Sadie Gray

This complex portrait of Maurizio caught my attention although I, if playing the elves, I would have chosen on of his many nudes.
But back to Nicole. What caught my eye immediately and warmed my heart were the three enlaced circles of the composition. The circle of the hair highlighting the face: the circle of the two tattoos (the one on her wrist ("stay strong"); the lace (tattoo ?) around her neck together with the two dark eyebrows: and finally the circle of her open hand and her profile. Great compositional coherence and portrait of integrity (whole and undivided) .
Something to come back to and learn from by of the great photographers here on Photonet.

Yes.

 

(Though I'll tell you men have been dreaming of women's "perfection" for centuries and I often find it tiresome.)

Yes. Art can be any of these things and more.

Freedom is not an excuse or a defense. This discussion doesn't require your defining art for me. Freedom is very important, I agree. But the freedom of the artist does not inoculate him against criticism. Artists grow and improve, even though they are free. One way of getting some objectivity or perspective on one's work is to hear the reactions of others and be open to them. We should all stand by our work and we should not thoughtlessly succumb to criticism that doesn't ring true for us or doesn't seem genuine. We don't have to agree with all criticism though that doesn't mean seeing it as an infringement on our freedom. At the same time we should be open to realizing that there's always room to grow and improve and we can learn some of that by listening to others' reactions to our work along with our own hearts. Art does not give us immunity from the world or from others' opinions about our work. We each have to achieve a comfortable balance of self-confidence and openness to what others have to offer us. You can use the word "art" as many times as you want and you can capitalize it but that won't convince me to think differently about your portrait, though there might be some things you could point to that I might have missed that would change my mind about it. I'm just not seeing it. And your calling it art several times doesn't help me see it differently.

Criticism is many things and I agree that among those is trying to figure out who is the other and what he's doing. But it's also about letting the photographer know what you feel or don't feel. It can be not only trying to figure out the other but trying to help the other figure out himself and his photography.

I recall, many, many years ago, in a galaxy far, far away called Architecture School, we were taught that every design decision should have a basis in a reasoned, purposeful idea. We had to stand in front of professors, visiting professionals, and fellow students and defend our ideas against a vast and varying array of criticism. Yet, when Frank Gehry came to speak to us and was asked why he did this or that, his frequent response was simply "Because I felt like it."

What this and subsequent experience have taught me is that Art in any form has no universal metric. Rather, there are at least two competing metrics: The first is that imposed by the artist upon himself. Does the work adequately represent the idea or vision upon which it is based? Does the workmanship reflect the intent and best effort of the artist? Does it incorporate the design and execution elements desired by the artist? The second metric is that imposed by the viewer/listener. This metric may or may not have elements in common with those of the artist. For example, it is most simple in photography to evaluate whether or not an image or its subject is in focus. This seems like a straightforward technical evaluation. However, when we include depth of field to the evaluation as a refinement of focus, it adds a substantial creative and subjective element to the critique.

So, as my wife likes to say, it's not so important what the art "means", but rather how it makes the viewer/listener feel. All art is, by definition, representational, and subject to interpretation by both the artist and the viewer. If the viewer's experience closely approximates the intent of the artist, then the artist has succeeded in one of his/her criteria. If not, this is not necessarily a failure on the part of either. As either artists or viewers we can only bring our own life experience to the process, and that experience will be unique, and will be the lens through which we see our own work as well as that of others.

For example: We experience the structures and sculptures of the Acropolis in Athens as art and architecture, since none of us, to my knowledge, is a devotee of the goddess Athena. By contrast, The builders and artists who created these features did so out of devotion to their religion, in addition to an intent towards art and architecture. We do not universally posses the insight to fully comprehend the intent of these ancient artists. Yet we are profoundly moved and influenced by their work. I hold that the same relationship exists, to some greater or lesser degree, between every artist and every viewer. Let us, then, be willing to hear and learn from one another's responses to our art, as well as allowing the artists their own freedom of expression.

