Insularity

I think this photo works well.

 

Although it is not unheard of for photographers to give their photographs meaningless or

fatuous captions, it seems reasonable to me that an interpretation of an image should at

least start by assuming that it is given a particular title for a reason. The title of this photo

- commented on by some but not very many above - is 'Insularity'. That might mean here

remoteness, aloofness, isolation. With that in mind, I don't find the body posture and the

facial expression of the woman inconsistent. Both seem apt to suggest a protective

turning away (from whatever/whoever the woman is looking at just to the left of camera,

or perhaps from the world generally). She looks, to me, cautious or distrustful rather than

coy or overly fearful. She looks like she is hiding her true self - keeping her cards close to

her chest, so to speak.

 

The object/cabinet the woman is leaning against mirrors that interpretation - it is closed

and locked. The keyhole assists with that symbolism and that is probably one of the

reasons why Oleg didn't just 'clone it out'. It looks like attempts have been made to get

into the cabinet - the top corner of the metal is bent and scarred - and yet it remains

intact. Closed and unmoved, like the woman perhaps. The various suggested crops

maybe miss the intended point. Why can't this photo have two subjects - the woman and

the cabinet - together driving at the same idea?

 

As for the moles and the crooked fingers etc, this isn't an advertisement for hand cream or

the flawless body beautiful. For me, a bit of awkwardness and a few blemishes make the

image more interesting. Same goes for the marks and scratches on the cabinet here, in

my opinion. The tendency to airbrush and make everything look perfect may be nice for

cosmetics ads and posed wedding work, but often just makes photos more boring.

 

My final two cents worth regards the equipment used and its possible limitations. Who

cares? Surely the point is whether the picture works or not. I don't enjoy bad pictures

more because they were made with a homemade pinhole (or great photos less because

they were made with the best gear money can buy.) An image should stand or fall on its

merits. A photographer should surely use whatever tools give the required results, no?

I also think that the main lure of this photo (which is wonderful)

stems from that large open area which is connected by some two-way mental or virtual lanyard to the girl. The key hole is also an essential detail, providing a focal point for the trajectory my eyes span when looking into this picture. I guess in painting arts,

one of the hardest things to do is to pain large monotonous areas and make them appear interesting. This really has succeeded in the

photographic realm.

I have not read any of the critiques above. As I look at this image I must remind myself to use the PN critiques guidelines.

 

First: "Give a picture a high rating for aesthetics if you like the way it looks, if it attracts and holds your attention, or if it conveys an idea well." I don't like the way the image looks. The woman looks "uncomfortable" making me uncomfortable. Plus.. what's with the shadows on the face, making her face look dirty? What's with the "bright" spot on her ribs? Seems to have a pinkie cast around it. Does it "attract & hold my attention" No. "Does it convey an idea?" Hum..... "modesty?" "submissiveness?" "hiding?" "lack of comfort?" .....maybe. "Is the subject's personality captured?" If so, she must be "shy" & possibly "mistrustful".

 

"Does the photo have an interesting composition? An effective balance of colors? I do like the square crop." The arch of her back, does lead me to her eye. The large orange rectangle on the right does give some interest. The colors do not seem complimentary therefore the balance seems strange to me.

 

"Give a photo a high rating for originality if it shows you something unexpected." Is this unexpected? It seems rather like many others I've seen on PN. The "orange" block is different, so I guess it adds to the originality, but I feel it detracts from the aesthetic qualities. Then I noticed the title "Insularity" I think this means a "state of isolation". She does seem isolated, but the way she looks toward the right & withdraws to the shelter of the corner implies to one that someone else is close by.

 

All in all, my personal feelings aside while it is interesting I would not hang it on my wall :)

Given the level of discomfort expressed by many here, I would say this is successful on many levels. Congratulations, Oleg!

It is good to see something human on the POW for a change. There are a few problems with this image though. First, although the posture of the body is coiled and interesting, the emotion coming from the face is too cool and removed to engage my interest. Perhaps a model with a little more baggage in her face could help. Also, the composition is vertical and denies her hands a better purpose. I suggest a clockwise rotation of the image , so that the model appears to be laying on the slab. Her left hand will then fall into a void (giving reason for the coiled back?). Rotating the image also seems to change the emotional weight in a positive way. As an extra bonus the key hole would become vertical, as it should be. I like where the Artist is trying to go here and hope that he continues to see the advantage of a human context when portraying the nude.

This is one image that makes me feel uncomfortable every time I open Photo.net. Does that mean it's successful, that it makes me cringe? I don't think so. I love degenerate photography. I love beautiful photograhy. This appeals to neither side. The colors, the pose, the composition... nothing is appealing to me. I can't wait until the next POW.

For me at least this photograph is successful because it holds my attention. I think there's a high level of tension between the model's pose and expression, and there is another level of tension in the draw of the model vs. that of the orange metal. We tend to try to focus on the center of images and this image is resistant to that. It's a discomforting image. Though it's less "postcardable" than most Picture of the Weeks, I find it more ponderable.

These last few critiques are some of the best I've seen in past weeks on the POW.

 

Now that's what we're talking about.

 

Keep it coming...This is what the POW is all about. Objective, critical (pro and con) critiques that you can sink your teeth into and think about.... and nothing personal.. Basically critiques that clearly state what the viewer thinks without a need to disect and quote every other comment or answer this and that person.. Very simple, clear and very substantail critiques. Well done.

It's kind of a weird, creepy photo overall. I don't know how to critique it. She does need a few big mac's and sum fries, maybe a chocolate milkshake too. hehe.

I can't help but thinking it looks like she is hugging a hot water heater. It could be possible. After all , she's got no clothes on and she might be chilly.

Hi: I (and this is indeed an extremely subjective opinion) do not like this picture particularly. I am sure it is a good picture, but we have far better and greater pics at photo.net. The overall effect of the pic is aesthetically more jarring than pleasing - the facial expression of the model, too much skin perhaps just for the sake of it, too much brown.. the picture looks contrived and trying way too eager to please, without much success. On the other hand, I adore some of the other photos in the artist's portfolio, and believe he is capable of better far better expressions.

I found no immediate emotion on seeng the image but the lovely balance of light to shade made me look for a very long time.

It has an impact that creeps up on you and would look great on my wall.

Congratulations Oleg. Well made.