Tenderness

Julie : "What are they looking at? Why?"
The answer, seems to me to be obvious, in this case. They are seeing exactly, what we all, as viewers, can see when we look at the frame. And Why ? Probably because, they can read the message such oriental gardens are created to convey. But who knows. They might not see anything else than the fall of day. Not really important for the picture, although the scene plays on some elements of answer to the question by the body language of the couple supporting each other, and the color and tissue of their coats, not to speak about the umbrella.....
What's important is what we, as viewers see, feel and how we react to such a scene. Back to the contribution on the subject above (some of it, that is).

Lannie
Thank you very much for your time in helping to improve the title.
I really think my work speaks about perseverance, something that is unbreakable, a friendship, a love and an unwavering companionship over time to an elderly couple, It's about people feelings It arises in them something you can't touch, something that can be felt only.
I leave a B&W version for your opinion
Thanks you very once again to you a many others.

Hi, I see I couldn't finish my last sentence very well, just wanted to say thank you Lannie and many others :)

Titles are not obliged (and are often unable) to translate pictures into words and photos aren't obliged to translate emotion into pictures. A photo can be expressive by creating

something in the viewer which often works better than trying to "capture" (and so often package) what's there or what a

photographer may project is there before them. That's not to say some photos don't seem to capture emotions present at the time. It's just to make the point that it doesn't strike me that that's what I'd be looking for in this photo, which seems more about how the photographer wants to feel and wants me to feel than what the couple is feeling or even seeing.

I think most good writers, photographers, and artists would disagree that feelings are inexpressible or untouchable. I certainly do.

My thinking this morning on "titles":

Even if I just say, well, the given title doesn't matter; I know what he means or the kind of thing he is trying to mean, what that kind of title does is make a claim to be an allegory. This is the direction Leslie followed, quite reasonably, to my mind (without agreeing to where or how it took Leslie to his conclusions).
However, if, as the title strongly suggests, the picture is meant as an allegory, then everything in it has to matter or be relevant to that allegory. An allegory doesn't have extra stuff in it. Therefore, the fact that Hugo seems to have no interest in what the people are looking at seems to confound the allegorical push of the title.

In my last exhibition,on June 1st, 2016, I only exhibited my photographs without titles, Why ?. I wanted the audience to use his mind and imagination to give free interpretation.on each of my pictures.

Lannie is helping me gently to get a more accurate title, that's all, if you want also you can open a dialogue about meaning of titles on artworks in the forum
Julie, the couple is watching right where you want they can look, There is a path in the image that is directed toward the pergola, but they are stopping previously to get a closer look of the lake. You can think about many stories on this image, according to your thinking.
Think freely without taking conclusion of what I think
Fred, If you find any instrument to measure emotions, then I will say that feelings can be touched indirectly.

Finally, I think all criticisms are acceptable, as long as it isn't mocked, but with an attitude of contributing.

Hugo, if, by "it" you mean the picture, I disagree that mocking should be disallowed.

Responses to a picture are going to involve mocking in some form or other, unless you expect no criticism at all, or simply "I hate this picture." The nuances of negative description will go to mockery if they are anything other than flat statements of fact. The coloring of personal responses is what gives them value, in my view.

Hugo, I think for emotions to be touched or expressed, they don't need to be quantified or measured. I don't think there

are outside implements we have to use in order to touch or express emotions. I think we use imagination, desire,

metaphor, Words, sighs, exclamations, gestures and I think photographers work with light and shadow, perspective,

empathy, caring, and many other things to touch emotionally and to express emotion.

I agree, Fred. I am not so sure that everything can be expressed in words, though. The very fact that English has the word "inexpressible" implies or tries to come to grips with the frustrations we experience when we try to say or express certain things in words. I do nonetheless believe that words, images, music, etc. can evoke certain feelings and thereby communicate to the reader, viewer, or listener something about what the artist feels--and perhaps wants us to feel.

None of that is intended as a rebuttal of your statements, of course--just my take on the continuing discussions that arise from time to time here about emotion and evoking or expressing emotions through photography or other art forms. (One of our more spirited recent discussions came out of a discussion about expressing "mystical qualities," I believe--thereby expanding the potential discussion into the realm of what is sometimes called the "spiritual"--and whether it was possible to express or communicate such values or "feelings"--or whatever on earth they are. I have no new insights on that one and am not trying to re-open that discussion, but it does remind me that there are "phenomena"--for lack of a better word--that are darned near impossible to express. I am not even certain that some psychological phenomena that give meaning to life can be reduced either to sensory input or emotion. Enter the metaphysical category of the "spiritual" once again. . . . What is it? I have no idea--at least none that I can easily put into words when I want to share some manifestation of it, nor put into a picture, either, for that matter.)

I think that the composers of music (sometimes through lyrics, sometimes through melodies, sometimes both) have it a bit easier than photographers in this regard--assuming that one can formulate the melody or lyrics in the first place. Having said that, I do think that some photographers can do it--and do it very well. I think that you do it much better than I, but there remain some "things" that might not be expressible--or at least I leave that open as a logical possibility. I am not trying to argue for it again, since I have nothing new to offer. It is obvious from a perusal of Hugo's portfolio that he is trying to express and evoke certain emotions on the part of the viewer, and it would seem from his title that he is both trying and despairing of being successful at it at the same time.

