We are "ONE"

This is truly an amazing image I love so much, I am not so much of a purist myself. I is not clear to me where photography ends and becomes some other way of expression. Sure I Know photography is more than just a bunch of techinques.

Best,

Walter.

"Whatever this may be, and appealing though it may be, it is not a photograph, and only some of the standards by which photographs are rated or critiqued apply. I hope there is a place on the Internet for work such as this, but I do not think that photo.net should be it."--- Wait...am I in a time warp or is this still 2003? You have got to be kidding me. Anyone heard of mixed-media...anyone? Anyone heard of PHOTOshop...PHOTO being the key part of the word (funny that I find myself defending all the photoshop users out there when I barely use the program myself).

 

The debate as to whether this belongs here or not is such a non-issue to me. I agree with one of the above statements that in regards to that subject, the only thing that matters is whether he used any photographic process at all. But the purists seem to immediately react whenever they see something imaginative or the least bit "painterly" (for lack of a better word). Silly. The arguement as to whether photography can be an expressive art was solved a loooooong time ago.

 

Non-debate aside, who cares what it is? It's a great imaginative, expressive, creative image that caught my eye. And it's refreshing to see amidst all the rainbows, flowers and clouds that prevail. Great work!

If it hasn't been said already, it needs to be, your work should be published. I'd buy the book in a second. Truly extraordinary PS work. I've been using PS since V2.0 and haven't come close to this caliber of technique. Really remarkable.

this looks interesting. upon closer inspection and enlargement, it starts to fall apart. The use of Poser to create obviously artificial human forms totally destroys any sense of "life". Nice idea though.

So much debate about whether IT IS or IT ISN'T. We can accept the work at face value as to where it should be placed. It is placed here; so "get over it" and move on to a critique of the work in a constructive manner. I've scored the piece as good both in originality and aesthetics. I would probably score it higher in the technical aspect if I could see an original; but then of course this presentation could be meant as an original. ( oh no! now follows another long harangue as to what is an ORIGINAL ). The reason for my scores are as follows. The idea of a union is often frought with love, ascertion, compromise, pain, adjustment, reascertion, adapting, caring. Only some of which is evident in the work. What looks like dead branches sprouting from the figures does show a whithering away and perhaps a loss of identity in this union. The child is separate from the main figures and from the tree as well, and perhaps could be growing from a lower branch or the root section of the tree so as to be a new offshoot. The child could be more the center of interest so as to show one of the possible outcomes of this union. The couple might also be interpreted as being a part of a crucifixion. Here is my take on the composition. The shot could be done with a wide angle lens, up fairly close and at a fairly low angle placing the horizon higher so as to place the tree couple closer to the upper left corner of the frame and the child toward the center right of the frame, and get more of the tortured aspect of roots. Otherwise the shot seems too straight forward and loses some of the possibility of a deeper and more complex meaning of UNION. I could see this piece as one of a series on union. Thanks Dieter for the opportunity to look at your work.

I would like to congratulate to this artist because this pictures contains loads of expressions in these days that we are living for me its superb, amazing.

 

Cheers,

George

This is a wonderful and very creative work of ART. Probably as good as I have seen on photo.net. I absolutely love it.

Great work!

Remember in your Photo 101 classes how Stiegletz and Steichen and all the great pioneers of photography had to put up witht he chauvinism of the painters who said that photography was not "art" ? Hello? If you don't know what I'm talking about then you need to read about the history and evolution of photography. How many pretty sunsets flowers and girlfriends' faces can you stomach? Why is Jerry Uelsmann photography and this isn't? It is just as manipulated, just in a different way. This image is cool, arresting, and challenging for photographers of all styles becaise of it's implications as an image. Was it Elliott Erwitt show said "every time you are about to do something that has been done before, don't"? Or maybe he was the one who said "whenever I saw a bunch of photographers doing a particular thing, I would do the opposite". Keep going Dieter, and thanks for the cool PHOTOGRAPHIC imagery. I say anyone who does not see your work as photography has no clue and no historical perspective, and it's a BORING argument to begin with.

Artistically speaking (since I know very little about the technical aspects of photography), I would have liked to see more subtlety. When you first look at this piece, it kind of smacks you in the face with the human forms. It makes me wonder what it would be like to have a suggestion of human forms intertwined in the wood of a tree, rather than these more blatant forms. I think doing so would give the piece a more emotional message. It is very well done as it is, but it's too physical (and I don't mean in a porn sort of way).

Plotinus have said: "When you know that you have become this perfect work, when you are self-gathered in the purity of your being, nothing now remaining that can shatter that inner unity, nothing from without clinging to the authentic man, when you find yourself wholly true to your essential nature, wholly that only veritable Light which is not measured by space, not narrowed to any circumscribed form nor again diffused as a thing void of term, but ever unmeasurable as something greater than all measure and more than all quantity- when you perceive that you have grown to this, you are now become very vision: now call up all your confidence, strike forward yet a step- you need a guide no longer- strain, and see.

