Liquid Air

I'm not even sure if anyone will take the time to read this, but here it is anyway. I'm a high-schooler, who learnt photography from his dad. I hope to become a better photographer when I become older, and I've even considered submitting some of my photos to this site. But, because of these comments and others like them, I fear that my photos will be ripped apart, and therefore I will not submit them. Most of the time I avoid POW reviews, and POW photos, for they are laden with unseemly comments. Frankly the terms used to express some of your views have sent me running to the dictionary. I feel insulted that I have to struggle to understand your points, and skim your essays to delve into their real meaning, and theme. After reading some of the comments listed above, I fear my coming adulthood, lest it closely resemble yours.'

The fact that you can see a problem here at your young age is to your credit.

Just remember, there are something like 100,000 members at Photo.net. Only a frustrated few feel the need to pound away at their computers trying to prove how smart they are and that their opinions matter. Most come to learn, share, view others images, etc., pretty much the same reasons you do. Most of them I would guess have interesting lives. I'm sure you will too. If you ask detailed questions I think you'll find many people eager to help. Have fun.

 

Food for thought:

"Chaff and grain together, keep that which is worth keeping,

and with a breath of kindness,

blow the rest away"

WOW! What a burst of flavor! But alas, the flavor disappears quickly and leaves little behind.

Please see my intial comment. I am sorry to you and Vuk. I've changed my words trying to be more specific as to my opinions. Once more, apologies.

You should probably work on your skills in conceiving images and then capturing them. I looked at your portfolio...I fell asleep.

 

As for this POW, well I think it's great to experiment with the abstractness of the mundane! Push the envelope in your own way!

 

 

Samuel,

 

I get what your driving at, though not your reference to prostitution. I don't find the world boring. In fact, I find it more exciting now than ever before.

 

I think an artist improves by finding ways to more effectively express themselves. I'm not trying to fit my work to a set of rules set down by anyone else; I'm trying to say something; and, like a new writer, I have trouble finding the "words". When we start out, we take snapshots. It is hard to read intent in a snapshot, but I'm not going to call it bad art. I thought Eggleston's work was just snapshots until I studied them for a bit. I personally see something more there. I actually get a kick out of his work. I often hear it said that an particular artist's work has matured at a certain point. This seems to be when her or his vision started to become more coherent, more readily apparent to the viewer. I think you can say a particular artists improves over time, but how can you compare one to another? I understand Ghirri better than I understand Atget, so I would consider Ghirri the better artist, but I'm sure there are others that see the opposite. So who is right? Who then is the better artist? Is Ansel Adams better than Alfred Newman? Can you even compare the two? Only if you have a rule-set. Who's rules do we use? Yours? Mine?

 

Here's an example of how this works for me. A year ago I would have rated the picture at the top of this page with high marks. It has slash and impact. It would have really appealed to me. Right now, however, I am not too interested in it. Right now I only see the splash and impact, and having gotten the taste of something else, I want more. It holds my attention for 10 seconds at most. But I also know that I used to *hate* Picasso's work. I thought it was worse than even kindergarten art. It is something much more to me now, so I know that perhaps a year from now, I will see something more in this picture, something that escaped me now in my vision's "youth". Perhaps I will enjoy it even more than I would have a year ago. Perhaps not. If an artist creates something with the intent that the masses understand it, and they don't, then it is the artist's failure. If, however, the artist creates something as an expression of themself and simply puts it out there for others to view, then, I think, the onus to "get it" lies upon the viewer. The strange thing is, I'm finding that people are more interested in my work as I lean more towards the latter. I'm certainly more pleased with it.

 

I found the movie "Seven" to be disturbing, disgusting, and I pretty much regretted seeing it after I walked out of the theatre. I did not enjoy the movie. I did, however, recognize the fact that it was a great movie. The acting, the production, was impeccable. Most importantly, I got the author's message. I got it in spades. It was a success in every sense of the word. It was not intended for me to enjoy the way a nice hot pizza is meant to be enjoyed. The intent was for me to feel something.

Just a short note and clarification. The fiasco that occured at the top of the ratings ladder was indeed suspect, downright uncouth..and taken care of. It may have mistakenly pointed a rude finger at a great photographer and a friend of mine. I have met Mr. Dummet and like his approach to photography and life considerably. I don't think for a moment that the "Manipulations" of ratings were the work of anyone other than a ill meaning "Fan", "Fiend" or "Interloper".

Lets let this pass and see that reputations remain intact and fingers stop pointing. It dosent matter who the "Group" likes or dislikes. It was simply a matter of very blatant ratings abuse.

