Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder

REALLY FANTASTIC and so GREAT in all... Dark colors, moody, these so artistic grain and scratches and most of all... this stranger with that lens !!!

AMAZING !!!

7/7

Michael

Interesting technique that already represent the mood of work.

Excelent work, congrats.

I like the concept. I love it very much...

Congratulations for originality!

Splendid work, very artistic.

Kat

As a first impression, I'd have to say you got a nice design and montage work. However, first impressions aren't always dead on true. I've been trying to see what others have clearly identified as unmistakable work of art, but I can't!

Here's my honest 2 cents, to be taken with a grain of salt, or I'll bitchslap you good;

Technically, It's all flawed. I mean, the DOF is messed up from the foreground unto the back. The cutout is evident and is badly blended. So much dirt and scratches trying to make it look like a crappy negative end up conveying exactly just that... a crappy looking negative. Not a bad idea, but to what purpose? Not so obvious here.

Philosophically, where's the beauty in this shot? Is it supposed to be paradoxical? Where's the center of interest? My observations:

What I see in the foreground seems to be a man in a melon hat, holding a Vivitar lens in front of his right eye, looking at me, with barely any facial expression. His hand opens up wide. In the back, overlooking the unnatural blurring, I see a large strip of grass, surrounded on each side by dead terrain and patches of snow. Must be post-winter landscape? It stretches out to the infinite background, where nothing awaits me. The message, in all of this, is unclear to me, and most definitely unattractive.

It might have worked out had there lacked the presence of the man in the foreground and with a stronger focus on the landscape, or vice-versa. However, the way this is presented, forgetting the shitjob (no pun intended) on the blurring, there's too much going on for the sake of very little. The author tried to cram two different subjects in a shot that could stand out from its simplicity, and ended up confusing the shit out of me.

Hope this helps raise some questions,

Best

Albert Z.

I have to admit that you wrote a very 'refreshing' critique to this image.

First of all I must say that I never thought or stated that it was a WORK OF ART! And of course I would not start a discussion here about what is or what isn't a work of art.

Then, I kind of like this one. No more, no less. Enough to have posted it at some point here.

The fact that so many people found something to like in it was of course a very pleasant surprise. But judging an image by such severe criteria seems a bit too much (philosophically!!!-who in the world is taking photos with a philosophical intention in mind?!)- (even though I liked the agressive approach).

My response then would be this: do not judge this image for more than it is (or other images in general).

I would also be very curious, for the sake of the experiment, to read your comments on your own photos, with the same sharpness-technically and philosophically. :)

Best, Virgil

Hey Virgil,

Thanks for taking into consideration what I wrote with a mature spirit.

How should I not take photographs from a philosophical perspective? Are you saying a photo/image/design is to be taken lightly, emptily and just for its visual nature? Does "nothing more, nothing less" imply that one should not strive to see "in between the lines" and go for something deeper?

I disagree, and with the strongest attitude

Some images can, indeed, be taken as pure eye candy, like mini skirts and nice showcases of large boobs in your everyday street life, just like some of them have the ability of conveying the inner depth of the human spirit and show us far more than what first meets the eye.

Yes, pictures can be analysed and felt through a philosophical, spiritual and emotional mindframe, most of them without hardly any effort on the viewer's part. It's all done subconsciously most of the time.

Why then, do I ask, would you have titled a piece "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" if not to say something about Beauty itself and its relation to the viewer and what the message is all about? Virgil, the title itself IS philosophical, and with or without your consent, LEADS the image into a philosophical context!

This is why an overboard of visual refinements and excessive (and evident) post-processing done on a photo - that could otherwise stand very well in its own natural beauty - can just kill it.

I'm not saying post-processing is the devil's offspring, just that it is a double-edged sword, and when not done properly, can lead you to shoot yourself a nice fat bullet in the foot.

As for criticising in general, I do not give out any less than what I expect to be returned to me. Meaning, I'll try my best NOT TO negatively and quickly judge a picture in a single line or two, but elaborate on WHAT is felt wrongly done, and WHAT could be done to better it. Finally, I feel very self-critical of my own work and strive to achieve nothing less.

Best,

Albert Z.

Here we go again, Albert, 'cause I have to answer a few of your questions.

Now, about how well I can do that, given the fact that I am not a native speaker of English and didn't have my morning coffee yet, we shall see...

Before anything I think that we are not speaking about the same thing here:

I do not think that by 'philosophical' we both understand the same meaning.

It would be interesting to hear your definition in this particular case.

I do not imply, of course, that photos should be taken lightly, or, we would not speak about photography but about snapshots.

But I also doubt the fact that, when ready to push the camera's trigger, you have a clear idea in mind about the 'philosophical' meaning of the future shot.

I do not think that REASON has very much to do right at the moment of taking the photo. Of course, there is a CHOICE, there is, in some cases, COMPOSITION, which belong to reason, but in my humble opinion, that's not the main element in taking a photo.

