Published: Monday 12th of March 2007 11:57:25 AM
Excellent grey tones in a fully geometrical synthesis. Bravo John.
From a critique to personal insults in two easy steps! Thanks John - I like your attitude to my critique and, reading between the lines, to photographing women - even though, for me, your great sensitivity and commensurate understanding of gender politics may not have perfectly translated into this particular image.
However, you're wrong and perhaps a little unfair to suggest that the negative stereotyping of women is in my mind rather than implied by the image. You are effectively saying that sexism can only exist in the minds of feminists and in so doing have turned an otherwise cordial response into something closer to a personal attack. This is sad as there was the potential for an interesting discussion, but I'm not going to pursue this as it's not nice to be personally attacked. I was critiquing your photo, not you and there's a difference.
Michael - I am insulted by your message and you come across as a bully even though you're probably a nice guy. It's quite amusing that you're read my bio and decided I'm a nerdy scientist who understands nothing about social interactions and needs to get out more. I was critiquing a photo.
It seems you think that feminists should just shoot loads of rolls of film of girls prostrated on sofas and get over their personal issues. This doesn't come across as very clever.
Well, back to the lab for another lonely night with my test tubes ;-)
Over and out - and I'll leave you all to fawning praise of each other's photos in a little world where dissenters are to be picked on and ridiculed.
Just my opinion...! Some honest criticism - hopefully taken well....!
This image for me brings an atmosphere of submissiveness, of a woman's body that's been treated like an object. There's no emotional resonance at all. The same old story of male fantasy...
She looks like she's been pushed down flat onto the sofa and it doesn't matter that her leg has been cut off because we're not interested in the whole woman...
To those of you who love this image: can you understand my point of view, if not agree with it?
About Hugo... I use to come back looking in comments of other people in some photo I like. When I show the comment of Hugo I didn't read at all the comment of John trying to be free of any others opinion. So I visited the portfolio of Hugo. My first remark was the absence of human beings exept of almost nothing. I can understand the scintific interests of a volcanologist but I think that Hugo has to explore people also. "To those of you who love this image: can you understand my point of view, if not agree with it?" I understand you my friend very well. I know also that this is a classic stereotype opinion about men. I know also that there are too many kinds of men and women and that there is not a standard behavior. There is always a dependence on mood partner and many other circumstances. So your critique reminds me feminists of the 70s and proves to me that your are not experienced in the volcano of humanity. Please study the lines of this picture and come back for critique on the artistic value of John. Friendly Michael.
Thank you. Really glad to see that this image can evoke such feelings.
John, Oh, my God! Where to begin! An amazingly complete image. The grey tones are a master class in B&W. The dispassionate left hand, held over the black void, gesturing to the glass; the right thumb and forefinger (toying with her hair?); the undone bra strap; the arch of the back; the smokey erotisim of the eyes; all are the hallmarks of a great artist, and a consummate craftsman. My only hestitation to rate this a 7&7 is the cutting off of her left foot. Still, an image that I wish that I had shot, and wished that I had on my wall. Glenwood
Excellent, pose, contrast,tones and of course the model is 10/10. Regards. Alberto
Hi John, This is the first comment I have posted on your images though I have been viewing them for quite some time. What I am interested in is what it is that makes me immediately know these are your pictures before seeing your name. You obviously have a style which I am connecting with but what is style. It's not as if you always use the same lighting or same positioning etc., but something makes me know immediately that it is one of your pictures. Whatever it is I like it, it if familiar ground and feels right. I hope you continue to post so one day I may undersatand what it is I am feeling. Thanks for al the pleasure you give. Eddie
Well John, you've really nailed this one. Michael about said it all. I'll add the glass which gives a perfect balance. Beautifully done
You know something Hugo, a critique is as much a reflection on the viewer as on the object viewed. it's rather like a Rorschach "inkblot test". I certainly don't see this or any of my work in fact as submissive, nor do my models I imagine, or I doubt very much that they would pose for me! Neverthless, I am delighted to add your opinion here. Personally, I see this as being romantic, sensual and erotic, but in no way anything like you describe. Frankly, I have great difficulty imagining women as objects. Sure, men do have fantasies, but women play games too and often the twain shall meet. You may consider that this is just your way if viewing this. Poscriptum: Hugo, I also just had a look through your magnificent portfolio. I am surprised to find almost no human beings there, and the only one present close up has half her face removed. Are we to conclude it is because "we (read the author) don't care about the whole woman"!? No, whereas of course we must be candid when criticising a photo, I don't think that one can make such sweeping statements on the basis of so little evidence. ... an honest response, hopefully taken well.
You have a great style of your own, great job!! Best regards!
Michael, Alberto, nice to hear that you like the picture. Eddie, that's particularly nice to hear also. Thanks.
I think you are wrong here Hugo on several counts. Frist of all, there is a prevailing philosophy in "photo critique" whereby one can say anything one wants (which is fair enough inasmuch as it remains relevant to the subject), as long as the reviewer is free of any critique himself. This is wrong. Whether your remark or mine, or Michael's are personal are all open to intepretation. Certainly my response may be considered so, just as I consider your initial statement to be that also, both as regards myself and the model. I am actually less concerned with defending my own integrity or motives than that of my models. If we are to be candid, then it has to work both ways. Honesty does not cease to be relevant, when the argument is turned back onto oneself. If we are to accept that an author's vision plays a role in taking a photograph, then certainly it must be equally true for the way that another person sees that picture also ... or don't you believe that by any chance? I accepted your remark, thanked you for adding your point of view, and gave my response in the context of the critique that you made, which was "not" related to the technical qualities of the photo but to the meaning of the pose. Once we leave technicalities aside and enter into the realm of "meaning", then it becomes a matter of personal vision and psychology. My response is no more out of line than your initial statement. After all, I took this picture and, more importantly, that young lady posed for it. All of these are personal. Before viewing this photo, I consider it quite likely that you, also, will have read the brief introduction that I wrote on my front page where I underline the significance of why the majority of these self assertive young ladies pose for me. To say the exact opposite under one of my photos is indeed a provocation that I accept willingly, but then I believe myself to be allowed an equal right of response. I accepted your remark, you did not appear to accept mine, and the only "insults" I see on this thread are your parting words and in the title to your last comment. Where does the "honest critique hopefully taken well" cease to be relevant, after you have spoken? Cheers, John PS. Hum, I am a nerdy scientist too, I wonder if that is my problem then!
Hugo.. You are right that I am a little of bully and I enjoy it sometimes. Do not forget your critique about those that like this capture. But you are talking about everyting else than the tree. Tell us about, light, tone range, clarity, synthesis of this image and try to forget your tubes for a while. If you like have a look on the feet of one more "sexist" like us. This is a painting of KLIMT.
Milen Lesemann 7/7
Sullen mood .