Thug Life

Reminds me of Jeff Becks new song, Thugs Club 

I'm going to just ignore the title, which I think is the worst thing about this picture, and just live-write my visual roamings around this picture.

First, to let you know, I have been looking at it, in brief glimpses, a couple of times over about a half hour. At first glance, I thought it was kind of a dud. Second glance, still not taken by it, but kind of interested in the emptiness of the black person's shape. That didn't go anywhere. On third glance, though, the "floating" board really caught my mind. It feels like it's hovering and dominating and exerting force forward toward the boy. He seems to shy back from it; there is a very strong connection felt between board's slight slope, and elevated position and the stiff downward posture of the boy's left arm. The fire mediates, illustrates, comments on, the connection. The fretted piece of wood siding on the ground in front of the boy ladders him to the fire; the lumpish, animalish shapes of black debris to the right and to the left of the fire add a bestial flavor to the encounter. Swoopy thin branch on the right is accents the beast on the right.

Homey window lights visible in the background: by contrast, home/safety/normality/domestic, sets off that which is happening in the dark, in the wild.

Fourth and fifth glances are yet to come. I may change my mind about everything.

Okay, tone that down about 1/10 of its volume; maintain that the floating board is what really gets me to respond (look at how it's embraced by the upper flames, how everything responds to it). Post the toned down version; delete the rest. Or not. Would anybody else post so much, so raw?

About a boy, and burning youth with the promise and fears of adulthood and the safety of home in the distance. No thug here I think, but a great capture of youth and the turmoil of adolescence,

Not really like Julie. After all, I only looked at it once and immediately caught the movement and the flying board. The scene is there, but unfortunately not supported by the composition, which is build up as if the fire was the subject to portrait.For me, an image that is in desperate need of being cropped (Square format with the boy placed two third to the left in the frame, for example).
I have not reflection on boyhood, adulthood, thug or something else. Just a boy doing what all boys always have been doing in front of a bonfire.

The composition and wider frame seem to work, helping to create a kind of rawness, a non-packaged feel, a little bit chaotic, reflecting the qualities of fire itself, and the surrounding darkness is allowed an important role, enveloping the scene.

The title is asinine. The boy is likely not a thug and the picture and title do nothing to make him appear to be one and there's no irony in the fact that he's not one but is being called one.

The picture does the job of being what it is.

It's a shame most of the fire is overexposed. More detail in those flames would be very important to my overall experience of the photo. Lacking the detail, there's a flat visual wall of white that zaps the fire and the picture of energy, texture and depth.

Extremely poorly chosen title, very nice capture of the action and the flying board, which, instantaneously captured, cements itself in our mind and is essential to the photo. The image would gain much I think by simple PS painting out of the bright spots (easily performed with the black background), numerous in number to the left and also on the right. I don't mind the high contrast and lack of surrounding detail and therefore dislike the bright spots that are unidentifiable and add nothing. Julie well noted the frail branch to the right and I think it is a nice counterpoint to the solid flying board, adding a bit more "depth" to a simple image.

There are many flavors of art criticism. Some try to understand what the artist intended. Others treat the art as a kind of Rorschach blot.

Jes' sayin'

And still others don't even take the personal risk of making an art criticism, preferring instead only to use someone else's words to critique the critiques. I doubt any of those of us who actually comment on the photo at hand mind being assessed by an armchair quarterback.

Fred, if the shoe fits, but I would not class your criticism in the "make up a little story" category.
And people wonder why comments here have fallen off --
I would guess I am taking far more risk to dare to criticize the "arty" critiques, than I would be if I said the posted picture is OK, but not outstanding. Tighter cropping might help.

JDM, I'm well aware the shoe didn't fit. I didn't take your comment personally. I was, like you, jes' sayin'. No reason you should think you shouldn't dare to criticize what you consider "arty" critiques any more than you should think someone else won't dare to criticize your comment which does that. The same shoe that fits the goose sometimes fits the gander.

To describe what you see is to make up a story. Always. "It" is a story. "Red" is a story. Thinking is story-telling.

On the blown whites, they feel corrosive, almost like it's eating the "paper" that the picture is made of.

As to comments falling off, did you think your comment about "arty" critiques would help comments from falling off? Might you consider that you, yourself, were trying to stifle people?

Julie, that's interesting. To me, it just feels like bad exposure and, in a print, the paper that would show would just be a big blob of mistake.

I have mixed feelings about blown whites and dead blacks. Sometimes it's a way for a picture to say f*** you, visually. To not make violence pretty.

Yes and yes, precisely. You understand me very well.

It's not all that hard.

Julie, as I look through Mark's portfolio, I just don't see that sense of photographic self-reflection or use of photographic technique to comment emotionally on what's going on in the photos that would lead me to where you're going as opposed to a simple matter of bad exposure. Not that a picture couldn't say more than what the photographer intended, of course. I'm just not seeing it. Adding to that is the unfortunate title, which lacks in astuteness, IMO, and leads me to see the photo without the depth of self commentary on violence or fire.

I expect you're correct. I choose not to ever look at anything beyond the picture given (and even here, I'm having to ignore the title). That's just my choice, to make the week's puzzle finite.

At first glance, this picture to me signifies the drama that documentary photography has come to embody and reminds me of the popularized photo of the American Embassy in Libya during the riots. The photo is in one way direct with two bold elements, the fire and the enabler. However, it is also very ambiguous, as the other critics have pointed out. Although the photographer has probably followed one of the many interpretations/stories that this photo can insinuate, I look at it in a multifaceted way. Yes, destruction and violence is one thing, but fire can also mean the end of an era and every end signifies a new beginning. Perhaps our cultural beliefs play a role in how we interpret this scene. For me, with my Hindu traditions, fire signifies means of sterilization/purification besides destruction. Someone else with vivid memories of the recent racial riots played on TV may perceive the destructive element of fire more. Lastly, the small portion of the hand visible on the boy is very important because it changes his status from observer to participant of the action. I also find how the title actually helps to trigger empathy in the reviewers about the boy in the photo. Even if I don't agree with the title, I can't ignore it's potential role in affecting the viewer's attitude and interest towards the picture.

A perfect image. I wouldn't change a thing. Reminds me of my youth building similar fires with my cousins and brothers to get rid of debris so my folks didn't have to pay to haul it off living in rural south Texas.

I can feel the warmth from the fire even though it's not in color. The cool black surround night framing the warm white fire back lighting the casual lean to the left stance of the boy. Compelling chiaroscuro rendering. Love it.

I am that boy. I remember throwing boards that way to see how far they'ld go and land in the heap.

Just wouldn't title it Thug Life. Lean Life? Not sure. Just a thought. I don't see race in any part of this image.

Keying on Supriyo's mention of cultural beliefs and religion: there is a wooden cross on the right edge of the picture. And it's hard to think of large fires without some hint of ritual arousal or excitement.

A pleasing image that I don't think needs any improvement, photoshop or otherwise. The bright fire with attendant halos only adds to the impression of heat and light that a bonfire provides. We all seem to agree that the title is terrible. This is a typical view from childhood, which is what makes it work so nicely.