Tenderness

Yeah, Ralph. I know the line. As I'm sure everyone else here. I just wanted to put my own spin on it to point out context is king for humor to come across on the internet. If I'ld just copied it verbatim as you did there wouldn't be any context for why I'ld quote a line in a movie.

I really enjoy and appreciate that we've had such a wide range of responses to this picture. It's made me go back and look at it with the new comments in mind, and 'try them on.'

I won't say how or if my take on the picture has been changed -- it surely has been enriched -- other than the (intentionally) vague comment that I think photography as a medium does not work for statements of faith, no matter how sincere your attempt. Even as an iconic trigger (think American flag), it simply poses a question.

I think photography is superlative for revealing multiplicity, complexity and doubt. This is frustrating for those trying to picture wishful hopes (and I do not denigrate such hopes in saying that), but it's the cost of photography's revelatory power.

Oh dear Tim, you really thought that the 2phat was serious? Bought any oilfields in Nigeria recently?

Untouchable tenderness. I suppose the title is not necessarily silly, I was being a bit too literal. I do have a natural aversion to somewhat pretentious or sentimental titles, though, so I guess this is why this was my initial reaction.

I'm curious, Endof, about why you think the light in the pavilion is external and not from a lantern in the pavilion?

Again, when communicating online one has to lead by example cranked up to 11. A critique by its very nature is a serious endeavor amplified by the humorless tone from contributors here. So if one wants to be funny within this given context using only words, then one has to be more demonstrative. Unfortunately this concept of communication escapes your simple mind, Robin. You people are not funny! Or helpful because you all suck at being funny online.

If you're going to be funny, Robin, you have to be more direct and clear about it. But you seem unteachable on this matter so I don't see the point in making it more understandable to you.

 

When did critiques become telling jokes? If you're going to be funny online learn how to do it or just play it straight and for once offer some insightful and meaningful feedback.

I guess I'm confused by your comment, Julie. You seem to imply that you now interpret the photo as a statement of faith, and then gently chide the photographer for having made such a statement. I'm curious about what would have made you interpret the image as a statement of faith?

A friendly reminder. This conversation is going in the wrong direction. It is about to turn from being casual and light-hearted to being seriously offensive. We discussed at length where to draw the line and how to avoid such spats in forums. I suggest we all self moderate ourselves rather than let the moderators ban someone from forum discussions.

To be precise, I am pointing to Tim's and Robin's exchange.

"When did critiques become telling jokes?"

When those jokes are prompted by the picture. I realize you don't like it, but I love whatever unexpected tangents are set off by a funny "hat" and old-fashioned clothes. And/or her support hose and practical shoes and his staring at the ground and not the scenery. Think Proust and his cookie.

A good picture can spark a lively imagination or spark the antennae of memory -- like water on a dried up plant. I love hearing about such personal responses, even if, or especially if they aren't anything I would have thought of and if they're ... pretty nutty. Nutty is good.

I don't need twenty people to tell me that there's a red umbrella and a yellow light (which, to me looks like stale urine, and where did that come from??).

Bring on the incongruous. Give me more than the obvious, please.

Learn from this video on how to be funny online. You guys don't realize this but your humor comes across to me as if the German is telling the joke...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wuo8WK5U_YU

Warning there's one 'F' bomb.

Leslie, you posted while I was writing my previous one. You don't feel that the picture is a statement of faith?

Has nothing to do with me liking it, Julie. I don't like bad and poorly thought out and delivered jokes which only become lame attempts at ridicule. It's easier to put back the umbrella handle in post than it is recovering from the sickened feeling of a lame joke that doesn't land right.

"I think photography is superlative for revealing multiplicity, complexity and doubt. This is frustrating for those trying to picture wishful hopes (and I do not denigrate such hopes in saying that), but it's the cost of photography's revelatory power."

 

I wish I could latch on that thought, Julie, which sounds important. A little too abstract for my sensibility I expect. Photography is revelatory to me, but not necessarily as a doorway into anything more than enjoyment of the day to day ( my abode). As a popular song does not need to become an aria. Or every play needs to be Antigone or Oedipus. I need a Cliff's Notes I expect :-) It is a kind of warming photo. Of the kind I enjoy. To see deeper and see analytically is fine, but it should not need a rope ladder to engage with it. Or to draw on a lot externals. I could be wrong.

