Insularity

The woman's pose is uncomfortable looking So, by definition, that's not boring for me.

She's obviously working hard to hide any trace of her breasts. no?! really?!

The crop (first suggestion, the last one doesn't add anything): Oleg already cropped it and the suggested crop makes her eye - wich is the final catching point - more centered, then I'm not sure about it. The original texture is interesting in the whole and isn't disturbing then why deleting a big part of it?

Her moles: must to be there, that's a part of her and she hasn't got a fake plastic skin. Pleasant to see.

Dale, a little more cropping and you have a mediocre passport photo. Frankly, you didn't crop it -- you butchered it. This is a really nice photo. Your suggested manipulation, in my opinion, destroys the photograph and its intent. Am I wrong?

It destroys the original photograph and creates something completely different, yes, I admit it does. Whether or not it destroys the intent depends on what you think the intent is. Care to elaborate?

A few of the things that strike me as flaws in this image...

 

The eye (Iris)...

 

It looks like she is trying not to look at the camera. The angle is

disconcerting to me also as so much of the white of the eye is showing.

I've attached an image where I did a rough attempt to alter that angle.

 

The hands....

 

I find it unattractive and ungraceful for the three fingers to be showing on the upper hand with the fourth bent forward. A bit jarring and takes away from the image - in my opinion.

 

The hand underneath is strained and bent and deformed looking which also is distracting to me as well as it seems to come out of blackness with no connection to her body.

 

IF this is meant to be an edgy shot... It doesn't accomplish that to me due to the facial expression which does not match the attempt (if that was the idea).

 

IF it was meant to be "artsy" it misses the mark for me due to the uncomfortable pose, the hunched back, the odd angle of the iris and too much white eyeball, and the unattractive pose of the hands.

 

I also don't like the white on the orange structure as it draws my eye from her eyes to the white spots and back. It ruins the composition for me.

> Sylvie,

not so bad... yes, not so bad!

The object that some are complaining about is, if nothing else, a cover with a lock. The lock even appears to work as it seems evident that someone has tried to violate it (see the way it has been messed with up on top).

 

I would suggest that the weight given to it in the composition could be a clue. Hmmm, what might that suggest?? Oh . . . I don't know, maybe some sort of commentary on violating the self or gaining access to the person, or the subsuming/consuming quality of the human gaze. It is almost as if the model is longing to be like the object she clings to -- impenetrable.

 

It shouldn't be too literal, though, and by the looks of the critiques, I'd say Olaf has succeeded -- at least in that respect.

 

God how I miss exploding lightbulbs and turds in the mist.

-T

sorry Oleg.

What happened to this poor womans forehead?

This is a very nice image. Most of the criticism is about the lack of symmetrical balance. Whoever said there has to be such balance. One critic even had a problem of the positioning of the fingers of the model! People get lost in the semantics of style. This image tells a story. The story is interpretive. The right side of the image is part of the story. Read the story not the populist impression of technique.

 

Read it people.

It seems evident to me the object on the right is ambiguous. That's why nobody is able to identify it.

I like what Mary has done with the woman's eye very much. It gives you an idea of how this could have looked given different decisions on the part of the photographer.

Two subjects are given (almost) equal weight in the photo. The model appears soft and vulnerable. The cabinet appears hard and invulnerable. Despite this fundamental difference in the two subjects, there are many parallels between the model and the cabinet.

 

Some of these parallels are obvious. Others are much more in the eye of the beholder. Here are some of the parallels that I appreciate.

 

The model's hair is a dark (mahogany) brown. Her lips have been painted with an orange-tinted lip gloss. The cabinet appears to be made of a dark (mahogany) brown wood. The face of the cabinet has been painted with an orange-tinted paint.

 

The model is dotted with dark-colored moles. The cabinet is dotted with dark-colored holes.

 

As you follow the line of the model's back upward, it curves to the right. As you follow the line of the cabinet's cover upward, it curves to the right.

 

There are light-colored splotches on the model. There are light-colored splotches on the cabinet.

 

The model has one dark eye peeking out from a light-colored face. The cabinet has a dark eye-shape "peeking out" from a light-colored area.

 

I see several other parallels. But other viewers may not see them in the same way, so I'll stop here.

 

Whether you like the photo or not, I think the many parallels between the two dissimilar subjects make this a very interested picture.

I am drawn in by the eyes, hair; I am repulsed by the poor posture, the hunchback of the model.

 

Strange to feel both attraction and repulsion at the same time. Uncomfortable sort of.

 

An average picture of a spine-challenged model, So what?

 

Deliberately posed with the hunchback posture? Why?

It is supposed to suggest vulnerability, Frank.

Imagine oneself in Oleg's shoes trying to do this type of photography with a Nikon 8700, and one might appreciate this picture (and others in his portfolio) a little more.