This image is not my favorite of all Maurizio's portraits. I've already said why. That is not a criticism of Mau. In fact, it is an endorsement of other pieces of his work. It is a reflection of my own tastes, preferences, and philosophy. It need go no further, nor have no greater import, than just that.

The second to last discussion of viewer with artist points out the importance of the artist in accepting critique and replying in a positive way by counter argument based on elements of an image. Jorg V in a prior discussion showed that type of openness and willingness to discuss. English is probably not Maurizio's first language so going into details of the artistic intent may be not so easy for him. Appreciation of art is very subjective and while I see the strong points in Maurizio's image mainly based on its technical rendition (tone and luminance, play of dark and light areas) I have yet to see the type of positive compositional or emotional attributes as Anders H. mentions in his three circles analysis. The Gehry quotation mentioned by David T. is good for some who like Safdie or Foster, have already made their indelible mark on art through their architecture. "What I like" is already known to others. Maurizio no doubt knows the personality of Nicole better than the viewer and his desire to capture that expression is no doubt meaningful, but does that communicate as successfully to others?

David, that strikes me as an extremely idealistic (idealist vs. realist) way of looking at the world. You're in effect saying the only reality with respect to a photo is what's subjective on your part. That your opinions have only to do with yourself and there's no real-world place for them, no objectivity to them. If there is objectivity (don't you find some critiques and some comments and some opinions more objective than others?), where does it get it from if it's only a matter of your own tastes, preferences, and philosophy? If there's no objectivity, then what exists outside your head?

 

For me, photography is a matter of sharing, which involves a me, a you, and a world (a physical photo, either on the wall or on the screen). When I hear your thoughts on my work, I understand that the work itself is in part responsible for your reaction, which is not to minimize your own taste and life experience nor to saddle my photograph with all your baggage. But you don't come to my work in a vacuum of your own making. You come to it as a thing out there in the world. And your thoughts about my photograph are about my photograph as well as being about you.

 

Again, I can choose to agree with your assessment or opinion of my work or disagree with it. I can choose to dismiss it as just a reflection of your taste and thereby sever any of the sharing I value so deeply with regard to photography. If it is a sharing, that means something transfers between us and the photo is the means of that transfer. There may be miscommunication, misunderstanding, and all the other things involved in human relationships. Art is a relationship, not a solipsism where one gets to recede into their own taste and their own experience ONLY. In a relationship, there's more than just me, me, me.

 

Interesting that these treatises on art and on the subjectivity of photo viewing seem mostly to come when someone is negatively critical of a photo. That's why I see it as defensive. I suppose every time a photo is praised here I could remind everyone that all that is just your taste and really has nothing to do with the photo itself, that it "goes no further than that," but I doubt anyone would care to listen to that and I wouldn't do it because it's not true, whether it's about praise or criticism. We are not each divorced from photos or works of art because we're jailed in our own taste and experience. When we talk about a photo, we really are talking about something other than ourselves, just as when we talk about war, decorating our houses, and romps through the forest. The world does not exist only within us. Neither do photos.

Oh Mau! Ce l'hai fatta a prenderti la foto of the week!!! Strabravo!!!

Mauro

My dear friends, thanks a lot for the wonderful and very interesting discussion about my "Nicole" (also for me this portrait is not one of my favourites...!) but...welcome if has generated a so fervent and interesting comparison. As Arthur says, unfortunately my English is insufficient to menage a so deep debate, in what that is not my language. But if you have patience, I'll try to explain what is the possible interaction between brain and art, putting together philosophy, psychoanalysis and neuroscience, subject and object, dream and reality, this's my field of study and interest. But you must have patience, for me it's not easy with my...poor English. Again, thanks to all you, my dear friends. I repeat to...ALL!!! Life would not be such without differences and...right conflicts. Ciao, Maurizio.