It is very interesting to see that you also use words that tend to confirm my assertion: photography can be analysed and FELT, seen with an EMOTIONAL mindframe, without EFFORTS(i.e. analysing? reasoning?) from the viewer.

I totally agree that we all should try to state something by our photos and I think that a lot of us do, with or without intention because, fortunately, image cannot be restricted to reason and philosohpy.

I also believe in the joy of taking photos for the pure pleasure of their visual beauty (what is abstract photography if not the pure pleasure of geometry?).

Not our images can raise to the highest peaks. There are some more modest but not less dear to us. What philosophical meaning can be found in a shot of a glass of milk and a slice of bread and butter?

Now, coming back to my image: of course I wanted to say something and you are intitled to look for a deeper meaning. But philosophic?...

Most of the pictures we take are totally subjective, intuitive and linked to their context. Their meaning comes and can be FOUND only AFTERWARDS.

How about this for a answer?

virgil,

I want to start by saying that beauty is without a doubt in the eye of the beholder. I am new and inexperienced at photography, but It doesn't take an expert to realize what one thinks is beauty. I myself love art of a strange and surreal nature. In a way art is also in the eye of the beholder, and I think that this photograph is an amazing work of art. Especially the scratches and damage done to the image. I think that all and all this photograph is beautiful.

After nearly 50years of looking at 'ART' I am no wiser than when I started, with regard to what is and is not 'ART'. Marcel Duchamp,in 1917, stuck a gents urinal(store bought variety!) on a gallery wall and called it 'ART'. And then he postulated that it was 'ART' because the artist decides what is and is not 'ART'.

Now we have a piece of human excrement avec flys in a glass-box entered for the Turner Prize! Is this 'ART'....the artist says it is , so I guess it must be ....or then again, is it!! And so it goes..ROUND and ROUnd and Round and round. You end up like a rattle-snake savaging it's own ass! That's not to say that it's not worth discussing, of course it is, and we do need that kind of mental stimulation, but sometimes the comments can shed more light on the state of mind of the commentator than on the subject matter ! As for the 'Philosophy of ART'...I wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole myself (did I get the spelling correct even?)My potted philosophy of 'Life' and 'Art' is: if I like it, I like it...and if I can get to understand it , I will probably get to like it even more! And sometimes the other guy can be right and sometimes not, but the truth frequently lies somewhere East of me and West of him. I'm just 'waffling' in general terms and not really commenting on the very informative and interesting dialogue between the two lads,Virgil and Albert, above..you have both put your respective points very succintly....something I am going to have to work hard to emulate!!!

Best wishes to you both........SLAN FRANK.

Dia dhuit Virgil, thank you for taking the time to leave your generous comment on my 'Lifeboat' photo. Regardng my waffle above, I'm afraid I found the discussion so interesting that I rather discourteously forgot to comment on the most important thing, which is.. the Photograph! For this ommission I apologise Virgil.

The sad fact is that I don't really understand this type of photo....my art education is fairly rudimentary and sadly lacking in certain departments. So, I don't know that I can offer anything of value by critiqueing your photo....however I'll give it a go, OK! The first thing I usually do with this type of 'enigmatic?' photo is to look at the photographers other works. This sometimes puts things into some sort of context for me. When I look at your splendid portfolio I can see that you are a very sincere, accomplished and thoughtful photographer. I find the photo at first viewing to be somewhat unsettling in that the impassive,unfeeling face of what could be a bureaucrat, or even a grave digger, appears to have me under uncomfortably close scrutiny as if to say "Your'e next". The rough, cold field perhaps mirrors the impassive coldness I see in the examiner's face. The 'texturing' is the one element that sort of eludes me! I find that this effect has, in general, been so over-used that when I now see it being employed I say to myself " Oh no, not more texturing". So, I'm not quite sure that it does a lot for this photo! Overall, I would be very proud if it was my photo and generated so much excellent discourse. Apologies again for my earlier discourtesy SLAN .....FRANK (If you wish you can rate my critique... a 3/3 would be most acceptable! F.)

so, Frank, hi again,

I have to admit that this site is creating funny reactions in some respects: in fact I was not expecting a specific critique from you. From your first comment I was not able to understand if you liked the 'photo' or not, if you disliked it or if you were saying it was horrible:D.

This is not a photo, of course, but a digital manipulation and it tries to illustrate that the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, in this case a photographer, since he is holding a lens in is hand.

There is not much to explain here, I just felt like creating this and I did.

I agree with you that the use of textures is in general exagerated and it has no point. Especially when people do not know how to do it properly from the technical point of view.

But textures in general help people to locate a photo out of time, in the imaginary realm: it shows the action of time in a way. That might explain also the huge succes that sepia-toned photos have.

Anyway, the big amount of reaction showed me that people found it at least interesting, if not beautiful.

Thanks a lot for your comment, I enjoy the conversation!