'The Existential Eye Is Upon You'

Here is one definition of 'existentialism':

'Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the choices of one's actions.'

Appropriate title/caption?

Got a better one?

john

John (Crosley)

A lone eye on a far away wall seems to focus on a young woman who is

turned away. Does it see her? Is she avoiding it? Can it see her

thoughts - know her actions. Of course, it's just a photo, and candid at

that, but does it have larger symbolism? Your ratings and critiques are

invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly, very critically, or wish to

make an observation, please submit a helpful and constructive

comment; please share your photographic knowledge to help improve

my photography and please share your thoughts. Thanks! Enjoy! john

I really like the quality of B & W and the light that surrounds the head of the girl ...

I also like the balanced and dynamics of the composition and the"history" (I can interpret, by me) in the photo.

It has the potential to do so!

However I think the text presentation conditions our opinion about it.
You should be more neutral and so you discovered by our feedback if your message had been understood.

Congrats,

M.

Thank you for the compliment.

This girl, who sat virtually next to me with a group probably had no idea her photo was being taken and certainly not for what purpose.

I skipped on taking photos of her and her group because I could not get the correct angle.

Her face is hidden, for a reason, which I think you can guess.

I'm sorry the hint bothers you; photo net critique views are a competitive place and it always is a judgment call to decide whether to push the analysis further along or just leave the analysis alone in hopes someone will 'get it' but sometimes they don't and a perfectly good photo just languishes in comments AND views because it lacked the initial boost a word like 'existential' provides.

Really!  It's that way here.

It would be different in a or museum gallery with probably no names at all; just museum/gallery numbers.  Or maybe city and date taken or maybe not (depending on whether I'm dead or not?).

Thank you for a well thought out argument in favor of NOT giving hints.  I'll bear it in mind 'next time'.

john

John (Crosley)

Editing now is shut as I discover the error.

It used to be that I could simply fix such an error any time, but now I must make a separate post of apology which I am doing now.

john

John (Crosley)

i love the composition with its triangulated foreground, the varied levels and surfaces, and the natural path the eye (mine) is made to traverse from the girl to the back office... the Eye upon her seems benign, even friendly and dispels any initial herkenings to Orwell's Big Brother... there seems to be an unseen light fixture over her head but it does not explain the presence of the halo around her head... the Existential reference seems to have no meaning, for me anyway, in viewing this interesting and fine monochrome

This photo was meant to be thought inspiring, and I'm glad for you it has been.

You added, for me, an element, I had not thought about -- that the foreground was a triangle.  I really had not though of that at all, but quite true.

When a photo engages the eye (and the mind) so the eye moves from one part of a photo to another (except to examine defects) generally that photo is considered a success, and for the notations that you made where this did not meet some things I mght have expected, overall I count it as a success, because you did consider those things, even if you rejected them.

This might have been labeled 'food for thought' if not too trite. 

I'm glad you found this photo interesting and engaging.

Best wishes.

john

John (Crosley)

I'm having a bad spell today of misspelling names.

Please accept my apologies.  The editing window is short, now, no longer forever, or I wouldn't have to post this.

john

John (Crosley)

Somewhere you said; what is the point of a "??". The point is: "what is the point of the photo. "??" is an improvement over a low rating given without explanation (which is almost always). To your defense  "what is the point?" can be said about most any "street" photo. What  sets you a bit apart is that sometimes you pick a scene and wait for a matching moment. A good photo hits you in the face. I've not seen that over here. The girl, by the way is way oversharpend and the "fake" halo...I don't know exactly what to say. Good "Depth of Field".

By the posts that this photo has attracted I quite understand what you meant!

In fact, and comparing, you start here a mainstream that is not usually seen in many photos at photo.net ... I think the ideal is a middle ground between your opinion and mine.

The "conversation" with Rajat and you leads me to think of a type of analysis of a photo (or any other image) that I don’t see much here on photo.net:

- Reading purely graphic.

We, westerners, instinctively do a reading from left to right and from top to bottom. The reading starts on this diagonal. After that the eyes walk spot to spot, and are lead by lines  (first 2D and then 3D). Only then do we get the "story",!

Often an image simply dies if you reverse it like in a mirror!!!

I see that you belong to “Cartier Bresson school”:  Lots of "street photos”, many "decisive moments"(I really like it!):

Seems to me that the critique made ​​by Asher has to do with it but I do not quite understand what he meant.