 

Onward fellow shutterists

 

db

You should probably work on your skills in conceiving images and then capturing them. I looked at your portfolio...I fell asleep.

Poor guy. Be careful not to roll over on your intellect! :)

superior "intellect". Hahaha...really I do get some amusement from your narrow-minded rantings. As I'm sure most people who waste their time reading your comments do as well. Your photos are really devoid of any interest I'm afraid to say. By the way I did roll over on an intellect...yours (poor little bugger)! ; )

 

 

I would like to expand on my original comment since things have developed at a rapid pace here. I like this image because it shows a novel view of a mundane object, and I find that refreshing. On this point I am judging the image for the score of aesthetics, and it is measured by the impact it had on my viewing. With regards to technicality/originality I scored it higher because of the thought given to angle, composition, detail and exposure (and we have later heard Seven had put considerable thought into the lighting too), and what I consider to be the resulting success of an abstract. Abstracts may not be to everybody's taste, but they do require skill and are not purely a case of shooting any old thing on macro mode. Composition is critical and highly controlled for geometric and/or colour relationships. Abstract, artistic, or purely visual approaches to photography are just different to the traditional *telling us something about the world* photography, it is not better or worse, just different. I therefore stand by my rating as just and fair, and it was not given as a flippant 'oh wow' because I am inexperienced or ignorant. Take note Tris, I am a 'mature' member of this site. I am experienced with film both in the cam and the darkroom. I am familiar with such things as the dynamic range of contrast (big deal), and I have at least a little intellect. I have a Bachelor of Science, aswell as currently studying for a Bachelor of Arts (which incidentally is relevant to the appeal of this image for me, a mix of science and art). Let me say also, that using thousands of big words to make just a few points, does not constitute intellect in my book. Your lengthy contributions to this discussion have not enlightened me about photography. All those words simply say more about your own personality than the actual POW image itself, or any member you have desperately tried to belittle.

 

Re: rating trickster. Please can members stop leaving cryptic comments when the rest of us have no idea what the hell is going on. Email privately or just make it plain and clear for us all to understand. Thanks.

 

To Bloq - I can only reiterate what David P. Gavin has already said. The POW page is perhaps not the most favourable point of entry, but certainly the intellectual intimidators are in the minority, it is just that they like to gather here, possibly as the only source of significant exposure they are likely to get - oh and welcome!

an advice very much followed by some guys makin´good money out there in the show biz.

 

now art, very much like pornography, remains a hot subject of debate. The common feature is that they are both hard to define, while the difference is, i think, that it´s harder to know art when you see it.

 

Sometimes i dare to ask myself, how did art start it´s journey around here anyway? Why did humans decide to use such a complicated way of expression when they could just elaborate verbal communication? Beauty? I don´t think so. Then what? Some naivs, one of which i would like to be, would say art is a mean to express the unexpressable, forgive my comon-placy barbarism.

 

Maybe many of you might know the guys who always hang around other guys who play chess: "Take the horse, take the horse!" is usually the main sound they produce. This guys have passed for ages the borders of chess. They´re everywhere.

Especially where art is an issue. Fact is that more people debate about it than produce it.

And that is freaking good. Because it develops into the potential artist certain instincts which if i was to post this in a more private forum i would call shit-detectors. And that makes, as many fellows above have pointed out, art evoluate. It makes it´s critera change before some smart-ass comes out with an universal receipt or, God forbid, definition.

 

what is, yet, very annoying is the huge spreading of dudes which I would call "artistic Nazis".

Let me enumerate you some of the main characteristic of such a nazi:

 

1. His artistic genre is, of course, the best;

2. Other artistic genres are not only inferior, but they should be with no delay exterminated, along with those sub-artist mates who have the shameless habit of promoting them;

3. Always serious in his discourse (the idiology is a serios matter, no place for triviality)

4. not only that he has a right to judge, but he has the obligation to do so;

5. judgement is not only based on subject of judgement itself (e.g, a photo) but also on irrelevant facts (e.g,i know this photographer is a very bad driver and his wife is way youger than him, too), which turn out in frightening, terrible sins.

6. his weltanschaung is very narrow and he´s very proud of it.

7. his leading priniple: what i don´t know doesn´t exist;

 

In such occasions i generally use the alegory formulated some 1700 years ago by a very famous guy who was tracking his roots back in Hippo, Africa, and who was apparently quite a smart guy: He adviced the ascets of his times to put a drop of animal fat in their feast food, so that it will not happen that they wake up one day thinking that they are so pure that their place is among saints, not humans.

