Liquid Air

I disagree with the commenter that said Ken M.'s work is not good. I see some good shots and some great potential in his architecture folder. He just seems to be a low rater type. Considering that his AVERAGE rate for asthetics is 3.4 and his AVERAGE rate for originality is 3 or so out of 100 or so ratings... A 5 is a good grade coming from him.

Well exexuted and great on originality

Interesting. Good colors and I like the "micro-landscape" sort of effect.

 

Perhaps the low number of rating comes from this sort of shot interesting the scientist more than the artist?

Disparity? yep, most people who view don't take the time to register.

great work 7. pricks the imagination, testament that there's more to a photo than what you see. i'd gladly hang it on my wall for a goodly time - but wait, it is a photo of the WEEK. right?

Cool shot Steven! I sort of wish you hadn't revealed what the subject was, I think it's much more effective left to the imagination. But on the other hand, this shows that you can come up with a great shot using what's right in front of you. Congrats!

Great Job Seven, just stunning!!!!

Congratulations on the POW, Seven, it's a fine photo that thoroughly deserves the accolade.

Buddy, I am impressed with the new POW. I am not saying that I did not like the others but at least this one is in my taste of photography. You might have been using photo.net as a family album with tons of photos. Altough I do not like so much digital photography, this shot seems to have nothing to do with analogue. How many of us did not wonder how this one was made or looked at it twice? I say, this is different, this is creative, this one looks nice. Congratulations 7 !

I do like this picture, probably because I have long been attracted to macro photography. In fact I am not surprised to see that it was a Nikon digital camera because they seem to have by far the best macro capabilities of the current crop of consumer level digital camera's.

 

On the comments or one in specific, Tris stated "Bottom line remains: how long would a photo such as this likely reside on someone's wall?" Being a total amatuer photographer I am somewhat puzzled by this statement as a critique of a photo. I have loved a great many photos that I would never consider hanging on my wall. That in fact would probably not be at home on many peoples walls so does that mean that they are not good photography. The first photo that comes to my mind is the Vietnam photo of the naked child running from the destruction of her village. I understand that many people find this to be a powerful and dramatic photo but I doubt many would want it on their wall.

 

So is it possible that photography can have other purposes and still be valid. This photo to me is much like a painting. And though I probably wouldn't want it on my wall I still think it is beautiful and creative and worthy of the time to capture it and worthy of the time that I spent looking at it and enjoying it.

I hate to see people get bashed for expressing their opinions on photographs. What would be the use of the rating system and comments if someone was not given a forum to express their negative view of an image? And andry Sander - just because YOU don't like one photographer's work, does that discount their view? I think you need to grow up and accept photo.net as a *forum* for anyone to display their work and view other's work.

Personally, I really don't like this image and do not find it worthy of POW. Does that mean that seven's work is bad? No, I think some of seven's other work is extremely good and worthy of POW. I just dislike *this* image just like I'm sure some people dislike some of my images and some of andry's too. Let's let everyone participate in these discussions - those who praise and those who don't.

That's a fair assessment in general, Gary, and as far as it goes I've no argument. Yet I still don't see how my statement is something curious. Its context is wrapped in my effort to find a rationale for this image, and as I cannot see a lot of interest in the photograph with respect to my long-term viewing I thought it appropriate to pose this question. Indeed, as these things go I'd say that's a fairly intelligent test to put to the piece. Also, it isn't stated or implied that the image must be perfectly suited for your living room now; it is a mere hypothetical query, offered as a method to determine simply whether or not "it's for you."

Is that clearer?

David: I agree with your take insofar as it's impossible to say how a much larger print of this picture (or another) might affect people hung in a different environment, say, a vestibule or kitchen. It could be it's suited for something similar, though even so in that case I would turn more readily to this photographer's "Slinky" image for my decorating solution, as the latter photograph holds my interest more surely.

Seven.

 

I've been following your work and there is much that I like (as my past comments indicate), but what on earth compelled you to bother with this? Yes it's very clever to see something in the trivial objects in front of you which completely transcends reality, but when that something is, in the end, the rough equivalent of what you'd find on the cover of a cheap sci-fi/fantasy novel...

 

I also agree this should be judged in terms of hanging on one's wall, because it is fundamentally painterly, abstract and decorative. I imagine it would be very popular on the walls of 1980s teenagers with mullet haircuts and IROC dreams--teenagers who have apparently grown up to be elves. I also imagine other fans would have quite a different reaction if someone *painted* a picture that looked exactly like this. Shiny, sparkly, plastic things are generally the domain of kitsch and most of us have little difficulty spotting that in other art forms, yet somehow when you get a photo of it (like water drops and crystal decanters), all taste goes out the window.

