :)

Personally, I think this is a bad photo ! The space above the man is too large and does not anything to a possible story one can see in this image.

 

Above that, I hope that this non-photo is posed. Otherwise it represent a very negative image about the person. If it is anger then it is even badly posed ! If it is dementy or another psyciatric desease then it is very offending to similar patients. Simply repulsive !

I see an angry looking man with some nice grain manipulation to the final output. What does it tell the audience? I can't get much out of it. SO what if he's really crazy?

The photo was posed. Please go to the folder.

Piotr, just to set things straight... I perfectly understood what you meant. What you failed to see is that my points A, B, and C - all three of them - refered strictly to your point 2. So, there's nothing more for me to add.

As for the fact that the scratches are real, ok then, my mistake. I saw some jagged lines among the scratches and they were very fine scratches, so I thought they were computer-generated. But if you say you scratched a separate slide, I'd be interested what this other slide represented, and how you "extracted" the scratches only from this other slide. Perhaps that would be the process that made it appeared the way they look now. Otherwise it may also be due to the sharpening of the image AFTER including the scratches. If the scratches are tiny and sharpened, that could explain what I see. Another part of what made me feel a computer-generated background was the grain quality and intensity, as well as the way it runs on the background much more strongly (or so it seems) than on the man. I also regretted to have the grain and sharpening affecting the man at all. Made me wish to see the original photo of this man alone before manipulation... Could be very interesting and might be more to my liking. Best regards.

Again is this photography?????What may have started as a photographic image has been IMHO manipulated beyond the realm of a photograph into a digital art creation!!! Does it appeal to me,of course,is the end result still a photograph,I guess thats for you to decide,for me no way does it qualify,anymore!!!

znam wielu Polakow, ktorzy bedac za granica stawali sie wiekszymi, doskonalszymi, wspanialymi ludzmi. tworzyli, tworza sztuke wspaniala. Wojtek Siudmak, Krzysztof Kieslowski, Piotr Kowalik... chcialbym zeby nie zabraklo Ci nigdy oddechu przy tworzeniu nowych poruszajacych do glebi dziel. Pozdrawiam

 

Piotr Pabisiak

You've been on this site longer than I have, yet I get the

impression you've missed the myriad posts on the issue you've

raised. There are several very long forum questions which you

can find by searching throught my forum questions answered if

you like, but may I suggest an alternative.

 

Read ALL the past POW discussions.

 

Philosphically, I tend to be on your side of the fence on this

issue, but on this image I can't say that some added grain,

background toning, and some scratches (genuine, it turns out)

are much of a concern.

The second slide ( it may be not the best idea to do ..but as I said is more of experiment and Iam not too good at this yet :) ) was just a black plain slide, scrached and scanned. So all I had it was a black image with scraches ..then with PS it was turned to texture and aplied over the image you see. The reason why it was done that way is to make sure I can get teh scraches I want each time without risking any of my original images..surly having some of your and JH comments makes me think of experimenting more with it..one day :)

Thank you Carl,I do have a tendency to react then think not at all the best way to deal with situations as they arise,I am however allways of an open mind and I do appreciate the advice,that said at the end of the day there is some amazing work being showcased on this sight and I've had some stimulating ,short talks to members,and I'm truly inspired and get wonderful insight into the workings of photography here!!!

Heres my first puffed up (overly blown, and possibly unnecessary, exegeses) redundant circular-reasoning argument.

Marc wrote:Finally, and most importantly, I feel the reasons you stated and which motivated your artistic decisions about the background are gratuitous, i.e. have no reason to be what they are. And I don't believe symbolism can be successful based on random decisions.

Obviously this picture (like many of Piotrs other pictures) is pure symbolism. Id be interested in hearing from the photographer as to what it symbolizes (even if nothing in the beginning: it must symbolize something in the end). Even if undecided yet, the photographer has (or had) to have an idea as to what he set out to do. We know that the scratches were an after-the-fact inspiration in mid experimentalism, and that the end result is simply the product of a little preconception coupled with the blind outcome of trying something, and anything, for the sake of seeing what would happen. The final image developed gradually in front of his eyes as he applied the first swipe of sand paper through the slide--followed by the second, third, fourth, etc. After each decision was completed, examined, and judged as either good or bad; and out of which he drew other inspirationseither in the same line of thought or in a new and different idea the final image simply BECAME as the experiment progressed.