 

take care,

 

ic

 

PS: yes, i know, my photos are quite bad but i´m learning, my friends, i´m learning

Take note Tris, I am a 'mature' member of this site.

If you were mature, Geraldine, you would not have addressed this in public--or private, as far as that goes.

I am experienced with film both in the cam and the darkroom. I am familiar with such things as the dynamic range of contrast (big deal)....

What? Your contention is that now it's not?

...and I most definitely have an intellect. I already have a Batchelor of Science to prove it...

This is lovely. Mr. Allen has a master's (or whatever its equivalent might be where he studies) and is going for a doctorate, and you have a BS with a BA in the works to "prove" you both have . . . intellects?

Since you cannot understand how ridiculous these comments are I'll just let it alone. But really, this is only a hair's breadth short of pathetic.

...as well as currently studying for a Batchelor of Arts (which incidentally is relevant to the appeal of this image for me, as a good mix of science and art).

Well, it's just a shame that while you were acquiring your BS and enrolling and being accepted for a BA curriculum you and your mentors didn't demand a bit more attention paid to one of the "finer arts," otherwise known as English usage. For I don't follow that at all.

Let me say also, that using thousands of big words to make just a few points, does not constitute intellect in my book.

I wasn't aware I'd used any "big words" to date, though if they seem like "big words" to you I suppose I might understand at that, all things considered.

Your lengthy contributions to this discussion have not enlightened me one iota about photography.

Well then try to wrap your mind around this: a good suggestion for any artist is to keep an open mind while he focuses on his work.

I have no problem with Seven's vision, as far as that goes--call it a macro approach to the commonalities of life around us--and even if I did I wouldn't presume to bother him with it. I do think he would likely learn more about life if he chose to study an old man's face once in awhile rather than a hollow glass orb filled with oil, but then maybe that just marks me as an oldtimer. No matter, I think I have an open mind about these things and I tried to grade his work according to my lights.

Here is what I do not have: what I do not have is any interest whatsoever in the political intercourse conducted by some on this server, to include you if you're interested, Geraldine. I find it a waste of time.

All those words simply say more about your own personality than the actual POW image itself, or any member you have desperately tried to belittle.

Let me get this straight. You suggest that I have tried to belittle someone?

Listen, that's such a load of low-quality manure I can barely articulate a response. But here goes:

It is not I who constantly dresses down one individual after another for stating their opinions in this forum, though I certainly will respond appropriately and in like measure to anyone who approaches me in that vein. It is not I who continually strives to turn this forum into a discussion of personalities rather than art critique. It is not I who approaches members of this site in public and out of the blue with disparaging comments about their work. It is not I who connives for better grades on a trade-for-trade basis--as several of this site's users have lately informed me via email to be common practice, presumably with an eye to soaring into the hallowed upper regions of the Photonet chart.

And so on ad nauseam.

This is the third POW I've bothered to comment on. The first one was that dubious staged effort from a pretty good shooter in his own right called Jim Hancock. As it came at the very end of that thread it seems to have passed unnoticed, and to judge from what I've witnessed since that's probably a good thing.

My second comment was two POW's ago and merely wished to note that the entry happened to be about 125% rich in the department of saturation. That simple (and to my mind obvious) observation somehow ignited a spate of emotional replies which did not primarily or even incidentally wish to argue the merits of art but rather to engage solely in personal attacks.

And now here we are at it again.

This week I made my entry to scold someone for outright attacking another member who dared to enter a critical remark about this week's selection, and followed that up in the same post with my own plain assessment of this week's POW, to wit, that I didn't find it be all that exceptional. I gave it a 5-5 grade to reflect this general lack of enthusiasm on my part and I was content to leave it there.

And what have I received for this trouble? I have received the same sort of attention which you would treat me to here and now: personal attacks.

Do you see a pattern? I certainly do, and it is not a pattern of happiness, it is not a pattern of togetherness, it is not a pattern of this forum striving productively to conduct itself in the business of art critique.

Geraldine, you have gone out of your way to distract any possible attention away from a discussion of art and instead have chosen to make snide remarks about me. Then you quite typically have tried to turn the table and insinuate that it is I who would "disrupt" this forum's true purpose.

Beautiful.

Well, not to worry. Of the many members of this server only a few bother to post here. There's one fact for you. Here's another: in the main POW's are essentially ignored by this server's membership, so how relevant could they be in the larger scheme of all things art?

And I would pose this question as well, not so much to you, Geraldine, as I doubt you care, but to all those out there who I know to be lurking (as they always do) in whatever hesitation they have to participate:

Why don't you participate? How is that photos on this server can be viewed literally thousands of times and yet garner only a handful of grades? Why is it that comments on photographs will run at a rate of only one or two per cent of the total grades themselves?