 

This is the only eye that sees the mighty Beauty."

 

Feels like that. Do read his Ennead On Beauty. We truly are one. And this illustrates it so well!

 

For furter reading go to: http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/beauty.htm

I really do think that this is an amazing demonstration of talent, hard work, and above all vision. As someone said earlier, the baby does seem more computer generated than the rest of the piece and there for is somewhat of a distraction rather than adding to the overall effect, which is why I gave it a 6 rather than a 7 on aesthetics.

 

As to the ongoing debate over the status of this work, I would like to add a few comments. First, there is no doubt that this is a piece of artwork, I don't think that any of the comments that I read were insinuating that it is not a work of art and anyone who would say that it is not obviously does not know what they are talking about and should therefore be ignored. On the other hand this is photography-based art and without a doubt should be left on photo.net. The best analogy that I could come up with for this would be the introduction of a new medium in to an existing form of art. Examples would be a type of paint (oil, water color, etc.) or a sculpting medium (marble, stone, wood, etc.) No one would argue the fact that an oil painting is just as much a painting as a watercolor. On the other hand, the two mediums are analyzed using different standards. To use the same standards placed on a work such as "One" to judge even an Ansel Adams photo would be unfair to both. That said, I dont think that the purpose of photo.net is to compare only traditional photography. From what I can tell Photo.net has a two-fold purpose; first, to give photographic artists feed back on their work, and second, to give those artists an opportunity to see different techniques and methods associated with photography and how they are implemented. While this may not be your technique of choice or even mine, there are many who do go this route and many who will, all of which deserve a place such as photo.net to share, learn about, and explore their technique of choice as much as the rest of us.

 

I have been reading the discussion on if this is photography or not. To tell you the truth, I'm a bit upset that so many people have such a closed mind. Of corse this is photography. Just as long as at some time durning the process Mr. Frangenberg exposed some light sensitive material to some light, be it film, paper, or CCD. There is very little that can be done in Photoshop that can't be done in the darkroom. It might take longer, but it can be done. Take for example the work of Jerry Uelsmann. Even he is now working in Photoshop. Saves him lost of time. I don't think we should be fighting over this issue when most of the "art world" is still debating if photography is art. Photography is art and thats my final word.

James Kellar said it all with a direct insight into not only todays visions,but what we have coming to us all in the future of Photography!

Ummm... as Mark Hobson said, the humans all seem to have been artificially created with Poser. So the only real thing left is... the tree. NOW is it a photograph?

 

Don't get me wrong, it's interesting artistically and I respect mixed media and all that. But shouldn't there be a certain minimum level of photographic content in an image for it to be called a photograph?

 

Basically, if you stick the Mona Lisa on your bonnet, your car may look better, but it's still a car, not a painting.

Great photo, sure the future of photography...

One of the most sensitive pictures on photonet I've ever seen. The tree of life, humanity itself.

Art is constantly evolving. The first artists scratched or painted their images on cave walls. Later came the use of pigments in oils and clays. Still later came B&W photos and then color photos. Now we have digital. Paintings are made from photos and paintings are used as compositional components in photos. Digital just continues this process. If Ansel Adams - the greatmanipulator of images - were alive today I would be surprised if he didn't use the digital darkroom also. Myself, I don't use digital imaging hardly at all. Mainly just to scan and archive certain images. I prefer film.

 

All that said, I find this image interesting and thoughtfully prepared. Very nice.

You inspire me to dig deeper, reach further, aim higher, and well...I need to go take pictures!

Hah!! Fooled you all, you thought I was going to say something about the pic being out of focus...Well what I wanted to say was, I have looked at this picture several times over the past couple of years or so, and this was the first time I have noticed the baby, amazing what a focus point of the intertwined couple will do to some peoples perspective, and also how the same work can have something new to offer each time you look at it...This is an amazing piece of work, congrats on a fine job, I hope you have this hanging somewhere so that people can sit and stare in wonder like I have...

of course it is photography! and even if it wasn't, for you, to say that this picture doesn't belong to this site seems to be some kind of jealousy.great work, great art, great PHOTO!

wonderfull!!!

WOW! WOW! the best digital art I've seen in a long time.

Everything that is taken by a camera is a photograph. Editing the photograph so as to achieve art appeal is art. Photography itself is art, for those who said that this is not photography you are pathetically wrong. This one is both art and photograph. Great work! Keep posting photos as great as this.

Photo or not, this is a cool image. Looks like it was created with a lot of heart and work. Beautifully done.