But all this (scratches, framing, empty space, dark and light area, etc.) is superfluous to the final image. What matters is the end result of the experiment and whether it symbolizes something--what that something is--and whether is succeeds in said attempt. What this something is (or ended up being) could have started as a specific idea in mind, and ended up as a completely different monster only after a new branch of thoughts took its own course. Even the decision to add or stop the scratching process was subject to a decision made only after seeing the effects of each additional manipulation stroke. Why then are we discussing the process (random decisions), when the process has nothing to do with the goal of the photographer, even if the goal was ambiguous from the get go? In other words, to say that I don't believe symbolism can be successful based on random decisions is to say that the only successful PROCESS is the one that is conceived and finished in the mind before the shutter is pressed. But,--correct me if Im wrong--dont all successful artists get a new inspiration while in the midst of executing a preconceived idea, and doesnt this NEW inspiration mean that a random decision was more successful than the original pre-visualized one? To prove my point, how could you arrive at the second, third, fourth, (etc.) inspirations which came about solely by extracting new ideas (random decisions) (from the original one, and each subsequent successor) and actualizing them at a later time? In other, other, other, words: this picture can be considered the rough sketch of a successful successor, but that doesnt mean that the blundered original was not successful, on the contrary, it brought about much fruit, and hence the success of random decision. Not necessarily in the parent photo, but in the progeny. How then can you argue that I don't believe symbolism can be successful based on random decisions.?

You also wrote:

A) that you changed your intent half-way during the process, without giving much thought to this change, B) that it was "more original" this way, and that originality mattered more than the meaning since C) "there is not any special meaning." (Marc quoting PiotrI thinkI lost track!)

Well, this is exactly what I felt when I saw the effect: originality for the sake of originality, not in orther (order??) to communicate a message. (Marc) To communicate a message was the intent, what message (out of the many possibilities) will we see when it is all done? The one he decided to keep, orHIS LAST CHOICE, obviously! All originality be damned and the message be found; which message???...it doesnt matter! The one he, or us, like most after seeing the end results. In other words, what you are saying is that: if there is no clear message, the messenger has failed to deliver. But, if this is true, how does oneand more specifically, YOUevaluate Picassos work? To put this in different terms: random decisions are the punctuated equilibrium of inspiration and art. Am I right or am I wrong? How then is this process unsuccessful?

What is the most important?

to understand and feel exactly what the photographer wanted to express in term of aesthetic and meaning OR to deeply analyse ownself understanding of the image and through that process have a better knowledge about ourselves and our emotions?

Apparently, in that picture's case, but generalisation is possible, some elements were given too much of emotionnal and metaphysical significance compared to what the photographer wanted to express, ... lets not forget that aesthetic and original treatments are also very important for the creator and are not necessarily meaningful beyond that.... Reminded me some critics of modern art 'famous painting' pompously teaching to a bunch of so called-ignorants what the author exactly wanted to express with that color, that form, that texture,...

The photography is a revelator to the viewer IMO. The exact intention of the photographer is somehow very secondary to me, it's like watching at the clouds or at a modern painting and try to see what the author wanted to say and express... vanity ... I 'd rather try to see and analyse why I see and imagine all this from the painting, the image, ... the clouds,... my interpretation (in connection with all my life/cultural/experimental background) then can be totally different or totally new for the author but it cannot be wrong as it is my Thruth.

Amen ;-))

This looks like a caricature to me, looks as if he will start laughing any minute. I think the upper left part is too flat, the rest has nice depth and the contrasts in texture are beautiful. It looks like this area above, which someone else described to me as "the world on his back", is an area for a cartoon blurb. So I would like to see a caption here.

 

Congrats, your work shows a lot of skill and effort. I love the leafy ones especially.