Fred, it would appear that I have once again failed to communicate my full intent. What I was trying to say, with some background, is that there are objective criteria which can be applied to the art of photography (and architecture, my professional area of expertise). There is also a vast ocean of subjective, experiential criteria. Too often, both artists and viewers confuse or blend the objective with the subjective. In a portrait photo, a clear, objective, technical criteria might be that at least one of the subject's eyes be in focus (pretty basic, but still contingent on other creative issues). A further technical issue, one which blends into both the creative and subjective, is the degree to which DoF is used to soften the background, or even some parts of the subject. As you have so kindly pointed out to me, there are generally accepted criteria for composition and structure which can be applied in evaluating most any image. Our portrait with the correct focus is still only a bland passport photo if taken straight-on, centered, and without interest or engagement. The true master artist in any medium knows these rules and can manipulate them to his purposes, rather than being constrained by them. I freely admit to having my own tastes, preferences, and prejudices. In photography hope to master the technical and creative rules so that they become tools in my box rather than collar and leash. My profession demands of me a certain balance between creativity and technical competence, heavily weighted towards the technical. What I find in photography is greater freedom in creativity, with less constraint in the technical, while still appealing to my technical side. My greatest challenge has been to master the technical in service of the creative, without becoming captured by it. PNet offers the opportunity that I learn better every day how to understand, appreciate, and assess my own and others' images, and improve my work. In other words, to evolve the lens through which I see this art. I earnestly hope to continue doing so, and to contribute in some small way as well.

When people experience architecture, they do so with all of their senses, in three physical dimensions, in context, and over time. Therein my opportunity to engage their senses, manipulate their experience, and tap into their memories and nature as human beings is greatly enhanced. I can even use substantial and generally universal forms and references to engage their understanding and enhance their experience. But I am rarely there to explain all of this in person. My work must stand on its own. It is the interaction of my building with occupants, absent my immediate presence, that will define that building to those people. I am there in spirit, for the design is mine, but that design is set free to be experienced by others on their own terms. Absent a meaningful caption, the same is true of our photographs. You may well learn something about me and my technical and aesthetic proclivities from the image. What I hope you feel when looking at an image is something else. Stand with me on a cold, empty winter sidewalk. Or, wonder at the space and colors of Bryce Canyon. Contemplate the eternities displayed in the stars. Or, be fascinated with the intricacies of a bee on a flower. Each of these is a little bit of me that I share, and I try to make images that others can relate to. It becomes a two-way conversation with viewers only when they choose to respond. You have chosen to do so, and our dialogue is a cherished addition to my photographic compendium. I hope it continues.

I still fear my thoughts here are incomplete or even impenetrable. I'll work on them a little, perhaps for a thread in another forum. I hope the rest of you will forgive us. This is a long detour around the discussion of Mau's image.

For me, freedom implies limits and limits imply freedom and freedom is a matter of being in tune with what limits there are and what limits there are not. I'll give you an example, though I'm no expert in architecture by any means. I agree that the design is set free to be experienced by others but it's not an absolute freedom, which I don't believe any freedom truly is absolute. So, though we are free to experience your building on our own terms, there would be something a little bit perverse and that would miss the point if we were to try to use the living room as a bathroom.

All laudable goals, but what happens if many people tell you your photo of a cold, empty winter sidewalk doesn't make us feel that we're standing with you and we can offer suggestions of how we might be made to feel that? Or what if your pictures of Bryce Canyon are colorful but instead of wonder they convey cliché Hallmark card type trivia but we could suggest ways to make us genuinely wonder? Maybe you'd agree with the suggestions and maybe you wouldn't. And you're free to accept or reject our suggestions. But you would do well to keep in mind that we're free not to feel like we're standing next to you or experiencing wonder if the photo doesn't accomplish that for us. Some photos do accomplish that and some don't. Of course, there will never be universal agreement on which photos do feel that way and which don't. But that shouldn't stop us from expressing our opinions. I'm not talking about objectivity with regard to photos as I would talk about objectivity in science or math. Things are not as agreed upon (though there are obviously scientific controversies as well). I'm saying that my liking or not liking your photo is a matter of taste and is pretty much subjective. But my making suggestions as to how you might better give me the feeling that I'm standing beside you requires some degree of objectivity that's beyond taste. I might not like photos that make me feel like I'm standing beside you yet I could still offer suggestions at how you might accomplish that if that's what you want to do. It will not be objective in the same way 2+2=4 is considered objective or the sky being blue seems to be an objective fact to most people. But getting me to feel like I'm standing beside you in a photo is neither as objective as math nor as subjective as taste.