I like what you usually “hunt” in the street!
Come to Lisbon, You’ll find good scenes!
You'll like it. I am sure!

Regards,

M.

You have made numerous points very well - I'll let them stand on their own and even endorse them for the most part.

As to the poster above, he is not real, I have determined but a stand in for another member, so he gets no reply, not that the member isn't quite learned, but when he uses his stand-in account, it's cowardly.

Yes, Cartier-Bresson literally defined my life.  I had a photo job, and was just starting.  A friend of his, and a co-worker of mine, said' go see Henry's (he called him Henry) work over on Van Ness Street (San Francisco) where Henry is showing some of his photos', because he saw big similarity between mine and Cartier Bresson's from the time they worked together in China during the fall of the Kuomintang and the rise of the Communists.

He supposed I would be inspired.

Cartier-Bresson's traveling exhibition filled San Francisco's De Young Museum, its largest and most prestigious, I shook his hand (not knowing who this guy was, and having heard nothing of him - but when I saw his photos, I was blown away.

He did all I ever hoped to do, and had a museum full of work to show for it spanning over 35 years -- and all I could ever be was a wanna be.

I quite and turned to news writing for my photo employer -- Associated Press and gave up photo aspirations.

Now I'm much older and back to my roots and love; photography  (it's in my blood, I'm sure)

I'd love to be in Lisbon, and would be there in a second -- I'm in Kyiv today and the only thing holding me back is the huge expense of living and hotels/meals in Western Europe -- they're backbreaking and my budget is small for now.

If I had room and board (and an airline ticket) I'd be there in an instant.

You can put money on that.

I go where the photos are, and they're everywhere. New vistas are much easier seen than old haunts.

;~))))

Thanks for a wonderful critique.

Obrigado.

john

John (Crosley)

http://mirror.berardocollection.com/?toplevelid=33&CID=102&a1=artist&v1=636&lang=en&tab=works

Gerard Castello Lopes (1925-2011).

Sorry but I don’t found better reproduced pictures on the net.
If you put the cursor over the text of the biography you get a translation into English.

Enjoy!

Regards,
M.

I did enjoy greatly despite small photos in reproduction.

There's no need to call him anybody's version of Cartier-Bresson.  He was himself, and quite a creditable photographer.  He was no 'poor man's or 'Portuguese' anything, except himself.

I should be so good and so historical.

I'm delighted you left me such a good link, I'm much richer for it.

I have learned there are good street photos no matter where you (I) go, it's just a matter that some places are more productive and inspiring than others.  I'd rather be in Portugal than San Jose, CA, since in San Jose, everyone drives cars then goes behind doors where photographers of 'street' are banned.

There are marvelous photos to be taken there, but only for those with permission, and no one can just walk into a 'clean room' or a shopping mall' and start taking photos. 

It's different in old Europe.  That's one reason I like 'street' and the Continent, but I confess, though I wanted to and came near, I have not visited Portugal (just call and if I had cash, I'd come running).

john

John (Crosley)

My apologies to Castello Lopes!

In fact he stands on its own. You're right.
But if I wanted to describe it to a foreigner would be easier to start by saying "he does things resembling Cartier Bresson" ...

It would be a guideline.

It would be much harder to say: look for a Portuguese photographer who have made many pictures in the street in the 50’s decade years. If you look in my portfolio for "talking in the fog" (folder 2010 street) you will see that I have had a similar “problem” ...

I think any photographer's action is limited by the constraints of the site. My work is not intended to depict human attitudes but if people see me shooting a simple wall appears to me someone just to ask: "You are from the municipal inspection?"

I’ve not been to the USA, but the big cities seem to me like giant toys.

The skyscrapers are more industrial design in big scale elements than architectural works.

The youth of your History that allows a lower attachment to heritage causes mutations greatly accelerated on the cities. And it should be interesting to document. Would be an inducement to go there.

Regards,

M.

PS: English is not my mother language.

Forgive me my lack of understanding and expression.

No shame in the answer at all; you were searching for a common reference, and happened upon Cartier-Bresson's name and decided to make an allusion.  That's fair, but after seeing your photographer's work, I decided he stood on his own, and probably he should be better recognized, and not be some 'Portuguese Cartier-Bresson' . . . .  just himself. 

Of course, aficionados probably recognize him just for that anyway, and you just took a communications shortcut; no shame in that.

I'd still like to come to Portugal, but right now touring is out of my budget, though I'm not really so far away; it's the expenses of staying especially that blows the budget.

john

John (Crosley)