Chaos, it surrounds you!..... Pressure all of that pressure!..... That incessant buzzing in your ears that JUST WON'T STOP! Day after day after day after day, until you reach the BRINK OF INSANITY! And you know, YOU JUST KNOW I TELL YOU, that at any moment that one thin thread that has kept you from going over the edge will snap.

 

We all know what that's like don't we?......... No?......... Okay maybe it's just me, but that's not important right now.

 

However, that IS the feeling I get from this image! And it comes from those scratches, and grain, and the position of this poor bastard in the frame! And Isidro is correct, it doesn't matter if Piotr planned for this to be my interpretation or not, because Jacques is also correct that I will be bringing along all of the baggage I've accumulated over the last 43 years of life. This baggage will determine how I react to any image much more profoundly than the artists intent ever will.

 

I understand Marc's point, that a preconceived idea (a clearly understood inspiration lets say) that is followed through to completion can be very powerful. If done with skill! But flying by the seat of your pants, and going wherever the image drags you can present some very amazing surprises!

To Bob, Jacques H, Isidro...

I'll start based on the end of Isidro's very interesting post...

"In other words marc, what you are saying is that: if there is no clear message, the messenger has failed to deliver.

NO ! Not exactly, and the difference is quite huge in fact. What I'm saying is that you can take a canvas and paint anything you like. I need not know what you are aiming for, and as Jacques says, I will have my own interpretation of what I will see, as a viewer. BUT... what I am saying is this: know where you stand when you create - in general. Piotr has explained what was his reason for the space above the man and for the effects. It was at that stage an attempt at a symbolic representation - right ? Well, then I'm told that the edges looked good, so we left them as they were... THAT is what I object to.

It was so far symbolism, and suddenly Piotr gave up on symbolism (probably not aiming to do so, not knowingly), because it looked good and more original that way. I think he overlooked the fact that scratches running over the frame would actually make a big difference at the level of symbolism. He suddenly damaged his oewn concept and this POW became somehow a decorative art piece.

"To put this in different terms: random decisions are the punctuated equilibrium of inspiration and art. Am I right or am I wrong?" said Isidro.

You are right for certain types of art and wrong for others. Symbols are a world of signs to be decoded. Symbolism has its internal logic - its internal rules.

Once you commit to produce a symbolic work, you can always say "I'm just doing this this way because it looks cool" or what ever, but you would be breaking the internal rules of the genre you had chosen.

When I can't feel at one go what the author means with a picture, my next step is to try to UNDERSTAND the work. If signs are unclear for a given viewer, at that stage, what remains is a surface effect, an image with no visual depth, but also less conceptual depth. Doug defined this work as an attempt to describe a Truth, and as such, concepts and symbols to express concepts must be - imo - consistent. That is all I meant to say. Since scratches and grain are meant to symbolize something, it is my belief that the symbolism must be accurate. Just like when you make a sentence... If you intend to communicate a clear idea, especially a "Truth", the idea must be consistently translated into the right words - in photography, it needs to be translated into the right visual elements.

Nobody is forced to create works loaded with symbols. But once there, there's no turning back: do it right. If not, choose impressionism, it's a lot easier on the conceptual part. And at this stage, if you disagree, you have against you at least a century of art critiques - and I'd almost say 4 centuries in fact. You may of course call the interpretation of symbolic elements in arts a futile waste of time, but I certainly don't think that way.

What I see here a few days after the beginning of this POW forum is an incredible face that raises questions, and a background that serves as an echo to the expression / a projection of the mind of this man. This background being flat and two-dimentionnal, it implies for me that the subject has lost his connection to the real world. But then the execution of this background looks artificial to me, and the frame effect adds to the gimmicky feel. At that stage, the expression becomes a gimmick to me, although I found it powerful at first sight. End of the day, the image is a bit deceiving for this viewer, simply because it leads nowhere further than it started, and rather weakened along the way.

I love the Van Gogh "feel" of this...