 

I very much appreciate what you've said by way of response here and what Maurizio has said as well. And I agree how important these kinds of dialogues can be.

Maurizio. Thanks for your comments and kudos also for your touching season greetings photo of mother, father and baby, seen on some member photo critiques. Ciao!

Mau, I echo Arthur's thoughts and feelings. Your warm regards and sharing are sincerely appreciated. I hope we haven't distracted too much with our philosophical discussions.

Fred, there is nothing you have said with which I fundamentally disagree. I only hope I have communicated my own, complementary position adequately. I will always be willing to hear thoughtful commentary. Good evening...

Although the girl is pretty and her eyeliner is perfect, there is nothing to say about it. Nice black and white but not a memorable image or capture of character. Its a well taken image but is kind of like hollow chocolate, there's nothing inside except a pretty shell.
Nicely photographed, Maurizio. It is a great example of good technique, to me.
A good choice for discussion, congrats on POTW

This takes me back to my art school days 125 years ago, one thing my instructor said and that I actually remembered is that it is not flattering to look up a girls nostril, at least as far a art photography goes. As a result of that basic lesion, I have an issue with looking into her nostril. It's just me, it was discovered last year that I am turning into a crotchety old man....So take it for what its worth.
The other issue I have is the tight crop on this photo, just below the neck, part of the arm and the top of her head, I feel somewhat trapped, no where to go, all reasonable flow at least with me, has stopped. Her arm looks to me to be in a odd position, yes, I have tried to pose her way and the people in my house hold were freaked out, now justifying I am not only crotchety but insane. The only reason I am allowed to live here is because I am a human ATM machine.....
I do like the lighting, especially below the jaw line, a nice smooth transition and the make up is pristine.

I second what tony brandsletter observes as to the angles of head. The almost disattached arm. Unflattering, I mean for female portraits as I like them. Mau, for a model with whom you really love to work,- and who would not!, - I have indeed followed your portrait and figure studies with both admiration and pleasure.I know you love your subjects in the finest sense of the word, and via your vision, give them thought and attention as well as affection. So now, I look at your gallery for other studies of Nicole that stil fit the portrait category and not the toxic for work nude genre.

 

Yep, for sure there are other photos of Nicole which are more interesting. Not just flattering in a studio pretty way, but more interesting although in a series of photo shots this POTW just might fit as a part of a profile of the person.( Was thinking back to photo essays of James Dean in LIfe mag where he is caught slumped on a couch. Just to show a well rounded essay of a real person, that is off- the- pedestal. Less enshrined).

 

Am at loss .and not for the first time, to wonder what basis moved the elve(s) to select this sample. I am in to wonderment and used to it .. I am glad howver that it gives you deserved recognition as a fine photographer.

 

Ye, for sure, Tony, Me too. I was drilled to shun the up- the- nose angle, we do have some "rules" left by common accord. Even,that is, when the nostrils and nose is so acutely lovely. Bene grazie, Mau for participating here.

They probably thought it would make for interesting discussion and were less concerned about awarding PN viewers some sort of prize to praise.

[They probably thought it would make for interesting discussion and were less concerned about awarding PN viewers some sort of prize to praise.]

 

Granted, Fred,that is supposed to be the idea for POTW. If we think of 'bones to pick over' to use a too humble description, even my big GSD dog liked plenty flesh and of marrow to chew.

 

We agree, kind of I suppose. Probably we might both have selected another sample to satisfy both discussion/ argumentation (chewing) pleasures.