--Lannie

I agree with Julie when she says "the coloring of personal responses is what gives them value." When I receive a

comment or critique with expressive tone of voice, be it gushing or mockery, I am appreciative because it tells me the

viewer is bothering to react with individual and genuine emotion, rather than trying to couch anything in mannered

politeness, which rings very untrue to me. If i am in any way "hurt" by a critique, I usually carefully think about it because it

tends to mean something about it rings true. Rather than dwell on my "poor me" hurt feelings, I get to work figuring out

why I'm responding that way and what truth the critique may have that's causing me some psychic pain. Many of the best

critiques I've received have hit a nerve and caused some insight I might not otherwise have had. I think about it this way: I don't want photographers censored in what they show and how they show it. And I don't want critic's voices directed to be

a certain way either. Free expression.

I agree, Fred, but I am not sure that I thereby want to glorify a flippant tone, either--which in my opinion is how this thread started. Like so many before it, the thread has matured as it has proceeded to unfold without external interference. A rebuke is not, after all, censorship. Rebukes can wound the psyche at times. Censorship can darned near kill it.

--Lannie

"Many of the best critiques I've received have hit a nerve and caused some insight I might not otherwise have had."

... and to add to that everybody benefits. The photographer, other participants as well as lurkers. People are thirsty for honesty.

Dishonest or evasive or buttered responses, on the other hand, not only don't teach anybody anything, they mislead. Or just bore people into finding something genuine to read, elsewhere.

Landrum, if a picture provokes flippant, that's what it will get.

I should qualify what I just said by emphasizing that this opener by Julie (up to that point) was hardly mocking or flippant. Indeed, had I seen the thread earlier, I might have asked what was meant by the term "neutral." Therefore I shall do it now.

What on earth about this photo is "neutral," Julie?

--Lannie

"Flippant" is an initiative, Julie, not a response in my book. It trivializes and even demeans--and openly disrespects--what someone has offered in all seriousness and earnestness All that I am asking is why anyone would want to trivialize or demean an attempt to offer a work dealing with a couple growing old together.

Hugo put his heart and soul into this photo. I personally think that it deserves more respect than flippancy. You may disagree--and you may even want to be flippant in your disagreement. That will not place your response above or beyond criticism on my part.

--Lannie

Nor is discourse about discourse out of bounds, either. Lit critters of the world unite.

As for the photo, the processing is too heavy-handed for my taste. That is why I have asked Hugo for a downsized OOC original as an attachment.

I do prefer the black and white version, Hugo, although a simple desat makes it a bit flat, I think. I would at least take it into Layers for any serious black and white treatment.

My own criticisms would divide into two portions: (1) the original capture, with which I have no problem; (2) the post-processing, which is a portal into infinite possibilities.

--Lannie

This "couple growing old together" is a brother and sister. The sister is visiting from out of town and they were at a local

grocery store, on their way back to the independent living community where the brother lives alone among many friends

and fellow card players, and they stopped at this garden for a view. They are arm in arm because the brother just had a

hip replacement and has trouble walking on his own. The brother and sister have differing political views and often get

into heated arguments. The brother would like to stay and meditate a while but the sister is losing patience and in just a

minute will insist on getting back to the car in her somewhat abusive manner toward her brother.

Though this is an example of a literal story I could tell, I tell it not because it's what the picture makes me think of but to

illustrate why I don't usually make up literal narratives to accompany photos. That's why metaphor and suggestiveness

can be more rewarding to me than detailed or specific narrative when looking at a still photo. And it's why feeling and

reaction can be more important than meaning and interpretation.

Granted that, Fred.

--Lannie

Comments on other posters are personal attacks and are not welcome.

I'm a lit critter, too, Julie. I'm defending the tradition of literary criticism, which basically really is discourse about discourse. I was exposed to it during my third mid-life crisis when I went back to grad school in Spanish and Spanish-American literature in my mid-fifties. We read a lot of English books (literary theory, that is) in Spanish, though (for example, Orientalismo de Edward Said).

What is neutral about this photo? What precisely do you mean by "neutral" in your opening remark?

--Lannie

I'm pretty sure that they are looking for their umbrella handle.

Endof, I think it's an Uber-ella™ (notice the payment slot on the left side). They don't have handles, they just come and hover if you get caught unexpectedly in the rain.

Oh darn! now I want one of those too.

Lannie: finally have decided to rename it to "Tenderness", thank you very much for your effort and time on helping me to choose a suitable name.
Fred: any story is possible as I said, do not consider what I think, we're free to think as we want.
Leslie: many thanks for your vision of my artwork, I think is best approach I wanted to convey, but I adminir that the human being has different ways of seeing and feeling things, so as I told you before in this forum everyone is right.
Gerry: thank you very much for your support, I must admit I'm not very good at writing, I'm so sorry about my writing mistakes as well as my technical mistake in my original artwork.
Best Regards to all of you.

Hugo C. Romano

"Everyone is right."

Whether in school, in politics, in life, or in photography, I never thInk it's the case and wouldn't want it to be the case that

everyone is right. That presents no challenge, no conflict, and little chance to learn from someone who might have a

better take on something than me. It would be boring, kind of like elevator music, which probably doesn't offend too many

people but also stimulates very little passion and very few new ideas.

Elevator music is actually ingeniously perfect for the job it's intended to do. It's when evaluated out of context that it seems like it isn't.