BUT - the man definitely needs a lot more fiber in his diet

T

"When I can't feel at one go what the author means with a picture, my next step is to try to UNDERSTAND the work. If signs are unclear for a given viewer, at that stage, what remains is a surface effect, an image with no visual depth, but also less conceptual depth. Doug defined this work as an attempt to describe a Truth, and as such, concepts and symbols to express concepts must be - imo - consistent." (Marc)

 

I just dont know how you can affirm that the scratches outside the frame are superficial or damaging to the symbolism since this too is open for interpretation, and one half of the audience will like it and the other half wont. Who then is right or wrong? Even if we subscribe to some form of art rule, a rule is only a guide line and now a law. But even a law can be wrong, and even if it is not wrong for some it is wrong for others. We could think of the scratches over the border as insanity taking over and transcending reality, the fine line between normal, acceptable, the way things should be, control, and the loss of it.

 

"Nobody is forced to create works loaded with symbols. But once there, there's no turning back: do it right. If not, choose impressionism, it's a lot easier on the conceptual part. And at this stage, if you disagree, you have against you at least a century of art critiques - and I'd almost say 4 centuries in fact. You may of course call the interpretation of symbolic elements in arts a futile waste of time, but I certainly don't think that way." (Marc)

 

I agree with the first part of this argument ending in the conceptual part. But the second part is, in itself, open for interpretation. For example: A century of art critiques are no more than you and I, and the argument goes around and around in circles. What Im trying to say is that art, in itself, is subject to change according to the people of each era, just like music is subject to this change; the only absolute in music and art being rhythm, whether audible or visible. Take Pink Floyd for example: can you see a time when lets say, four centuries ago, crowds of people would gather to see a concert of their album Animals? How about their songOne of these days Im going to chop you into little pieces? It just wouldnt be acceptable and they (the artists) would not enjoy the success they so well DESERVE. Why is that? Simply because art form is subject to changes and so are the critics. Therefore your argument about the scratches outside the frame falls on deaf ears to one third of the population who simply shake their head at your insistence that it is wrong and who agree that it makes sense. Im pretty sure that there is another third in the middle that is reading yours and mine argument and saying WHO CARES.

 

I have to go away for the Holidays (Thanks Giving Day, for us in the USA)Ill read your response when I get back.

Marc, you are thinking outside the box and Im thinking inside the box. The way you look at this photograph is as if the dark frame surrounding the image was an actual picture frame; whereas the way I look at it is as part of the photograph. My reason for thinking this is that all the elements are out of harmonythe dark frame is wider at some edges than it is at others (this wouldnt be the case in a picture frame), the top part of the background (inside the frame) is slanted to the left and you can see a small grayish area on it. If we think of the dark frame as an actual picture frame, then you are 100% right, but if we look at it as part of the image which will then be presented in a separate picture frame, then Im right. To me, this extra frame along with scratches is gimmickry, but adds to the idea that this man and his world are not in harmony and his perception of reality is going out of balance. We have to take a look at the content inside the box (inside the actual picture frame) and see if all the elements are in harmony. If the dark frame represents the limits of sanity in this mans troubled and imbalanced life, then it shows that this man is beginning to loose control. At first it seems that the photographer is using these as crutches to hold an image incapable of supporting itself, but they are merely a separate way to emphasize the reality of this mans life. Whether this was intentional in the part of the photographer or not is irrelevant to the fact that it makes it work and that this is why he chose to keep the frame in. Many artists have produced junk art work simply to play a joke in the buyer and get a good laugh, but the artist has inadvertently succeeded in relating to an aspect of the buyer experiences that would not have been possible without the practical joke.

Your honest, calm, well written, and valid points make you just as great at critque. I have a "bigger" view on this work after hearing about your respective thoughts.

 

I suppose this work is more Budwieser(popular with the masses, gimmicky, gets the job done)than Bordeaux(more traditional, artful, classic) but, It's fun to just drink a Bud sometimes. I mean, I don't think this is master work at all. It is enjoyable, to me, however.

 

I think it's time for a drink. What will it be?

