'The Thespian(s)'

A man waiting in line touches in face in a semi-dramatic gesture -

subsequently he reveals he is a very tired thespian. He (and the

woman, right)0 have just come back from a 'casting' of sorts. Hand

movement/blur is intentional and is meant to 'focus' attention on

face/eyes. Your ratings and critiques are invited and most welcome. If

you rate harshly, very critically, or wish to make a remark, please

submit a helpful and constructive comment; please share your

photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks!

Enjoy! John

About this man's hand movement/'blur' is my 'intent' as a photographer, not his, as his 'intent' was purely unconscious -- something we discussed later when he viewed this capture. He had entirely nothing in mind but fatigue and the gesture was mostly involuntary (he repeated it later, also unknowingly, and apparently habitually).

john (Crosley)

This is of the school of 'either you love it or you don't . . . '

The aspiring actor, depicted, loved it and wanted an e-mail which I routinely refused since I get tens to hundreds of requests a day and surely would have failed him only to earn his anger -- I have no facilities for such things, routinely lose e-mail addresses within the hour, and often do not download even for days or even a week or so, and requests become impossible to identify.

Plus no one pays me for such things. I have tens of millions of clicks and 'views' on the Internet and haven't sold one photo of those (or tried). I've sold one photo in 35 years, so it's 'all on my dime'.

Also a man with this pair was in the background and distracting - I didn't then foresee how I would use the photo for posting, as the man's presence ruined the photo.

Later, in camera, while eating, I cropped more like this (crop left and crop bottom for aspect ratio preservation), and figured I would post it, so I went to the actor, gave him my name and said I would post it some time eventually, and where to find his photo (Google 'John Crosley', press 'enter') (and that I was soon going to Ukraine from where I write this.).

I hope he sees this and understands that it is not 'simply e-mailing a photo', but like the hundreds of requests a week for e-mailing when just working up a photo to my standards (then having later my Photoshopper do so also to exhibition standards) may take one hour for me and hours for my Photoshopper). All unpaid --gratuitous and 'real work.

He can take this for non-commercial (personal, private use) with my blessings.

However, for more (e.g., business, it is copyrighted and it is my private property as well as that of my trust/and it is my work product (my e-mail is on my bio page in case anyone needs to contact me regarding that).

Maurizio G. I'm so glad it pleased you.

Taking 'street' is a little more complicated as you see than just walking around with a camera, if one is to 'interact' with subjects, as here. And this is an entirely candid and special moment, captured by me that could not be caught by an 'assignment photographer' posing photos, I think, and then even all but the most quick of them.

John (Crosley)

When I looked at this as I worked it up, I was struck by this man's face and the similarity to the looks of the faces of the children of Sally Mann who were holding long poses for their famous photographer mom as she exposed them with her view camera for collodium process photographs I saw at the Beverly Hills Gagosian Gallery.

Long exposures meant an almost emptiness about their faces and lack of specificity in their 'looks' or 'aspects' that was 'haunting'. I see a little of that in this man's face, which is one reason I did not try in this nearly 1/10th sec nighttime exposure to bring out detail or worry about 'blurriness'. His face is sharp enough in the capture and I might have worked on sharpness, contrast, brightness, etc, especially around his eyes, but did not.

Also his right hand is a tad blurry -- caught mid-brush of his face -- but no matter, I like it like that, and it only adds to the 'Sally Mann' look -- the evanescent portrait look I saw in her children's 'alternative development process' portraits that opening night.

John (Crosley)

I really do not understand this picture. I can not understand what's happening in the scene. What this woman in the background looking at? What her role in the scene? The man in the foreground, why this movement in his hands? What was happening? Really did not understand.

I think the picture has to "talk" with those who look

Sometimes photos 'talk' with those who 'look' and sometimes not, and sometimes photos (pardon my way of writing) they speak only to a select few.

If you were an aficionado of Sally Mann, I think this photo might 'talk' to you - perhaps not.

'Art' is more about what this photo is, rather than pure photography, and perhaps that is your hangup.

I do plenty of photos in which all your questions and complaints about this photo are answered in the affirmative, so if those are issues you have with this one, just look at some other photos of mine.

I take a large variety of photos, and this is more of the 'art' variety in which question are raised much more than answered.

But the fact that you do not 'understand' but want to know the answers, and are demanding an explanation, with your insistence, and the fact that it has your interest so, is part of what may make it 'art' as opposed to pure photography.

'Art' is 'art' and 'photography' is 'photography' and where one is representational and the other also is, they can appear one and the same, but when one is not and the other also is not completely representational but more mysterious, then it raises questions and issues in the viewer.

Here, that is the case.

There is no satisfactory answer to why the man's hands are by the side of his face other than that 'they were there when I recorded the scene', and the same for his somewhat vacant stare, other than that is the way he looked, and the woman in my mind completes the scene, having no more purpose than that she was there.

She does not have to have a 'purpose' other than filling out some more 'vacant' area in an otherwise blank or dark area of the screen in an interesting and/or appealing way (and although not technically an actress at all, but a companion, so far as I could tell, she photographed magnificently and elsewhere literally lit up my digital readout . . . . though far from perfect in her features -- a clear case of camera-ready beauty. In this case her presence serves as a foil for the man, I suppose as well as providing depth to the capture and an air of a 'story' which may never be told (thus inviting inquiries).