I don't pretend to know the answer. I would like to find out.

My judgment is that this server is not likely to go as far as it might have until it resolves this issue, manages to somehow incorporate more respresentative user involvement and opinion into its operation.

Back to you, Geraldine: will you please stay away from me? My view is that you and others of your ilk are like poison, and in any event life is just too short.

Sorry I don't have time to respond Tris, I've got a life to live.

I just looked at your portfolio, Iurlian, and found some stuff in there of definite interest.

For example, Ivana is a worthy piece, and smoke it away might well have been only you didn't get a good frame. (By that I mean that sort of work benefits from a motor drive--it's imposible to say what an expression will come out as when eveything's on the move--at 5 fps or whatever a photographer increases his chances of getting a useful image.)

I think grotesque is okay though somewhat underexposed for the man in the wheel chair, which might be corrected in software, 20650 is all right, the horse whisperer strikes my fancy, and with self-portrait you betray a certain good sense for composition as well as a sense of humor. Same same for 206511.

All in all your technical expertise is lacking, but that's the easy part of the equation. The critical qualities are interest and eye, and you seem to enjoy both.

Listen: you apparently want to work in the street just now so don't worry about "quality" and just go get images to work with. As many as possible. When you work in the street it's a whole different ball game, something many don't appreciate, but don't worry about that. In the street you get what you can and learn to live with it. The images which result from this experience are every bit as worthwhile photographically as what the man who waits patiently in some lush meadow with his trusty tripod will come away with. Trust in that and pay close attention to the light around you and you'll do fine.

It would help (as someone else noted in a comment to one of your pictures) if you provided more comprehensive technical notes, perhaps even a rationale for a given shot. That, or you might go into the section of this server where you can present specific pictures for critical comment.

Or just find someone whose work you find of interest and strike up a conversation with him via email.

How long have you been taking pictures? Have you read any books on the subject? Where do you want to go with your photography?

Your name interests me. Is that Italian, or possibly Rumanian?

As it turns, out, Morwen, I have three and you're absolutely spot on: it cuts no ice whatsoever. Everything must be considered on a case-by-case basis. That's just the way life works out.

 

Ain't it a shame?

 

 

 

Morwen, I was not jumping in to defend the photographer, I was defending myself both as a digital photographer, and a viewer that rated this post highly, both of which Tris made sweeping generalisations and inaccurate assumptions about. The degree info was not intended to cut any ice with anybody but Tris, since he is so reverently the master of intellect. Incidentally I think Tris is also more than capable of defending himself. Overly defensive in my opinion. If he is going to make such sweeping generalisations and patronising comments you would think he might expect some reaction.

See that almost noone talks about the photo and the photographer does't defend himself or the photo, I appriciate him. The POW section becomes a show scene of ugly/nonsense comments of a few members. I think Seven is patient enough, I'd close/delete this photo a few days ago if it was mine. Thanks photo.net, we've learned a lot about photography or whatever.

Here it is late on a Friday afternoon, and believe it or not, I have read most of what has been posted before me. First things first though... Seven, interesting photograph and interesting portfolios. They don't happen to be to my taste, but to each his or her own. Since a large portion of your work also happens to feature macro images, I can't really offer anything from a technical perspective as I've not experimented with this branch of photography to date.

 

Now unfortunately, to the issue of this thread. I have resisted temptation on many an occasion to jump into the fray, but I knew it would serve no useful purpose. People, please read Mr. Thistlewaite's comment above - he succinctly (IMO at least) sums up what a great many of us are feeling I'm sure. Even Tris could only reply with a mere four sentences by my count (and for crying out loud Tris, I'm joking, so please don't write a novel in reply). The bottom line is that I appreciate lengthy comments if they are to the point... and well, I don't if their not. Tris makes many points that have merit, as do many other contributors to this and other POW (or non-POW) threads. But *everybody*, let's cut out the personal nonsense. For an example of someone who seems to - most of the time anyway, a notable exchange with Tony Dummett notwithstanding - have perfected the technique of an objective critique, I would suggest that photonetters look to the comments of Michael Spinak. He gives his opinion. It is not laden with smiley faces or other such punctuation, but it is direct and to the point - good or bad.

 

So, for next week, can we please eliminate the personal attacks? I'm sure it would be appreciated by a great many of us.

