Wedding today at the Art Museum

Wait a minute, wait a minute! According to the elves, the photographer was simply walking around town, camera on hand, on a wedding-photograph expedition and this is merely one of the many trophies that he chanced upon. Can anyone argue that it wasn�t sheer vision and experience that netted this final wall hanger? He had no way of finding out who was wearing what and where. He simply set out on the hunt for wedding ceremonies that may or may not be occurring on his chosen path just like all of us have done on several occasions right?

I noticed this definitely unusual picture from the very beginning, when it was uploaded on PN. It�s good to see the elves did a great job. A lot was said above and I�m just joining others, it�s really excellent, creative work. I agree with Doug, the guy in the right corner looks like an imagined photographer and we see everything through his eyes.

 

But for me here is also interesting to track how many meanings this outstanding work has, how many genres involved. I tried to summarize roughly what I feel myself and how others classified this POW at that moment in terms of genres.

 

1)First of all it�s B&W composition as opposed to *color*. B&W allows isolating the subject in the best way IMO. No surprise, many of recent POWs are B&Ws or toned B&Ws. Due to technical reasons, photography at the very beginning was associated with B&W and later mostly advanced photographers could master color. Ironically, it all circled in the *Digital Era*. The only difference is that now mostly advanced photographers shoot B&W (lol); 2) wedding photo (Tim himself, Nestor Botta, Dave Scott�); 3) retro or *Cartier-Bresson-like* (Nathan Greenberd, , Bente D.- Nielsen, Isidro Acevedo�); 4) street photo (Hanna Cowpe, Miguel Garcia-Guzman, Tim himself � *just kidding*, Andy E�); 5) decisive moment (Donna Albers); 6) abstract; IMO it has some features of abstract due to strong contrast and presence of crossing linear patterns filling at least half of the frame. I�m pattern lover myself and the patterns were what popped up first when I opened TB; 7) architecture (Sandeha Lynch, Michael Webster�); 8) surreal (Sandeha Lynch, Phil Morris�); Phil defined best what I feel about this image, *real surreal*; 9) candid (Nathaniel Pearson�); 10) suspected pre-planned shot (Carl Root�). Tim explained how it all happened, so it was obvious candid for him.

Of course this list is not complete, but even though is quite impressive. All the genres blending, interacting�

 

I guess, most important here is that a) it is not ocassional picture, it represents photographers style; b) initiates really interesting discussion.

 

My congrats to Tim on POW.

Best man, grooms man? There's every chance. But doesn't the shadowy, lurking figure invoke a suspicion that not all's well? Here's a short one. Let's jumble things up. Let's say the guy in the shadows is the groom. What then?

Vlad, It would be nice to have both you and Phil co-write my obit. Phil, there is an under-current in most of my photos of things "not being well" and I think that holds true for this one also.

Tim, I agree with the "not being well" comment - it does kind of permeate your work. But on an image by image basis, it's not the type of thing I can really put my finger on - part of which makes your work in general so very attractive, IMHO.

 

- Al

Again I'll stress that I think it's a wonderful photo. I believe the photographer did

everything he possibly could with the given situation.

 

My question is whether or not the situation itself takes away from the ultimate quality of

the photograph.

 

I respect Carl's definition that the extent to which the photographer uses the camera to

control the arrangement of the elements in an image plays a very, very important role in

determining the quality of a photo, but I suspect he would agree that the actual content

within that arrangement plays some small part as well.

 

That leads us to the question of whether a spontaneous arrangement is superior to a pose.

Ultimately, I guess that's a matter of taste. Who do you like better? Cartier-Bresson or

Helmut Newton? For the sake of this argument, let's choose Cartier-Bresson and say that

we like spontaneity.

 

I think it's been proved conclusively that Tim did a fantastic, Cartier-Bresson worthy job of

capturing the spontaneity of the moment. But how spontaneous was the moment? That's

the rub.