As Maurice already said.. Brace yourself and my advice is to take the UNconstructive negative borderline nasty comments with a grain of salt and also in some cases... consider the source then dismiss with a shrug.

That's intelligent, Mary. Anything the least bit critical . . . just ignore that input out of hand. Wise counsel for the aspiring artist, always, I must say.

It is clear to me that some people have a narrow view of good photography....some people have a "type" of photography they like and none else will do... Some actually surprisingly have no taste at all..or at least a very odd eye which I personally can't relate to. (Maybe unfair to say "no taste" -- just DIFFERENT.) Some people appreciate a visually exciting shot especially one that is very original. Others will actually have some well said and HELPFUL "constructive" pointers that can be applied in future work...

It is "clear to me" that tastes run all over the place and that "color" will win out every time with the masses. Fuji's sales of Velvia are ample testament to that.

But let's have some fun with this and do some quick math here regarding grades for this latest nominee for the Smithsonian Institute.

As I write this I count ten 10-10 marks, four 10-9's and nine 9-9's. I won't bother to add up the slough of 9-8's and whatnot--these relatively niggardly marks no doubt meant to convey to the artist that with just a little more thought or sweat in Photoshop then these critics, too, would not be dismayed to see this image hung in our nation's premier gallery.

Like I said, tastes are all over the place and color rullllllllllllz! Fantastic stuff all around.

I find Tris Schuler to be mentally color blind.

May I ask why? I enjoy colors as much as anyone as far as I know. But color is one thing, a good photograph something else, and the two are not necessarily the same. Surely that must be clear even to you.

Constructive criticism isnt appropriate. Start again, this time with a subject.

 

Brite colorz, though. (Apologies to Scott Eaton, who for all I know may like this.)

I really like this shot for particularly the reasons Ken Michelson didn't. When I look through Seven's portfolios, I see a lot of pictures that are fairly mundane, being macros of mundane things that don't really make me think there was a particualr benefit of them being macros. Some of the more conventional shots seem to suffer somewhat because of the attention given to getting up close by having way-too-tight cropping.

 

This picture on the other hand, is aesthetically pleasing and intriguing to me. The lighting and exposure are dead on and the perspective adds depth and interest. You're using macro to one of its greatest strengths, making the mundane appear abstract and interesting. Sort of like those kids drawings where they draw a tiny portion of an object and you have to figure out what it is. This could be a great market for your style of pictures, having this image on a page and then a kid has to guess what it is then open the flap to see the complete paperweight. I'd buy it, but do it quick as my youngest is almost out of the age for those types of books.

 

I would hang this on my wall if I knew it wouldn't look pixelated at 24 X 36 or larger, but I agree with Gary that whether or not it would go on my wall makes no difference in the worth of the picture.

Tris, I don't understand why you have to be offensive in your discussion, you admitted that you wouldn't give this picture more than a cursory examination, which your discussion proves, yet you accuse others of not expending enough energy to thoughtfully analyze this piece. In fact, by boiling it down to whether or not you'd put it on your wall (and implying that only someone brainwashed by vapid television programming would) is probably as simplistic an analysis as there is, sort of like saying "I don't know art, but I know what I like, and I don't like that". That's fine if you don't really care about what you're looking at, or about taking the time to understand and articulate what it is you do or don't like about it. I would recommend that you stop trying to prove your point that the rest of us are ignorant buffoons who just aren't trying as hard as you, and get on with enjoying the pictures and the comments. If we are truly buffoons, we'll do just fine proving that ourselves, and those who aren't will have no trouble spotting the rest of us who are without you pointing it out.

OK, maybe I should elaborate. Before I opened it, I knew for certain this was taken with a digital P&S. Photonet is awash with such images, the majority of them essentially similar. I am more and more coming to believe a new aesthetic is emerging amongst these experimental photographers. Their work is typified by the following, in my view: lack of a subject per se; wacky colours; sometimes unrecognisable forms; extreme macro perspective; lack of overriding theme in a body of work, cold lifelessness and emptiness of emotion. The photographers are characterized by: possessing an experimental attitude towards photography, to the detriment of knowledge and technique; lack of inhibition towards the topic of creating pictures on a computer after the event; no compunctions about cropping, adding, flipping, or generally manipulating, most often without mention of the fact, and, to their credit, patience.

 

If art has tiers of inviolability, this is scraping the floor.

Tris, I don't understand why you have to be offensive in your discussion...

I don't understand what you find "offensive" in the first place.

...you admitted that you wouldn't give this picture more than a cursory examination, which your discussion proves, yet you accuse others of not expending enough energy to thoughtfully analyze this piece.

In the main have they? In the main does much critical discussion of any kind take place under not only the POW's but any of the work on this server?

