other water dyes

Comments are appreciated. Thanks.

I don't know why but I like it. Don't take that as a put down, it is not meant to be. I like the image but I don't understand it might be more correct. Then again who says I have to understand it?

It is really difficult to critique photoimpressionism. You created an image that captured your impression of a certain bit of reality at a certain point in time. If it works for you, who cares how others perceive it?

 

 

Eric and John if you two fellows don't might I'll direct my reply to both since the comments are closely related. This image has recieved ratings from 2/2 to 6/6. I think you both are dead right in the assertion that either you like it or you don't . And if you do like it ...finding the words to describe why often just aren't there.

 

John will perhaps better understand this comment as it pertains to past discussion over other images. I often feel that one can over theorize an image and beat the very appeal right out of it. For me if a discussion is forced than of what value is it? Sometimes it's just nice to look and experience for experience sake. Just my opinion.

 

Thanks again for the comments.

 

Sally

Well we're right back to it?

 

I'm completley comfortable with idea of a dry analysis that attempts to figure out why someone might react favorably to this image. It's well balanced, having three distinct areas of interest and a solid base. Each area has it's own distinct shape. The texture is a sort of unifying element. The hint of color is pleasing. Good contrast range.

 

If anyone likes it for reasons that are totally removed from my approach, like a thing, or place or emotion that they associate with this image, I'd like to hear them. :-)

Carl, Thanks for dropping in. You have asked a very specific question, one which I believe is more directed to the observer and not to moi. Fair enough. I've posted a link from dried bubbles to this page in the hope that others will follow. The responses I'am sure will vary but hopefully you'll get what you are looking for.

Because of the hightly impressionistic nature of this image, I think I would try to analyze this from a different angle than your fairly traditional analysis of graphical elements. One approach that I might use is what I stated above, and that is to ask: If the image captured for Sally what Sally wanted to capture for herself, then who cares how others may perceive it? This approach assumes that Sally did not produce the image to communicate anything to anyone other than herself. If we assume that Sally posted the image to communicate to others an idea, mood, concept, etc., then we must ask: What is it that Sally wanted to communicate and do others receive that message? You seem to want to analyze the graphics while I want to analyze purpose and psychological impact. Our two approaches are not mutally exclusive, but they do highlight a difference in our perspectives.

I think you highlight two very important aspects of art critique: the creators willingness to be involved in the process and perhaps the need for such a process given certain genres.

 

Not long ago in a discussion about meaning I quoted from a speech given by Jerry Uelsmann in which he talks (perhaps ironically) about the pressure to verbalize. If you can get your hands on it, do John because I think he talks directly to this issue.

Purpose, as you put it, then becomes most difficult to express. In this genre , I am often completely unaware of my intent for the image: whether I want to convey a meaning or not . As the intrinsic nature of creating anthing would suggest , the work is meant to communicate with others on some level. How we all interpret that communication and to what role the creator takes in the processs is I think the Key. And I have NO IDEA (right now anyway) what that is. I'm very glad both you and Carl have brought this discussion forward. I look forward to your thoughts.

We've introduced the question of who gets to decide what it 'means'. I've tried to argue on more than one occassion that it's the photographer, but have come to realize that no matter how hard you try to use your tools of the trade to impose your point of emphasis, the viewer is not compelled to agree. In this image, I would suggest that no such conflict exists and that free association is intended.

 

The point that I find myself repeating is that if the composition itself was not pleasing, we wouldn't be having this discussion because you wouldn't have given it a second look.

I agree with you totally...If the composition is pleasing then the viewer is much more open and objective to looking beyond the obvious.To me this image is very well balanced,anchored on all sides but with more emphasis on the left side.Being a newbie to photographic abstract sometimes it is very difficult to tell in words why or why not an image does not work for me.If the foundation is strong(composition)then there is common ground to start with.Well done Sally!

Carl, apart from my statement in the previous comment, how is it that you arrived at this conclusion? I find this notion of "ownership of meaning" interesting.

 

Thomas, nice to have you aboard!

 

Sally

Well I probably overstated the case in that I now see that I perhaps didn't give you credit for having a certain interpretation in mind when you presented this image. In any case, as we've seen in some of my OZ images, viewers is free to go in any direction they want (unless the image is presented in a context that makes its' purpose clear.)