 

For the sake of this question, let's accept the proposition that a wedding planner of some

sort foresaw that bowler hats would look cool in the context of the art museum. Clearly

the planner would not have foresaw the exact juxtaposition that the photographer

captured, but he or she would have foreseen that there would be interesting

juxtapositions.

 

Now imagine the exact same shot in a different setting. Instead of an art museum, it's a

barn or a mosque or a quaint country church. Instead of a bowler, it's a John Deere hat, a

fez, or a slick new hairdo. Imagine that everything is essentially the same, only totally

unplanned, totally spontaneous.

 

Would that be a better photo?

 

The other question concerns how much we should acknowledge the artistic vision of

others when photographing their work. I'm not suggesting that a wedding planner or

architect is solely responsible for the artistic result of that or any other photo, but I think

that if they foresaw some similar result, then they deserve some part of the credit, even

though the photographer may use great skill to take it to a higher level.

 

I don't mean to be contentious and I certainly don't claim to know the Truth about these

questions. I just like discussing photography and I've enjoyed reading such intelligent

responses to my questions.

 

Congrats again to Tim on his POW.

I would have so much loved that this had been one of my own wedding pictures, so intemporal that it could last forever... ;)

 

GREAT SHOT! 7/7

After several ponderous moments of reflection over Michael's question, I've come to three equally weighty conclusions:

 

1) Michael is right. The aesthetic creations of other parties (architects, God, designers, carpenters, writers, painters, etc, etc, etc, etc) have undeniable influence on nearly every photograph ever made in the history of the world, Amen.

 

2) This is so blatantly obvious that, for some strange reason, we are immediately insulted, and shocked into thinking it's not true.

 

3) The question shouldn't be given more than a few passing thoughts. At worst, its pursuit will paralyze the creative eye. At best, it will provide fodder for circular conversation. In other words, I suspect it will either harm one's approach to picture taking, or have no effect whatsoever.

 

However, It might be healthy to re-direct at this point, for instance: One position on this issue might be considered more passive, the other more aggressive. If that's true, how would holding either position influence one's work?

Well yes, but even though every element that we capture on film is the physical work of others, be it a bird�s nest, a spiders web, the grand canyon, a basket of fruit or a pocket watch, no one ever dares give credit to anyone else but the photographer for the capture of light on film; or a painter for the brushstrokes on canvas.

 

Every single photograph that every single photographer ever caught on film had as foundation, the inspiration and artistic eye of others, but no one, and I mean no one, should credit anyone else but the photographer no matter how many hands created or influenced the physical elements if these were not created specifically for the purpose of being photographed or painted. Now if all these elements were created specifically for a particular photographer to photograph on a particular day with a particular lens and a particular film then by all means let�s include them in the accolades, but otherwise it�s like Doug says, we are chasing after the wind.

I don�t think we are picking on Michael, I think we are merely trying to put this argument to rest, and mine, or anyone else�s word shouldn�t be the final note if others have something else to add to the argument. This is what we are here for. Imagine is no one ever talked about who is responsible for the aesthetic value of a photograph, would we know the complete answer? Not that the answer has any significance but it won�t hurt to know the answer if we can come up with it.

Every day people are contributing their talents to society. Be it a wedding planner, an architect, a fashion designer, a construction worker, a sailboat manufacturer, a golf course designer, a welder, a sign painter, yada yada yada... These are just some of the people who contribute in a physical way to the world around us. The world that we aim our cameras at. Capturing in a photograph the fruits of their labors is a very large part of what we do as photographers. The goal when doing this however is to create something that goes beyond the simple documentation of the existence of an object. With skill we can create and show our vision of the world.

 

As I mentioned earlier I've been to this museum. In fact I've been there three times, twice with a camera. So I can speak from experience when I say as stunning as this structure is, it is still very easy to take a bad photograph of it. Believe me I took a bunch of them. Are the many flawed compositions I created on those visits to be credited to the architect as well? Maybe these failures were a result of a sloppy design? No, they were my fault (rats!), and I take the credit for them. Just as I take the credit for the handful of images that didn't stink.