Gerry, such so-called rules become accepted because they work in a lot of situations. Especially somewhat generic situations. Often, photos that go a little beyond do so because they find a way to take such a rule and prove it false or show that the rule is made for particular contexts and that breaking it can be something special, compelling people to see something different, perhaps more dramatic, perhaps more evocative than what only following the rule would allow. So, some photographers figure out a way to look up the nostrils of a beautiful woman and add the right lighting that will call attention to something about the woman other than just the feature of the nose itself. Here's DIETRICH (sorry, don't know who the photographer was), who had more than her pleasing features, more than her shapely nostrils, who had attitude, both of her own and through the influence of and collaboration with many clever photographers.

And it doesn't take dramatic and shadowy lighting. Sometimes it can be finding just the upward angle that does work. It also helped Milton Green in this photo of MARILYN that his subject had an expression that made us aware of her character and humanity and not just her stunning features, the mouth parted just enough for me to wonder whether she's smiling or dreaming and what she's thinking about, the hands graciously and organically part of her body and the photo, her eyes barely open and yet so expressive in harmony with the expression of her mouth, the soft wave and implied movement of her hair. In this photo of Marilyn we have beauty and features but we also have a woman and personality and that gets us to focus on the features differently.

There are many expressive reasons to take some portraits of women from below. There's a great challenge and often big rewards in doing so, making it work, and coming up with something that won't provide good illustrations of the rule but that will provide a perspective more rarely seen because so many other people are adhering to what they already know works.

While I agree with Fred in as much as shooting a portrait from below can work, in this case I agree with Tony that it doesn't work here and just comes across as unflattering. I also agree that the arm and hand look awkward. I suppose that the thumb in the mouth is in some way intended to justify the bizarre arm position. All of this brings me back to my original point which was that everything about this image seems to be about positioning the tattoo and not much else.

Good example, Fred, nice pick, with the photo of Dietrich. It works for herr because it foreshortens her forehead and emphasizes and dramatizes her cheekbones and chin, two of her best remembered features. When the rules get broken there are reasons, and they are as you say expressive of something, perhaps in Marlene's case, her androgynous potency. " Watch out little man, Lola wants you." I throw that out for the heck of it..:-)

I looked at this photo when it was first posted and loved it. As with any form of art, it touches so many senses in the viewer (or listener.) The viewer or listener may or may not like it but I think nobody could put it better than the genius, William Shakespeare, when he said,
"The purpose of art is to give life a shape!"

Dear friends, unfortunately my poor and...not fluent English does not allow me to respond quickly to your many and constant stress. Really I did not expect that my photo would have collected many statements and criticisms and I'm proud of it. The ancient Romans said..."So many critics, so many honors!". Believe me, I am honored by your attentions even though many are not benevolent :-). My psychoanalityc knowledge tell me much about your criticism, the worst thing is indifference, too many prises sometimes leave me bewildered, criticism strengthen me and make me understand many things, about me and the others. Pending other possible interventions, thank you for this discussion: my way of phographing has caused unespectatedly a rich, very interesting, challenging and for me too fun discussion. I'm really honoreted by this so lively and learned discussion. Again, see how many points of view there are on a photo...(...where is the objectivity?...): there are also conflicting ideas of objectivity and subjectivity, perhaps the communication of all kind, is a meeting between different subjectivities that claim to be more objective than oters? Or it may be that objectivity is the average of the infinite subjectivities? Recent studies on neuroscience and brain leading to these consideration. Studies on MIRROR NEURONS lead to a truly and completely new way to intrepret human relationship, but..." as the nose or the tattoooh of model are made"! Anyway, I'm really interested in our discussion: THANK YOU ALL, my dears PNfriends! "The purpose of art is to give life a shape!" and I add..."to our dreams! Thank you for your words, Warren! Ciao, Mau.