It is the nature of 'art' (as opposed to documentary photography) or even 'street photography, that stories needn't be recounted, answers needn't be supplied, and focus needn't not even be accurate. Blurs are OK, if they are pleasing to those who appreciate such things.

Sally Mann, who once was Time Magazine's Photographer of the Year in the early 2000s, photographed her children with very long time exposures giving them a very eery look, with no 'interaction' to the audience of the 'art' gallery other than their mysterious look, captured by the collodion photo process, complete with all sorts of imperfections.

Photos don't have to be perfect to be photos and as 'art' sometimes it is the imperfections which fulfill their ambition as 'art'.

I know that is a long way around Robin Hood's barn and perhaps too much to swallow at once, but think about it and chew on it for a while.

If is troubles you, just remember, photos weren't always meant to provide nice, easy, pat answers.

Troubling photos have their place too.

Sometimes they're called 'art' and are sold in 'art' galleries -- sometimes for multiples of tens of thousands of dollars (ref. Sally Mann';s work in the Gagosian Gallery(ies). (there is more than one 'Gagosian Gallery as it has branches in major world cities. She exhibits in 'art' galleries rather than 'photo' galleries, note.

I have work that I am told should be exhibited in 'art' galleries (perhaps this?) as well as much that belongs in photo galleries.

Source a Lucie Award winning mentor whose work is in EVERY major museum in the world.

He is the source upon whose advice I rely, and printer for Sally Mann (and who took me to the Gagosian to see her work which he printed for her, opening night).

I suppose this answer may disappoint, but others may wish to contribute, pro or con, or regarding various specifics.

Is this photo gallery worthy?

I don't know. I am not a gallerist and have not run it by my mentor who would probably know better than anyone.

But I plan to.

Your response suggests it should be.

My best to you.

(You see, I took your remark very seriously, and if the answer isn't the one you anticipated, I hope at least you respect that it comes from a well-researched place of honesty.)

John (Crosley)

And I hope in an 'artful' way, that is in way that is both a little mysterious and that causes us to reflect on him in his unusual depiction rather than 'what is he doing' and why is he there . . . but just 'that's an unusual and interesting depiction', and isn't it interesting, mysterious and with its blurs and subject motion a little interesting?

That's the response to the 'art' in it, I hope.

Who knows? though.

Some people see 'art' and others see 'gavno'.

And the reverse.

It's all in the eyes of the beholder anyway.

And sometimes people make 'art' from gavno.

;~))

I've seen it.

At one time someone did that in Brooklyn, New York and the Borough President (like the submayor of Brooklyn which is not a City but part of New York City) had a terrible upset, and so did the mayor, Rudolph Giuliani.

Someone put actual gavno on museum walls and called it 'art'.

For practical purposes, 'art' is mostly what people say it is.

In another practical sense 'art' for the more wealthy is what people will pay money for, the higher the amount of money, the more it's considered 'art'.

I think the Pinchuk Gallery, locally, subscribed to that theory when they invited and hosted a showing by world's richest 'artist' Damien Hirst, who deals much in 'death' and whose elaborately created exhibits are often thought out by him and 'created' or executed by assistants.

'Executed' seems to be a most appropriate word in relationship to his works depicting death.

I think that reflects that there's a certain 'herd' mentality to what is considered 'art'.

Remember, that Vincent Van Gogh strived first to paint brown paintings of the Dutch Old Masters school, before he began to paint more colorfully.

Moreover, despite best efforts of his brother, during his short life and before his suicide in despair, he was not a commercial success. He famously wrote his famous Parisian art dealer brother, Theo: 'Real painters do not paint things as they are; they paint things as they feel them to be.'

The same might be interpreted to relate to most 'fine art' including non-representational photography.

Here, this man is not entirely representational - he seldom puts his hands to the sides of his head or brushes backwards, though in fatigue it seems to be his habit (as you noted), and for this, I caught the moment, when I 'I felt him to be' -- indeed to have captured AN 'essence' at that particular moment, disembodied from all other moments (or essences) around him, fatigue in his eyes, captured as a distant/blank, dark stare enhanced by a slow shutter speed and lack of light on his eyes and a blur of his hands, indicating the moment was not the blitz of a camera flash, but an extended moment, captured and frozen forever, and for more than a millisecond of a flash, - for an extended moment.

So this is a minor study in the microscope of one part of this man's probably quite complex character, for us to examine . . . . apart from all the rest, and admire (or not) as we think fit.

That's 'my art' and why I chose to post this particular photo.

As an artist (thespian), he surely saw this, as he admired it . . . and wished a copy (and I am delivering it herewith for personal use only).

Thanks Svetlana for enduring my overlong thesis.

john

John (Crosley)

[if you're confused by the 'g' word above, it roughly translates to 'crap', but a little more earthy . . . . however, in Russian, there are more earthy words for the same noun, and the word is used somewhat frequently by some.

I will not say if I am or am not included.

The Russian language as any resident of southern seaport Odessa (famous for its earthiness and residents with great humor will tell you) is a treasure trove of great, earthy, rank, and foul expressions, as taught me by a 1.81 meter (6 feet +) model/interpreter . . . . equally good looking as her sister who became Miss Odessa and later vied for title of Miss Ukraine a few years back.] (and she, like all her sisterhood) wore high heels . . . de rigueur in Odessa and all cities except Kiev even of the tallest of women.)

jc