 

"Now imagine the exact same shot in a different setting. Instead of an art museum, it's a barn or a mosque or a quaint country church. Instead of a bowler, it's a John Deere hat, a fez, or a slick new hairdo. Imagine that everything is essentially the same, only totally unplanned, totally spontaneous.

 

Would that be a better photo?"

 

Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't really matter because it would be a different photo! As if we took "Moonrise Hernandez" and asked what would happen if we moved it to Brooklyn, New York? What if the moon was blocked by an apartment building? And those beautifully lit white crosses were trash cans? Would THAT be a better photo? Again, it doesn't really matter because Ansel dealt with the situation he was presented with, just as Tim has.

 

As for the topic of a spontaneous photograph verses a posed photograph, I'm happy to say I like both equally! I admire the work of both Cartier-Bresson and Newton, but comparing the two is a bit of an apples and oranges thing.

A simple, clean, sophisticated and totally stunning composition.

Completely masterful and fully deserving of POW, plus a place

in art collections. Awesome!

Michael I counted 5 questions in your post.

 

Q1: whether or not the situation takes away .... First what situation are you thinking of? If the situation is that situation we see in this photograph, then no. The situation makes the photograph. But I don't want you to think that because Tim wasn't responsible for the choice of venue / costume / movement of the trio that therefore photographic quality diminishes. Tim realised the quality of the moment. Tim was there. To say otherwise would be to say that the quality of a photo, say of a goalkeeper diving to make a save, diminishes where the photograph was taken in a football stadium whilst the players wore team strips and the striker precision placed the ball in the bottom left corner.

 

As for questions 2 to 4, I'm sorry but they seem trite variations of all the other "which is better?" questions. "Better" needs defining. "Better" in what way? "Better" because of what ... Otherwise you may as well ask half a dozen market gardeners to tell you which is better out of apples or pears, or oranges or lemons. My guess would be they'd answer "See Doug's weighty conclusion number 3".

 

As for Q5 and the credit due upon the realisation of a photo representing the vision of an earlier artist. It would perhaps be courteous for a straight record shot of a work from some other architect to be entitled say "post war domestic prefabricated dwelling to a design by Reginald Molesworthy". But apart from that concession I don't see Moleworthy and his kind as due much else. If it was so much of a big deal the guy will have taken a polaroid. Show me the evidecne. And when all that's said and done there would be two further obstacles remaining. First, to idealise is one thing; to realise is quite another. Second, two artists, each applying their individual and original thought, might independently create an identical work of art without ever knowing of the other.

HC-B meets Rodney Smith (BTW: that's a compliment.) If you're not pro already, at least

give it some serious thought....Good luck.

Tim, congrats on getting people to discuss your photo. You have posted consistently intersting material, and your candor about the circumstances of this one is refreshing. Nice, stylish shot.

I must say I'm a bit surprised at the reactions to my little posts. I thought I was within the

realm of conventional wisdom on the subject. I'm certainly within the realm of the

conventional wisdom I learned back at J school so long ago, but then J school is very big

on attribution. To each his (or her) own, I guess. I enjoyed the thoughtful

replies and it was nice to see the great portfolios behind the comments.

Tim,

 

Why to resist the overwhelming urge to take a pic of the MAM and make it symmetrical!

 

Bravo!

 

chad

Fantabulous!

I lived in Milwaukee for 12 yrs. [a yr ago moved to NC] I watched the damn bird thing be built. IT's awesome you made me miss Milwaukee like nothing else ever could. [aka great photography in my opinion]. u captured just enough of the piece of art [bird thing] to make the picture great! you even caught it with the wings open. Awesome! thank you so much for the memories.

lol.

Milwaukee... whoda thunk?!