 

The model poses, Oleg sees a desired composition, half-presses the shutter to ready the camera and the auto-focus slowly grinds away, meanwhile the video viewfinder refreshes with a fuzzy image and finally, a second or two later, the camera's ready. The response time of this camera is too slow for awkwardly posed shots where subtle facial expressions and body movement can change in an instant. Even worse is the (awful) viewfinder blanks during capture (single or multi-burst) in addition to the fact that you really can't see any detail except general outline of the composition.

 

I think most of us wouldn't even attempt such shots with a fixed lens digital P&S let alone achieving results like this. It takes a committed artist dedicated to overcoming limitations of his gear to even remotely achieve the quality of work I see in Oleg's portfolio.

The women the victim, oversharpened, dipped in the dark, being up to date. I dont need that. As well as I dont need any response.

I am not a critic but I would like to forward a comment....firstly to study this composition one must have a look at Oleg's previous works too I was impressed how he manages to capture the sensulaity of the human body in a blend with the texture surrounding the subject he always manages to do it in an innovative way..I think this photo Insularity is also a try in this direction...it is the sensual skin color and the texture of the foreground adjacent to her (wood I presume) though different from each other both blend to some extent ,both have thier imperfections ..the moles in the girl and the rougish surface of the foreground but they have also their intrinsic beauties too.hidden from our eyes maybe but one canfeel them..the girl's posture is awakard true but had Oleg just shown her back it would have been dull ..yet she shows us partially her face ..but the girl is not trying to give us a clue on herself ..she has no identity ..she is simply part of the compostion in this intiguing array ...Thanks.Charles.

I agree with Frank- the posture is ugly, hunchback. I dislike it. By the way, in the latest Pirelli calendar Isabelle Fontana is the same. (May be Oleg copied it out)?

I think this picture is bleeding fantastic. The use of color reminds me of Rothko, I'm almost ashamed to say. I'll admit I really have a hangup on those two colors- those shades of orange and brown- so my opinion may be skewed- but there is more to this. I think the various suggested crops miss the point completely. I like the balance in the square image. I think the presence of the orange-thing is completely necessary to the feeling of the picture. I dont think its necessary or desirable to assign an identity to the orange-thing. I'm not sure exactly where I stand on the suitability or utility of titling photographs, but this title at least (Insularity) gives us an interesting, and I think both plausable and suitable story. I don't see the woman as so much hiding from the camera as noticing it as if it had nothing to do with her. I imagine she imagines herself to have more in common with this unidentified orange-thing than with the stories we (photographer included) are making up about her. There is something conspiratorial about the two, really. I mean her and the object. Though she looks a little cold, maybe, I don't see any vulnerability in her face. What I see is more of a closed system. A pleasant enough one, though, inviolable, tactile, immediate, naive- maybe a little animalistic, if animalistic is opposed to what people are like when we think about what people think about us, and think they would think better of us if we faked being more like what we think they want to see. Or maybe Im just a little of a shut-in myself. I like, as someone mentioned earlier, the color and texture balance the moles provide with the full frame. I like them on the model, too, and Im sure I would not be writing about this picture to begin with if she were an arched-backed air-brushed leggy blonde with suggestively crooked fingers, instead of what some of us seem to think of as a hunch-backed, spotty, trunkated shivering waif with awkwardly crooked fingers. But I like most the composition and the color, the way the picture could stand on its own without being a nude, could be a still-life-with-fruit for all Id care, and Id like it the same. Often, nudes are too much about nudity, and turn out a little prurient, which is to say sophomoric. That said, as much as anybody I prefer looking at a mediocre nude to a mediocre still-life, but the fact its such an easy genre in which to elicit interest I think makes it that much more of a difficult one to produce credible work in. This is credible work.

 

If I were to change something in this to make it more to my taste, I would give the brown background more substance, either by making it something more real (less like a stage set), or else deepening the color. And I might dampen the whole thing, tone down the highlights- by which I mean her back, mostly: it draws too much attention to itself. I suppose what Id do is put her more in the shadow, then. Anyway, always nice to see more proof that its never so much the camera as the photographer. Good luck, Oleg, hope to see more of this kind of work from you.

I started to hate this goofy image several days ago, after initially accepting that it was simply poorly executed (facial skintone, lighting, posterization). But this shot isn't up to craft standard set by the rest of Oleg's posturing, but tonally appealing Gallery.

I'm not sure I would follow all those that dislike this photo because of the surely little aesthetical look of the position, the back or the fingers of the woman. For me, when I compare with other of his photos many of them have the same quality of colour harmony and composition, but this one has something more ﾖ something that makes us look once more in order better to understand what is going on..

 

It is a photo that communicates an unease that we try to escape from by "going on to the next photo". In my view this photo is disturbing, thatﾒs why it is so good. One of the compositional tricks that I find interesting is the great role the wall to the right plays. The unease of the position of the woman only finds its stability by the heavy "weight" of the wall. All together well done as so many of photos.