In fact, by boiling it down to whether or not you'd put it on your wall (and implying that only someone brainwashed by vapid television programming would) is probably as simplistic an analysis as there is, sort of like saying "I don't know art, but I know what I like, and I don't like that". That's fine if you don't really care about what you're looking at, or about taking the time to understand and articulate what it is you do or don't like about it.

Take time to articulate what? This guy latches onto a magic box, shoves its snoot to within a few inches of a paperweight, captures an image of random forms and colors and right away that's . . . good photography?

Well maybe it is at that. Apparently it represents just that to you. It is not good photography to me.

Now what could be more fair?

I would recommend that you stop trying to prove your point that the rest of us are ignorant buffoons who just aren't trying as hard as you, and get on with enjoying the pictures and the comments. If we are truly buffoons, we'll do just fine proving that ourselves...

I'll say!

...and those who aren't will have no trouble spotting the rest of us who are without you pointing it out.

Look. My position is this simple: anyone who would rate this image a 10-10 or close to that level of perfection hasn't a clue. If you feel that is offensive (and you do) then tough toenails, if that somehow implies (in your mind) that I happen to consider a lot of the opinions (if you can call them that--with remarks like "It doesn't get any better than this!" to illustrate the collective "thinking process" around here) then double tough toenails, because yes, though I wouldn't go out of my way to employ such terms it's also true that I find that sort of thought expression to be on the bufoonish side.

As for network television: if you can't see how that remark strikes home then you're 1) just not trying, 2) engaged in deep denial, or 3) one of those who sits in front of his TV regularly digesting the slop I refer to. Either way that's on you, not me.

Finally, you should have no substantial complaint with me. I mean it's not as if I roll in here out of nowhere, slam one of these POW "masterpieces" for no reason, and then just disappear. I stick around and answer whatever discussion might then ensue.

Now go think about that, and if you can figure it out get back to me.

This image is definitely creative, so it gets high marks from me for originality. In fact, most of Seven's folders are incredibly imaginative, atypical photos. Really a breath of fresh air.

 

However, although I don't necessarily have to be "moved" by an image in order to appreciate it, I just fail to see what would make this photograph a "10/10". I wish that those individuals who rated this image so highly were required to inform the rest of us WHY they did so (other than "it's pretty" or "I like the colors.") True, sometimes that's all it takes for someone to love an image, but shouldn't a "10/10" require a little more? Just wondering . . .

 

-Marilyn

 

Pretty colors.

I am to explain my A10 Marilyn? Because the originality score is just not enough to reward this outstanding talent. This pic is beautiful IMHO.

My complaint with Vuk's blanket statement "yet somehow when you get it....all tastes go out the window." I think that was hard in the sense Seven can't answer that.

I would hang this - and quite a few of his others too. Seven did not choose POW, just remember that.

 

But I fell into a similar trap and was even more personal than Vuk. I deeply regret my earlier insensitive accusation towards him. Forgive me.

Tris.... you crack me up and provide wonderful entertainment!!!! I just love how you break each and every comment that you feel is an attack on your sensibility and explain it to us all.... Like I said.. great entertainment.

Seven,

 

First I must say that this works as I would have guessed you would have intended. It stops the viewer dead in his tracks with an image a'splash with color and unusual context. What drew you to this fianl result?

I don't know about 10's yet because I think you have just started in on your own uncharted territory....your on to something. I think the "Ten" will be seen down the road. As for Samuel's regard to experiment, Lest we not forget that this medium, unlike painting or music, did indeed emerge as a science. While the look of film is hard for me to let go of, the prospect of having the cost of "Experimentation" almost eliminated is a wonderful one.

 

Of COURSE artists are going to try really wacky things if they are not spending $15-20 bucks a roll on film and proccessing.

 

While I think that this image works to arrest the viewers attention well and is indeed beautiful, I think your vision, what drives you will bring out picutures with more insight. I am still trying to find what drives me....and I make a living doing this picture thing!!!!

 

Keep this up!! I like it!! For what it's worth, I am traveling for a year.....my computer screen is my wall, consider it hung up:-)

is your jealousy above motivated by alcohol or simply plain unresolved envy-- Marco Carbone

Marco.

I have explained my reasons for rating the photo the way I did, yet you've done little more than attack my character with your posting. Seven and I have exchanged several comments on Photonet and I consider him a friend here. I like several of his pictures, but not this one and I'm giving him a good ribbing about it. There is no envy or malice in it and I would expect the same in return. I really think Tris has a serious point here about the way some of you react to criticism.

......Welcome to POW. If you havent already noticed, it's like your birthday party gone awry.

Friends are invited over for the celebration and they have fun singing your praises.........and then proceed to have a brawl of views and intellect on your dining room table!!!!

 

Anyone who is not on Photo.net, amatuer, pro, or otherwise, is TRULY missing out!!!

 

It's the "Jerry Springer show" of photography forums!!!:-)