New Life

All comments are welcome,

We're looking through a giant vulva at a pregnant woman with a perky little tit on center? Zbigniew gives us the male idea of the view from the vagina. I am (almost) speechless.

What a nice and unusual comment. I'll try to be specific too.

To me the photo is more artistic than anatomical.

Although I appreciate your interpretation of my work, but that is not the intended meaning of my photo.

ZT, for whatever it's worth, I have an alternative interpretation. I see the image as a retelling of Plato's cave. Instead of the cave dwellers seeing only shadows on the cave wall, they get to look through an opening in it. What they see is limited to beings who resemble people; yet, they are in degrees of translucence. The cave dwellers harbor doubt whether these being exist. -- Thanks for giving us an opportunity to wander.

Ha! I have to admit I hate this current photo.net site almost as much as I revile Donald Trump, but I've found myself become quite a fan of Julie H's cutting insights into just how astonishingly narrow-minded the site has become. Have to ask: are any of the POTW `judges' women? Are any of them not colour-blind?

 

All the best wishes,

Mr Dale.

It is quite interesting as a composition, but I feel that the ultimate subject (woman and child) is not terribly fascinating here as they look to be just randomly selected and this weakens the picture. Perhaps the photographer could have waited for something/someone more interesting to appear in the wooden frame, or waited for a more decorous pose or something.

Michael, I like that interpretation .I also think it's easier to understand such photo message for a real abstract photographer -creative .and open minded.

Thank You for a comment.I really appreciate it,

ZT,

I don't think "real" abstract photographers are any more likely to view a photo and comment on it in an insightful way than a viewer with absolutely no photographic experience whatsoever. An interpretation is just that, a viewer's imposition onto a photo of their own sensibility and experience. An interpretation often has nothing to do with the photo itself, with its good and bad features as a photo.

ZT, I appreciate your feedback. I do agree with Fred, though, to some extent. I don't think it takes only "real abstract photographer"" to find value in this image. In retrospect, I think my interpretation was at least partially based on the degree to which the figures I saw in the bright opening are amorphous, yet somewhat identifiable. Also, I think (which I failed to mention before) the strong dark-light contrast in the bottom right strengthens the image.

Michael,

I can only partially agree with You and Fred.

I used exact words 'it's easier to understand such photo message ' .I didn't say ''' it takes only "real abstract photographer"" to find value in this image'''

 

On other hand ' An interpretation often has nothing to do with the photo itself' - then with what? - I think everything starts with photo (good or bad),

then there is imagination , interpretation etc.. Isn't it logical?

Zbigniew asks, "On other hand ' An interpretation often has nothing to do with the photo itself' - then with what?"

 

Often (not always) interpretations have more to do with what the interpreter wants the photo to be than with what's actually before us. Too many "interpretations" miss the communication from or expression of the photographer in favor of a more solipsistic reading which puts the viewer/interpreter front and center, elevating the subjectivity of the viewer over the potential of the viewer to have a shared experience with the artist and other viewers. I think an important part of viewing art, while having an intimate and personal relationship to it, is also getting out of ourselves long enough to actually share the art with the artist and the world. Like most things in the universe, it's not all about us.

Fred,

Thank You for claryfing and your immediate response,

"

Fred G

Zbigniew asks, "On other hand ' An interpretation often has nothing to do with the photo itself' - then with what?" Often (not always) interpretations have more to do with what the interpreter wants the photo to be than with what's actually before us. Too many "interpretations" miss the communication from or expression of the photographer in favor of a more solipsistic reading which puts the viewer/interpreter front and center, elevating the subjectivity of the viewer over the potential of the viewer to have a shared experience with the artist and other viewers. I think an important part of viewing art, while having an intimate and personal relationship to it, is also getting out of ourselves long enough to actually share the art with the artist and the world. Like most things in the universe, it's not all about us."

 

 

Ding!! I heard a bell go off signaling a clear and rational mind. Thanks Fred. And Z, congratulations on the POW.... Mike

beautiful and creative