- "I just dont know how you can affirm that the scratches outside the frame are superficial or damaging to the symbolism since this too is open for interpretation"

You are right that the symbolism is open for interpretation. It is also open for absurd interpretations and decisions to not look for any interpretation. And nobody indeed can swear that his interpretation is correct. By "imo", what I meant is to describe MY interpretation. That's all I can do.

- "Who then is right or wrong?" you asked.

Answer: Somebody. :-)

- "Even if we subscribe to some form of art rule, a rule is only a guide line and now a law."

Agreed.

- "But even a law can be wrong, and even if it is not wrong for some it is wrong for others."

Most certainly. So what ? :-) Some people may find wrong the commendment that says you shouldn't assassinate your neighbour. Does it make the commendment wrong ?

- "We could think of the scratches over the border as insanity taking over and transcending reality, the fine line between normal, acceptable, the way things should be, control, and the loss of it."

Yes, we could. We could also interprete it in other ways. All we have to decide which interpretation to pick in the bulk is:

a) Our culture.

b) Our common sense.

- Then you said: A century of art critiques are no more than you and I".

Well, thank you very much. I really had no idea you and I were THAT important. :-)) Basically, I think you are here gravely under-estimating art critiques.

- "What Im trying to say is that art, in itself, is subject to change according to the people of each era"

So what ? Yes, with time, artworks are different and principles and tastes in arts change. That's a fact. But the way I look at it personally, is that our culture evolves whereas common sense remains the same - eventhough there might be a common sense per person, and a lack of common sense per person and per day... :-)

- "Art form is subject to changes and so are the critics."

If tastes and area of interest change, indeed everything else will change along. But not common sense - again, "eventhough there might be a common sense per person, and a lack of common sense per person and per day..."

Basically, the reason why I said "almost 4 centuries" earlier was a reference to the ideal of classicism. My view about arts, in short, is that you can be as modern as you want, but reason still governs good artistic decisions, eventhough many artists may make intuitively reasonable decisions, without reasoning at all. I understand art as a language. A language uses signs. These signs mean certain things, and can mean several things - then open to interpretation -, but the bottom line is that art communicates, and that we receive communications only in 2 ways - via our senses or via our intellect. If our senses "don't get it", the artistic language ends up talking to the mind, and the mind has a history and a structure. You can say all you want, but it may mean 100 different things - not just to 100 different people, but even to a single viewer. If the artwork communicates 100 conflicting messages to you at the same time, what do you think of it ? That is the only important question. My take: I feel it failed to communicate - unless it has "abyssal" consequences (see further down about this concept).

- "If we think of the dark frame as an actual picture frame, then you are 100% right, but if we look at it as part of the image which will then be presented in a separate picture frame, then Im right."

Agreed. But if we can't decide whether you are right or whether I am, then the communication was ambiguous, unclear, and I call it "noise" - refering here to the terminology used for example by Michel Serres in "Hermes I - Communication". There are, according to the critics I personally respect - and who are mostly philosophers - two types of communications.

The communication that succeed in a linear way, and the communication that derrives in spirals, plunging the viewer into what Jacques Derrida (after Nietzsche) would call "the abyss" - i.e a perpetual return of the same and its mirror image.

Piotr's background frame with lines on it immediately means that we are here in an apparently flat yet semantically abyssal communication. It's somehow interesting, but to me, there is in fact no real abyss developing here, and the surface effect prevales. Surface effects do not, in general, fit an abyssal form of communication. Or they have to be extremely subtle. If the effect has many possible interpretations and the viewer keeps on imagining possible interpretations, while he does so, he's not caught in a downwards spiral into the abyss: he stays on the surface. I can't explain this any further, I'm affraid, because it would be too complex, and certainly you'll find better explanations on this issue in the 2 following books, both by Jacques Derrida (sorry, titles are in French): "La verite en peinture" & "Eperons: Styles de Nietzsche".

Last but not least, no matter how much I want to be right, and how much research I've done on these issues in the past, YET it doesn't mean I am right. All the above is strictly the way *I* personally understand Arts and Art History after many years reading what philosophers thought about all this. So we may call it a day and indeed go for a drink... Imo...:-)