BUILDING--AUGUSTA, MONTANA

Like most images on Pnet, this is best viewed large. Thanks for

comments or rates.

The picture of the building is well executed, but with the bland gray sky and white snowy foreground, there is nothing to engage me as a viewer. Yes, it's an interesting building, but show me what makes it interesting. Is it just it's age, is it the difference between the two wings, one with vertical siding and the other with horizontal? What?

 

Many pictures fall short of their goal not because of technical flaws, but because they fail to engage the viewer. This is a very good photo but not a very good picture.

 

 

i had to think about this after reading Charles' comment above. i like the austerity of this, but i wonder if a closer crop would be more engaging, and draw the viewer in.

I responded to the gentleman on another photo upon which he commented, and I told him I did not much disagree with him. The image does tend to have a dull symmetry, only slightly offset by the stand of trees. I considered taking away some of the snowy foreground, but did not like the aspect ratio that remained. All in all, I'm not that attached to the image as "fine art" but do feel a certain compunction to record the existence of such places as they clearly will not survive too many more years, and I enjoy the history an aged artifact such as this implies. Thanks for your thoughts on the image.

this structure is interesting. The way it is framed, it has some distantness in it. It's like saying don't come too close, no friend here. It's also at a point that being farther away would create too much coldness, IMHO. I think that the level of detail is just right. It's not in your face, and it's not so far that it would be hard to see things. Yeah, kind of respectful distance.

Not friendly, respectful. Well, the overall symetry of the photo makes it neutral to my taste - a documentary photo. Of course, there is nothing wrong with that. If that was you intent, then the photo communicates it well. Cheers, Micheal

 

Thanks for the comment. One thing is for certain, it's seen a lot over the years. I have no idea what it was used for. Could have a very interesting story to tell.

Personally, I like it just the way it is, a one of a kind, idiosyncratic building and well worth the time invested in the shot. It's good as a single picture and together with it's fellow denizens of the high plains present a wonderful record of a time now passing from our life.

A wonderful old building, especially when viewed larger. I think it would have been okay to reduce the foreground snow by 50% without any impact on the H/W ratio. I like it as shown (LARGER).

I like the textures of your buildings, David. You've done it again.

I'd pretty much given this one up as dead in the water, but the late returns are encouraging. Thanks for your comments.

 

And, yes Shawn, images like these are not very intimate, and should be seen as large as possible. Most on Pnet do not bother.

<>

 

Precisely. "Fine art" is but one aspect of photography. It is not the be all and end all, though this site has a way of pandering to that sensibility. Your "dead in the water" comment points out that this site has had an effect on which images you post, which is not necessarily a good thing. Not that you in particular need this advice, David, but I think your artistic vision is VITAL, and much as I wish your pictures would end up on the "Top Photos" folder at the top of this site, I'm sure you have learned by now that your pictures generate buzz here not because they are "top photos" by the jaded standards of pnet, but because they ARE top photos that say what you want. That, by itself, is reason enough to keep them coming.

 

That said, I think the image could use some contrast adjustment. I personally prefer snow to look like snow, not Ansel Adams mud.

You are, indeed, a wise man. I have been self flagellating about this very issue. Lately I find myself making such an effort to please the Pnet viewer, that I censor myself too much and it stifles any growth. It's not like I have to sell this stuff to make a living. And it's not like I SHOULD allow popularity to dictate what I shoot, what and how I process it and why I do it in the first place. It's a disorder I've acquired, and I'm working on resolving it. You are one insightful gentleman.

Emmanuel is right on the money as usual and your honest reply mirrors my own thinking. I am somewhat artistically isolated here in Osaka and so photo.net claims a lot of my time and attention but at times it actually increases my sense of creative isolation. Individual pictures only can really be understood in the context of the artist's body of work. Too often this is ignored and the picture is judged not only as a creative orphan of unknown geneolgy but is considered as if it should fit the critic's own artistic philosophy. I often read the comments and wonder if they're seeing the same picture I am.

Many is the time I have enjoyed the give and take of conversation with you, and even if I had zero appreciation for your art, I would treasure the nuggets of wisdom that folks like you, Emmanuel and a few others have imparted to me. When I first joined Pnet, I think I viewed it as an art space where I could hang all the stuff I wanted on the seemingly infinite walls, and the masses would view it. As my first year came and went, I came to realize that this site is chock full of immensely talented, interesting and imaginative people. Sometimes this realization was intimidating, but sometimes fear can be useful. I also found a certain number of rather selfish boors, which I only mention because they do take their toll. But most of the time the good outweighs the bad or I guess I would have stopped tuning in.

 

As time has gone on I have seen a little unwanted but insidious virus invading my thought processes and my artistic vision. It manifested itself in my judging images by how well they would be received by fellow Pnetters. It is not that some of them/you are not terribly art smart. It's just that I didn't start out to be the same as someone else or anyone else that I know of.

 

Archibald McLeish had a great little passage in JB: (I quote from memory, so bear with my mistakes) If God is God, He is not God. If God is good, He is not God. Take thee even or take thee odd. I would not sleep here if I could except for the little green leaves in the wood, and the wind on the water.

 

The argument about the existence of God is not relevant except as a metaphor for the existence of or participation in Pnet. So that's the best way I can say it. Some of you guys are the green leaves in the wood and the wind on the water, and that's why I remain. And I'm grateful to have had that.