The important discovery of the action of mirror neurons in monkeys about 20 years ago by the University of Parma research team is one of many new things I have learned in this POW discussion, in this case from Dr. Maurizio. Apparently mirror neurons, alone or in combination with other mind processes, enable us to understand other people's actions in terms of our own movements and goals – and to empathize with them. Just imagine if human intent and behaviour can have similar responses in the minds of others, then perhaps, as V. Gallese says, "we can grasp the meaning of other's behaviour from within" and then I think interact in a mutually rewarding manner. Taking as example Maurizio's photo of Nicole and the question of empathy or understanding, when a critique is offered it may or may not trigger a mind response that is similar to that of the proposers. Perhaps if that view is not even shared there may be a mind process that allows us to understand the opposing view and to assimilate it, with the advantage of added value to us. What is clear I think is that even the most subjective and unusual critique is important to consider and perhaps it may be some part of an overall more objective view. If someone agrees fully with my critique or applauds without apparent limit one of my photos I will just think OK, that is nice, but I really would like to hear a contrary argument, as only that will prompt me to think about what I have said or created and tell me something I might want (and need) to know. Shakespeare, Warren and Maurizio give us a final insight, even if we have thought this before in somewhat different way: The purpose of art is to give life a shape - and also to that of our dreams.

Dear friends, if you have patience these days I'll add here something that can be of interest for you and for our discussion, I think. I hope not to bore you. Ciao and...always thank you, Mau. Meanwhile I ask you, "BEAUTY is subjective or objective?". My next project will be on this point considering the modern research about this field.

BEAUTY, or beauty as I prefer to refer to it, is one among so many aspects of art, which I also prefer to ART. Actually, I'd prefer to stick to photography, since I don't always love the way art's used, but we seem to have stepped into the art discussion muck, so what the heck.

Shakespeare spoke for his time and in many instances for all time but art's come a ways since he spoke and I'd like to think he might have some different things to say these days, though we probably can't even imagine what he'd say because he's Shakespeare and he'd be way ahead of us were he alive today rather than behind us as he can only be because of the laws of history and physics. He might not even think, today, that art has a purpose, let alone defining one purpose as he saw it back then.

Dreams and beauty, taken together, and daring to think photographically again, take me to Pictorialism, an early school of photography I adore while also appreciating how and why it became reviled even by its own practitioners as photographers started seeking out new paths for photography that didn't depend, like Pictorialism, on already-established parameters for the other art mediums. I'm glad today to see Pictorialism and beauty and dreams as still significant ripples in a much bigger pond. Dreams, as a matter of fact, became prominent once again with Surrealism (sometimes more in the vain of nightmare than pleasantry).

I'll stop here by offering two quotes that I treasure for their lack of sentimentality, because they're both a bit tongue-in-cheek but also say something important, and whose less committal nature on precisely what art is I appreciate. Neither is a quote I live by, but both speak.

Ad Reinhardt: "Art is art. Everything else is everything else."

John Ciardi: "Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves they have a better idea."

The concept of "beauty" is strongly influenced by cultural background which sets "norms." But even those norms change over the years. Look at paintings that include women over the years in western cultures. The epitome of beauty was a heavy set woman, more than pleasingly plump. That morphed over the years into the curves of a Marilyn Monroe, the symbol I grew up with in the 1950s. Yet in the 1980s, when my teenage daughters had a look at Marilyn, they both said she was fat!!
But it goes beyond "objects in art" like the form of a woman. There were impressionist and post impressionist painters like Van Gogh who never sold a painting during their lifetimes. Their work, then, was considered nothing more than hair brained scribble with a paintbrush. I'd say that cultural norms in relation to impressionist art has changed some over the years. What was considered scribble 125 years ago are now masterpieces of true beauty.
There's also aural beauty that changes over time. Many of Beethoven's great symphonies and chamber works were panned by the critics at their debuts. And, when he, who we recognize as a genius now, Mozart died, he was buried in an unmarked communal pauper's grave.
There was never a truer old adage than;
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!"