Jump to content

The Wall (No Nudes is Good Nudes) **+


johncrosley

Nikon D200, Nikkor 70~200 f 2.8 E.D. V.R., full size and unmanipulated except for slight contrast/brightness adjustments similar to those of a photoprocessing machine -- hence, unmanipulated


From the category:

Street

· 124,944 images
  • 124,944 images
  • 442,913 image comments


Recommended Comments

This is how one particular wall in Buenos Aires, Argentina appeared

to me; how many photographic elements and/or devices can you

identify in this photo? Your comments and critiques are invited and

most welcome. If you rate harshly, please submit a helpful and

constructive comment; please share your superior knowledge to help

improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

Link to comment

One device that for me holds this photo together is the use of hands and arms, for the depiction on the wall, left and for the bike rider, right whose hand ALSO is on the wall (both hands/arms are on the wall in effect -- an effect that may be too subtle for the casual viewer).

 

What other photographic device(s) or effects can you identify for this photo which is far from the Photo.net 'box'?

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

If one peruses the traffic signs in Europe which adopted universal signage, one notices that a bar through a sign meant 'no'. Thus a parked car with a diagonal cross through it meant 'no parking'.

 

Other depictions meant the same. A diagonal cross meant 'no x x x x ' and that has fallen into nearly universal use, having popped up on signage such as boxes for computers, in which, for instance, a stack of boxes may be shown with a diagonal through them, meaning that you can't stack them (more than so many high). Same for other signage on boxes, such as use of 'hooks' which once was common for snaring boxes, and now has fallen into disuse with increasing use of electronics parts, delicate goods, etc. Hooks no longer are used much, now that longshoremen use sophisticated gear to unload containers rather than cargo nets full of crates, which all needed to be picked up using, say, 'hooks' held by longshoremen (men, not women or 'persons' as it always then was a men's profession -- there was no equality in longshoring). (Note how I just made it an equi-sex word).

 

Numerous such diagonal bars meaning 'no x x x x' signs have shown up in traffic contexts and shipping contexts and others as well. Universally now, then, a diagonal bar means 'no x x x x ' with the 'x x x x x ' being the thing depicted under the bar and thus forbidden, either by law or by the sign's rule.

 

So, in this photo the 'no x x x x x would be the 'nude' and particularly, perhaps the style in which the nude is depicted, somewhat deformed, modernistic, unusually and unnaturally shaped and colored -- certainly not a true depiction of a female -- not a photographic rendering at least.

 

So, in one way this photo can be seen as a little boy's arm creating the diagonal that 'rejects' the manner of nude depiction that it diagonally crosses out.

 

On the other hand, if you're not so inclined, it's just a (hopefully interesting) composition. The diagonal creates part of a triangle, with the other parts being created by the rest of the boy's outstretched arm (and bicycle seat), so that there is, within the shadow that comprises the center of the photograph, in the lower part a mostly complete triangle -- a most dynamic figure.

 

Perhaps this photo, then, has both elements working, or perhaps neither of them works for you.

 

If nothing else, in addition to the elements that make this a photo in which 'black and white' would work well, it also is a photo in which I have used the term 'paint by color' to describe a photo in which color is an important element because the photo is saturated throughout, which is not the case in a reat many photographs.

 

In that way, then, this photograph, as depicted, is a 'color' photograph. It also could be envisioned as a black and white photograph, and it might also be interesting because of the design elements and still be interesting because of the 'no x x x x ' element. As you choose.

 

Viewer's choice.

 

Or it might not, depending on your whim.

 

In view of low ratings, people might have wondered why I posted it, as I liked it, and continue to like it. For me, it's a good photo and I will continue to keep it posted where it is, as a proud piece of my work. Perhaps it has been a little esoteric for this audience, or perhaps I'm just projecting elements into art that aren't even artistic at all, and are all simply errant brainpower run awry.

 

Who knows?

 

In any case, that is my view.

 

And I'm stickin' to it (for now).

 

Can someone show me a better way, or point me to their truth about this photo?

 

John (Crosley)

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...