This is an interesting image. She has an intriguing expression. That said I

don't care for the colors too much. The composition is okay, basically the

model centered in the frame - kinda boring but not bad. Finally, I don't care for

her pose - the hunched over look is not appealing and looks very

uncomfortable. I really think her experssion and her pose don't match up.

 

Interesting image tho'.

 

Cheers!

At first I was repulsed by the picture. All of the elements are extremely dissonant and put me on edge. The peeling rusty metal, the scratchy background and the imperfections on the skin. It is fine to have a picture repulse the viewers. So much of what we see today is ragged. But the EXPRESSION on the girls face does not work. It contradicts the essence of the piece. It is coy. It is too pretty to fit with hunched body and the discordant feel. It would be a much stronger picture if her hair covered her face or if there was strong emotion playing behind her placid mask.

Why do so many people find it bad, not just "disturbing", to have a facial expression that contradicts a body position ? Are our désires really all so perfectly univoque ? Don't we, human beings, have our own contradictions too ? Could that precisely be the point of showing a "distorted beauty" titled "Insularity"...? And why this title, by the way...?

There are a number of incongruities in this image that may or may not be intentional. With

a single photo, it can be hard to tell intentionality, but I think a careful inspection of the

artist's portfolio can grant a viewer some insight. Novojilov's portfolio is uneven, but I

suspect that is not a factor of ability, but rather of trying to get several different looks on a

single site. I find a number of the photos to be some type of social or political

commentary. I am not privy to the social and political nuances required to understand all

of Novojilov's work, but many are quite obvious, especially with the clues left in the titles. I

therefore have to make the assumption that the POW image was designed to be a

commentary of some type.

 

The compositional balance is skewed, making me feel somewhat uncomfortable. I cannot

easily read the expression in the model's face, it being so incongruent with the pose,

which is a bit unsettling. There is harshness to the lighting, almost a glare; but, having

inspected Novojilov's other works, I have to assume it was done purposefully and not a

mistake. The posing is enigmatic; is she being seductive, embarassed, attempting to flee,

disgusted, or just pausing before moving behind of the object? The object is likewise

mysterious; is it the back of a shelf? A cabinet? An entertainment center? (I suspect it is

shelves with a fiberboard back). The blemish on the back of the object, which seems to

have both a pseudo eye and mouth, somewhat mirrors the model's face -- albeit

distorted. There are more incongruities I could comment on, but you get the idea.

 

There are apparent contrasts that I also have to assume are purposeful. The model is soft

and yielding; the object is not. The model is young and beautiful; the object is old and

ugly. The model looks at the observer; the object ignores the viewer. The model is

vulnerable, while the object is not. The photo is almost monochromatic, but the model and

object are opposites in tone. And so on�.

 

I think the photo is wonderful. To me, it is a photograph of two disparate objects and the

tension between them. The title, "Insularity," is, to me, a peek at the intent of the

photographer. The word can mean "being in a state of isolation or detachment," which

appears to be both the state of the model and the object. However, less obvious

definitions of the word include "being detached in outlook or experience; narrow-minded,

provincial." In light of some of the POW comments offered, it works as well. I am not

arrogant (or ignorant) enough to suggest what Novojilov meant; viewers must decide for

themselves.

 

I do not suggest the work is perfect. If the artistic statement being made is too subtle for

the intended audience to catch, that is a flaw that should be addressed (and if the

photographer thinks the viewers are simply obtuse, then they enter the egocentric realm

of arrogance and ignorance). I think this image is somewhat delicately done -- without

obvious interpretation -- and therefore hard to construe; it left me a bit insulated. Subtle

changes to the pose, contrast and sharpness, lighting, or composition might resolve that

issue. Technique-wise, I would have liked to see a bit more separation of the hair from the

background; the area between the shoulder blades is hard to distinguish. I think the

burned out highlights under the shoulder blade are a bit distracting, and some minor

burning-in would grant some additional detail and texture without compromising the

artist's intent. With a few exceptions, a burned-out highlight rarely contributes something

positive to a photo. Some have commented on the strange position of the lower hand,

which is wrapped around and behind the shelf, and the finger positions of the upper hand,

resting against the side if the shelf. These are somewhat awkward, but I think they add to

the sense of incongruity that permeates the image and they don't bother me. Other

comments have addressed pixelation and other problems inherent with digital media, but

with the size limitations imposed by this site, I am prone to ignore them, assuming the

artist's image is better.

 

I congratulate Novojilov for such a wonderful portfolio. I also think "Insularity" is an

outstanding photo; one I would hang on my wall without hesitation. However, my greatest

congratulations are reserved for his mastery of the digital media. Without extensive and

expensive lighting systems, state-of-the-art digital cameras, and professional make-up

artists, Novojilov can record images of outstanding beauty, create incongruities that

provoke thought and discussion, and elicit envy. Novojilov's work illustrates outstanding

photos are not due to top-of-the-line cameras; they are due to exceptional

photographers.

 

Robb C