Having been on the receiving end of many a Spinaking I can attest to the fact that Mike is fair, but firm and a fine human being into the bargain. And he makes real photographs as well. He doesn't always have something nice to say about a photo (because not all of them ARE nice) but he says what he thinks anyway. In short he speaks truthfully and with honorable intentions. To be Spinaked is sometimes painful, but it is never maliciously administered.

Maybe the elves should adopt a "one comment per member" policy for POW. This sort of bickering is a total embarrassment for all concerned and especially the photographer that has the misfortune of being picked as POW

Yes Nick. I stand corrected and apologise to all for getting personal, to Seven especially. His restraint is admirable and that itself is lesson from this POW I shall take away with me.

Craig: that's a capitally bad idea. Please take the time to reflect on these and similar thoughts before you go public with them.

Nick: anyone who's paid attention would realize that my posts tend to follow the lead of those which came before. I welcome diversity of thought; I condemn censorship in all its noxious forms; I will not stand idly by while people practice the latter's insidious methods and means.

In regard to personal attack and the acrimonious air this always leaves in its wake . . . well, this strikes me as pretty simple stuff and one might suppose the solution would be obvious. It always seems to work out, though, that the people who start this nonsense squeal the loudest at end of day. I've been online so long I can't tell you and that has never changed--probably never shall, though we live in hope.

Overall I'd have to say this thread's been somewhat of a success, and as far as that goes reflects more favorably on Seven's work than I might have given credit for at first glance. I don't find its charms any more endaring to my artitistic soul, but neither can it be denied that this thread represents the longest collective effort of this forum to date (of those which are shown at least--I wasn't around five years ago), and while more does not necessarily equate into better, I think it's fair to say that given the (regretable) seeming lack of wide interest shown in POW's (to judge from the short discussions) then almost any increase in traffic would almost by definition represent a kind of step (misstep?) in the right direction. No one ever said that discussion of art was meant to be or needed to be or even possibly could be . . . harmonious. But no discussion at all surely leads nowhere in the end.

As Photos go, this is one of those that typically hangs in some of the larger corporate offices.

 

Admittedly, there is a grossly large bobby-pin in a prominent place in Philadelphia near City Hall that to me seems more of an eye sore than a demonstration of fine art but someone either found it pleasing or contributed significant funds to a political campaign so there it is. This 'Liquid Air' image caught my immediate attention and I perused it for some time. I might suggest that the bubbles be tainted with light oils to add to the rainbow reflectiveness but creative genious is the call for this POW in my opinion.

 

I do see flaws in subtle patterns within the confines of the yellows but to make the claim that they detract from the impact, at least for me is to say I didn't notice them... that would be a lie. They made me wonder and explore in even more detail.

 

To me, that is the strength of this photograph... that it DOES draw attention to itself from so many people in so many ways. Some are awed at the complexity of it while others see it's simplicities... a virtual Yin Yang of counter balances that tug at our imaginations.

 

I don't know your work but I have been reading the pros (99% of the comments are praise) and cons some with support for their opinions and some with simple distain for life as a whole it would seem to me from my vantage point but I embrace this vibrant and capacious debate for what it represents... emotional response to this weeks' talent.

 

I love it and that's all I have to say... congratulations on a well deserved reward and the deserved recognition for your obvious abilities to create diversity and conflict from simplistic design.

This week's Pic is colorful and interesting. I don't think Seven could have known that it would be chosen as POW. No one had to pay to see it.

Tris, you need to find an outlet for your verbosity. This is just a photo critique forum. You've managed to bait a few of the regulars, but I would guess there are thousands of anonymous visitors who are reading your posts and feeling sorry for you. This is an emotional place, and words are probably the least efficient medium of communication here. Your tedious manner of analysing and refuting everyone's comments is serving no purpose.

Hey Seven, cool image. WOW, here it is, Sunday morning and 159 comments (a large portion of it, like your image; hot air, and the rest is water under the bridge)!

 

My Likes and Dislikes;

 

I like the bright colors, bubbles, and fluidity of the image.

 

Our implied knowledge of air and water gives this image a unique sense of motion or suspended animation.

 

It has strong texture qualities, powerful colors, and a sense of being translucent.

 

I dont like the corn. It neither contrasts nor compliments the rest of the image and therefore I find it to be an unnecessary distraction, all be it an interesting one. It is like that game; one of these things doesnt fit; water, air bubbles, and ..corn.

 

Most importantly I find that it lacks a point of interest. It would make a great background for something but as a stand-alone image I think it needs a focal point. I have tried to think of something to suggest but I just cant. Maybe you can think of something that will compliment or contrast this background, something original, not another object falling into the water cliché please.