My wife tells me that I dress like an old man, and she goes out of her way to encourage me to mix in some blue in the dark grays I drape on my body everyday as I step out the door. Subconsciously, I started listening to her, not because I no longer sought comfort in the staid and the old, but that it is very ingrained in our minds to gravitate toward praise. It is the way the world is because, quite frankly, NONE of us likes to see 3/3s on an image we post, no matter how confident we are in our artistic vision.

 

While I think my wife's aesthetic appraisal of my gray suits and striped ties is not necessarily the determining factor in my choice of clothes, I catch myself wondering as I peruse my closet if indeed she is not right, and I too dull. It is that scene from Looney Toons where Pepe Le Pew finally looks in the dictionary and finds what the word "pew" that everybody yells as he goes by means. His reaction was denial, of course. "Pew? Me? Mais, it is not possible." Yet, his confidence was shaken. Deep down inside, we all have a little Pepe Le Pew in us, and we have on more than one occasion wondered if indeed the emperor is really naked. This is a disconcerting thought, as we are all sensitive.

 

I "got" your work as soon as I saw them for the first time. I got the irony and the humor in your pictures back then and commented on them. I appreciated that because I did a series of pictures of San Francisco's seedy Tenderloin titled "South of Market" that explored the same themes. I discovered Jack through his winning Photo of the Week, and I commented on his pictures then, the seeming casual surface that betrays a deeper insight into Japanese culture and aesthetics. It took a careful review of his portfolio to get his art. Most pneters are not that patient, and I can understand that.

 

It is tempting to get bitter and rue the fact that a person can live on the beach and shoot 1,000 pictures of sunsets and get much better ratings than you, who are pursuing a much more unified and dynamic artistic vision, but after a while I made peace with that. The world is big enough for all of us, and I ultimately had to eschew that anger and concentrate on improving myself.

 

I've seen members who got so traumatized by getting 3/3s that they stopped posting to the critique forum. I, myself, think this is foolish. Do I tell my wife to shut up because she doesn't "get" my dressing? Of course, that is foolish. My wife is my wife, and she is more important to me as a wife than her opinion of my clothes. I have even caught myself dressing to please her. We live in the same house, after all. Another thing, too, is that I appreciate the fact she CARES about my dressing and gives me her honest opinion. This is why it is important to keep posting to the critique forum. Maybe, there are times when you ACTUALLY show up in the street naked, and after a few members point out your shortcomings (David Niven credit in order here) you're like "whooooaaaah! what was I thinking!" It is just as dangerous, after all, to let others dictate to you WHO you are as to close your ears to sincere efforts to get you to zip up your fly.

 

Oh, I can't wait for John Falkenstine to dissect this long winded comment.

I find myself deeply grateful to Charles for spawning the wonderfully thoughtful replies his comment inspired. Sincere, honest and articulate, all. You have given me much food for thought, for which I am indebted to you all.

 

While having my morning coffee today, I went through the photos in your 'Way out West' folder as a slide show. Individually they are all good. I didn't find what I thought to be a weak one in the bunch. But, more significantly for me, as a group they give a real feel for that part of the country - the vastness, the beauty, the cold, the isolation, and the abandonment. I came away having gained a bit more insight into this country and particularly the remnants of its past that will no doubt soon disappear. That's certainly interesting enough for me. But then I wear dull clothes too.

Thanks again for another of your wonderful comments. I am in awe of the way you make a point, so simply but with a sincerity and eloquence that I admire. And, yes, I know the photos will not make me any great place of renown in the annals of photography, but just like you, I get a particularly good feeling somewhere deep inside about taking them. And thanks for looking at them as a body of work. As stupid as this sounds, I have to admit that I have not really ever done that. It's post this, post that, and each piece is there, but I really haven't thought about the fabric being weaved.

 

I might add, Doug, that you have done the same thing with your corner of the woods. Unfortunately,I've never been to Tennessee, but you have helped me form my image of rural Tennessee.

what is your honest answer to this question: would you be happy, content, with taking photos if you could keep them only to your Self; if you couldn't share them with anyone? I'm asking, because I think (though I'm not 100% sure) that sharing the fruits of our joyful work is our nature - we automatically gravitate towards that; as is our nature to appreciate positive feedback.

Cheers, Micheal

 

You bring up a very good point. Validation is personal to each of us. For some it is sales of our images, or being shown in prestigious locales, and receiving acclaim. Surely we all seek recognition. When I take pictures of my grandchildren, they give me satisfaction and they are not for anyone but me. And, by and large, I would still make images even if nobody ever saw them. But....everyone loves to get pats on the back. I suppose many of us harbor some secret fantasy that we will be the next Weston or Lange or whatever. So I guess the answer is yes I would still take photos even if they were seen only by me.

 

But I'd rather they be seen and acclaimed by others. And that's the problem. If you look at the top photos (which I never do, incidentally) you can form a pretty good idea of what will get you recognition. And there is a natural tendency to alter your work to fit into that paradigm. Ultimately, there is no right or wrong in this. Each of us does what we must. The only thing I know for sure is that there have usually been two forces guiding my photography. First, I have always had a strong aversion to doing what everyone else is doing. Secondly, it has been my devout goal to attain a style that is peculiar to me and recognizable as me. I find this to be an extremely difficult task. The one thing I know is that one must use caution to see that one does not lose that personal vision and growth for the purpose of getting adulation.

You forgot the third guiding force: you're an old fart and all the "rewards" of recognition are seen for what they are - airy promises of celebrity, more a burden than a blessing. Better intelligent conversation with friends over a bottle of wine and a nice dinner. Can't help you with the wine and dinner right now, but I'll take a turn at the conversation. At out age, I think that's more than enough to keep us fat and happy.

Well if it isn't, I reckon it ought to be.