single photos I cant read and write in this area. Any body is there to help me?

I like it. It's fun; light, flowing; doesn't take itself too seriously. The component parts are ... choice. The pipe and wire are perfect mundane counterweights while still being so un-straight as to participate in the whole.

If I have to pick out something that isn't too obvious, I think it would be the 'face' that can be contrived out of the two 'stars' and the pipe 'nose' in the upper left corner as sort of a reflection or echo of the man's face. Also, the thing in the center looks so much like an LP ... I hear music (does the younger viewer know what an LP looked like?). I look forward to a nice smoky discussion.

I like graffiti and trompe l'oeil images and photograph them frequently. This one is fine although it does not provide me with much visual excitement. The title I am afraid I don't understand: my incomprehension is not helped by its lack of grammar. The item in the center is surely just an extractor fan - nothing mysterious about that. I like the pipe and cable at the bottom half of the shot. This is the kind of shot where I can't help thinking it might be better in color as I am sure the "prophet" was originally rendered in color. Why not use what the artist provided for free?

I see a Jethro Tull album cover reject, since the character is too pleasant and 'cute' in contrast to the industrial background and hail of smoke. Its not dark or edgy enough in bw, the fan frozen, industrial wall and smoke are interesting but the character ruins what could be a nice dark graphic on its own. In color it might present more of a lighthearted mood and be slightly more whimsical and appealing.

Sometimes it's difficult to decide if a photograph of art is about the art, or about the photograph as art. Chicken and egg, I know... In this case I think I would have preferred a little more context included in the image. It feels a bit in no-man's-land, somewhere between being a photograph of art versus an artistic photograph, without taking a strong position in either direction. A larger perspective would have helped me as the viewer "see" the mural as the photographer did. Viability of this approach depends entirely on the venue. Alternatively, a tighter vignette could have served to highlight the contrast between the mural (as art) and one or two of the industrial accouterments. I'm a big fan of not doing things by half measures, and this approach feels a bit noncommittal. That being said, I like the technical execution and the photographer's seeing and capturing a rather unique slice of the urban canvas.

Whimsical is a good take on this well perceived image of graffiti and a side of a building (or industrial vessel?). I agree that tighter cropping would be more powerful. For instance, if you divide this nice image in half, vertically, the image half on the right with just one incongruous pipe is I think more of a surprise for the viewer. This is not to say anything negative about the overall composition which is very balanced and compelling, if a little too sweet and over-detailed to my mind.

Fred, a question for you (albeit rhetorical to some degree), related to the POW and in general: Where do you think copy ends (the function also of recording) and creation begins? I agree that this POW shows in part someone else's mural and if the photographer were to capture uniquely the mural it would constitute straight copy. Picasso happily admitted to copying, but he took someone else's graphics and added his own ideas to it, the result being successful art.

Did the muralist think much about placing his art where he did, and how it contrasted with the plumbing and ventilation, or was he just happy to place what he might consider an aesthetic image in a less than beautiful environment? In choosing his angle of view and the specific elements he put into this picture, did the photographer create something that a different framing might not? Did the muralist frame his image like the photographer?

Much photography is of things that have already been created by other "thinkers" (perhaps the jury on nature creation is still out). Do we say that photographing these objects (which when manmade, can be judged as art, or not) or creations is simply recording? I think it is instead how we visualise and reinterpret them and not so much what they intrinsically are, while at the same time the creations of others.

I don't think we would consider a photograph of a piece of sculpture or architecture a "recording". It might be more or less documentary in nature, or be an extreme, artistic representation of a single architectural feature. Pictures of pictures become more problematic, and whether or not a photograph falls to the level of mere documentary recording or expropriation has as much to do with intent as technique. (This all goes back to that theory of representation issue and The Treachery of Images.) I don't agree that the POTW is a simple replication or technical documentation of the mural, but I also think it could have been more creatively rendered as an engaging piece of representational, photographic art. The funny thing is, we might see a straight-on, perfectly centered and perpendicular view at long focal length as the most documentary/sanitized presentation of most paintings. However, in the case of this mural, such a perspective, if physically obtainable, might present a very interesting image in which we have to work to pick out features of the canvas (the building) from the mural imposed upon it. The perspective we have in the POTW is far less challenging.