Geez, what junk, and you call yourself a photographer. You can't even make out any detail on the one guy in front. What happened, forget to turn on the flash? And the other two, so small one can hardly see who they are. Whats the matter, can't find your own wedding to photograph, you gotta go steal a shot from a real working photog? I'd go on and on but you'd probably slap me upside the head next time you see me... :)

 

 

Unlike some of the above posters I do not find any dark undertones within this photo. It actually appears lighthearted and happy. Although it does still have a bit of that distinct Holte look to it. I like it, as I do most of your photography.

 

Congratulations on the POW!!!

 

vic... :)

Congratulations Tim :) I like this very much...makes me think of Norman Parkinson. Very stylish indeed.

 

Best,

Thanks again for all of the above comments. It is indeed humbling to see the words of photographers that I have admired here on PN for the last year. I admire those of you who can express yourselves so well. I have not been able to articulate what I am trying to do with my photographs, probably because I really don't know. I am sure of one thing however, I love walking around with my camera and trying to see something I have not seen before and capturing a slice of it. I used to think that I had to go somewhere exotic to get good photos. I went to Tahiti years ago and shot 35 rolls of film and did not have one single image that I liked. I knew then that I had to re-examine whole photographic outlook and priorities. Now, most of my photos are taken with-in a mile of where I live (Art Museum included) or to a place I go in northern Wisconsin. The one really good thing about shooting mostly in your back-yard is that it is a lot cheaper and makes you really get to know your environment. Thanks again and if any of you photo junkies are coming to Milwaukee this summer, let me know and I will meet you at the Milw. Art Museum and give you a tour of the new Calatrava addition (for the cheap price of a cup of coffee in their little cafe that overlooks Lake Michigan).

Very nice photo. Original composition, very interesting tones, nice little story.

ALMOST really outstanding imo. Why "almost"...? Well, I'd say that the composition is probably the best it could be if this was caught on the fly, but perhaps not the very best it could be absolutely speaking, and to me, beyond the surrealistic-looking facade, there is still a little something missing to give depth to the story itself...

It's difficult for me to explain this in English, but I'll try... We have a splendid architecture, Magrite's favorite hat, a great light all over the scene... all this makes the scene extraordinary at first glance, and that's very good, but imo, only up to a point. The picture basically becomes beautiful BEFORE being really meaningful. Or if you like, I mean that the photo's beauty overpowers the story - for me.

As somebody already suggested somewhere in this thread, wouldn't we - ideally - prefer to see a bit more of the bride and groom's expressions for example...?

I wondered how I would have composed this image if I had to pose this couple within the frame... I think I'd pose them much nearer to camera - although I like the silhouette framing the shot on the right, so I would keep it. They could both stand in the "other alley" maybe - if you see what I mean. Of course the overall angle would have to be adjustded as well, and perhaps a wider angle lens would then make sense. What's on my mind is to have the silhouette perhaps incomplete and even nearer to camera, and to give a bit more importance to the couple... Of course, that would be a very different photo.

Another thing bothers me very mildly... This picture doesn't seem "complete" on the far left... Wouldn't we want all these lines - which indeed frame so well the main couple - to end somewhere WITHIN the image...? Especially since all else is so meticulously adjusted in difficult circumstances...

Based on all the above, one may think I'm being harsh with such a great photo, but no, I am not. I still find it very good indeed. Just trying to point at the little things that may perhaps have made it an even better photo... Congrats anyway. Cheers.

Quite simply, is photography about merit? Or is it about the subject photographed...?

What merit do we have to be the fathers and mothers of our children...? Yes, we "made" them... So what...? The joy is to watch them grow, don't you think...?

Tim,

 

I like your "picture in the backyard" approach. CONGRATS!!!

I would say photography is about merit in that we have to decide which images among the thousands we see every day are deserving of more than a glance.

 

I think your critique of Tim's POW is interesting and raises the issue of time available to get the shot. We know he didn't set up the 'best man', and even if you can back up and use a longer lens to make the couple larger, it only magnifies the problem of the bowler casting a shadow over his face. Best to focus most of our attention on the observer, as Tim has done.