Leslie,

I never made reference to the lanterns on the pagoda? What I did make reference to is the overall brightness of the pagoda and the area surrounding it, in comparison to the rest of the scene. That light would not come from the heavy overcast sky above it, which leads me to believe either the sky exposure has been heavily and badly manipulated or the sky was shopped in. In either case it looks unnatural and that was the point I was making.

Endof days (how did you chose that user name !) I'm not I a that I agree with your appreciation on the light on the lake. As far as I can interpret what I see the sun is very low and shines from the right behind the trees directly towards the golden pavilion and the light on shining lake nearer by comes from the skies just above, that we don't see.
If the sky has been manipulated it is fairly well don. There is some pixelisation around the tree tops over the pavilion and especially around the pin tree to the right in the frame, but given the low quality file we have available it is difficult to draw any conclusion from that.

What I’m interested in, Julie, is that you seem to have a very different interpretation of the photo than any of the other interpretations posted, and I’m very curious about what it is you saw in the image that let you conclude that you’ve understood the artist’s objectives. Or to put it another way, what did I miss?

Everybody's interpretation is different. Everybody's point of view is different. I find that interesting.

You ask: "[W]hat did I miss?" Probably a lot. We have almost nothing in common.

Anders, as far as I can see the sun does not shine at all other than burning a lighter area in the cloud cover. If the sky and pagoda are both part of the original scene the only way I can reconcile them is if a heavy exposure gradient was pulled down from the sky to the base of the trees and the pagoda and surrounds where treated to a rise in exposure and a drop in clarity. Or perhaps a byproduct of the heavy handed vignetting. While I appreciate that you do not see anything unnatural in the scene, to my eye if looks very cooked. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Leslie, upon second reading, I am now wondering if it is your assertion that those small lanterns on the exterior of the pagoda are illuminating the lake from shore to shore and all the way up the incline behind the building up to the tree line?

Endof, I'd misinterpreted your statement that "The background pagoda is inexplicably bathed in bright morning light" to imply that you were referring to the bright light at the right side of the pavilion, which has the warm color cast and low angle of incidence that one would be likely to associate with morning light. I'd originally been puzzled by the source of that light (thinking that it looked a lot like bright morning light) before realizing that I might be looking right at the light source (lanterns), and I was interested in your comment because it suggested that my interpretation of that light source was off-base.

If I choose to look at elements, they are harmonious. Without the light splash on the pagoda and water, there would be nothing to have the human elements gazing at. Without the burst of light in the sky above that scene there would be no overall balance and source of light from where light emanates. On vignetting, I could well go with less or none at al,but in a creative way this as done fits this stage- scene scenario in my head. It is sort of like a set, where things have been 'cooked' up and chosen to make what? A simple porridge and definitely not a souflee. The somewhat incongruous red umbrella, well it ties the couple together. Thus is a strong element of interest against a middle range overall luminosity and mid tone chroma. Helps. Nothing obsessive I see in the processing ( over cooked is a bit strong, and not apt for this example as I see it) Now, If there were a trio of white swans in the pond yeah that would be over cooked... Not a lot to chew over as a visual statement. If I search "meaning" it suggests harmony. Not grist for much chewing so far. But I am not the last word. Discussion often leads me to see what I didn't see. I overlooked the two birds and now wonder why and what they add as two other animal elements. PS: I rarely if ever consider or chew on the "titles" of a photo. Should I?

Gerry, concerning the Title, you surely should consider it when it is added by the photographer. It is meant as a prolongation of the narrative. It can of course be overblown and uninteresting.

I'm intrigued by your formulation,"nothing to have the human elements gazing at" when you actually have in front of your eyes a view on an example of one of human history's most sophisticated creations: Oriental gardens. If you are serious in your expression, it just tells, what is needed to wake up our attention and interest in a world of neon and commercials.

By the way, I should add that concerning the golden shine on pavilion they are surely from two lanterns. The shine on the water below tells.

I see incongruity. A real-world couple against a mythologized eastern setting. What feels like an average and grounded

older pair against a hyper-idealized golden-aurad world of Disneyesque light. I feel forced into a meditative trance that

doesn't have eve n the most surface of appeal because of so much disparity in the relationships of various elements. The

couple feels beamed up into a fantasyland that could never exist and into a setting more saccharine than sweet, not

pensive but to me dulling of the senses for its almost Maxfield Parrish-like shimmer and sheen.

LOL !

Anders, you're quite funny. If someone else dared to be dismissive of another's critique with an LOL, you'd lecture us on

having respect. But as we know, for you, respect is a one-way street leading toward you rather than toward others.