As regards Arthur's questions about the muralist: There is insufficient contextual information in the POTW to make any determination as to the muralist's intent for or response to this venue. That is one of my critiques. Our appreciation of both the photograph and the mural might benefit from more context.

Arthur, I discussed THIS photo, not all photos of others' objects or creations. The muralist

did his work on this wall, with pipes and vent fan. The photographer, as I said, made a record

of it. That's what I'm seeing. I see no attempt to create something using the mural

as a stepping off point and it's not even an interesting recording, perspective wise or b/w conversion wise. It would

probably be fine in a local record book of murals. It holds little interest for me, even as a mural.

I am thankful, however, that the photographer resisted the cliche temptation to wait for an old guy with a beard to walk into the frame. ;-)

David, I used the word "record" but I'm not married to that word. I'm just as happy to say it's a pretty straight, uninspiring

document of a less than compelling mural.

I find the image to be an odd conglomerate of elements. The only elements that really hold any interest for me are those in the background. And, I must confess, the only reason I seem to be interested in them is that they don't appear to have any logical connection with anything else in the frame.

David, to my eye the picture doesn't seem to be about seeing the mural: it seems to be about Morteza wondering about the missing muralist.

"I cant read and write in this area. Any body is there to help me?" reads, to me, as what Morteza is 'hearing' from the missing muralist who has left an indecipherable visual message. Is it God the Father? Moses? Gandalf? failing to write -- failing to communicate -- in a bound book(!) in a less than helpful place -- the fan/LP patched into the wall crooked, the wire and pipe doing what? ...

To my eye, the picture is wondering about the missing artist, wanting to 'get the message' and feeling bad that it can't be gotten. I don't see it as being about the art (the mural).

Usually I can get a title, even when I feel it's superfluous or distracting. In this case, I really don't get the title at all, and nothing compels me enough to make up some explanation of my own for it either. I'm still considering what I like better: the title, or the photo. Hard choice, as both do not really move me.

Julie's interpretation really strikes home with me. The photographer has whimsically invited us to see what isn't there, not what's there: if you were the muralist, how would you have dealt with the fan and pipes? how would you have "read" them? and how would you have "written" the mural around them? Suddenly I'm seeing the challenges the wall poses from the point of view of the muralist.

The reason I think we should be talking about the muralist, as a friend and I discussed last night, is because it would have been good for the photographer to have given the muralist credit. It's probably not legally required, but I'd suggest doing it in a case like this. Not because I'm led by the photo to wonder about the muralist, just because I think any muralist in a case this direct deserves a credit.

[Arthur, just in case, no, I don't think every time we photograph something, the original source needs to be given credit. I think this is an instance where I would have given credit to the original muralist.]

it's a quotation from the bible, innit?

I looked at the image a bit longer and this time with glasses. Yes, the muralist has included the two pipes and ventilator into his overall work and not just that of the principal subject. As such the creation is entirely that of the muralist and all the POW has done is to simply provide a record of that (maybe the muralist is unknown and a reference could not be made to him or her), like photographing a meal on a plate, or some item for a big box store catalogue. All the photographer has created is his title, which is a bit mosh.

And the Lord God spoke to Daniel and sayeth to him that this area is devoid of words, whereupon Daniel begged the Lord to provide to him a scribe so that he could praise him in words upon that blank space.

This is one more example of how important graffiti has become as of late. It is ubiquitous, prevalent, and utterly creative. It is substituting the trash many well-know museums waste so much valuable space showing simple lines and dots on a canvas. This is a gift from an unknown artist for the not-snobbish museum goers. My comment is personal, and highly probable a projection of my opinion. The photographer captured a marvelous situation, perhaps as in my case, a desire to show creative painting regardless of the canvas. To me, the juxtaposition results in a very interesting composition, worthy of a more lengthy discussion, over a cup of coffee and a brandy, so as to be able to reach deeper meanings and interpretations.
DG

I don't think this is graffiti. I think it's a mural.

AND . . .

There's a difference between the mural and discussing its effect and meaning, and a photograph and discussing its effect and meaning.

By the way, don't get me wrong. I love murals. San Francisco has some awesome murals painted on exterior walls

throughout the city. And in many cases, they're as interesting as art in our wonderful museums, which rarely waste space.

I don't much care for most photos I see of these murals except when they are put in guide books to help interested people

find them. Occasionally I will see a photo that's an interesting photo of a mural. More often, the photos are photos of

interesting murals.