JUXTAPOSITION

?

This is an interesting one to ponder, from the critiquer/viewer standpoint. Your title, and really the image itself, is about this unnerving juxtaposition. The cars are an awful companion to this architectural beauty. The lighting flatters the withering adobe, bringing out its gentle and natural nature ("natural nature," is that allowed?). But the cars are so uninteresting and imposing that it ruins the image for me. The message conveyed is certainly a poignant one, but I just keep not appreciating the visual itself. Call this a reaction from the gut, unfiltered for meaningless flattery.

you just need to drink some V8, then your gut would be nothing but up :-D I don't think that Dave's intention was to provide a beautiful photo of pleasing architecture decorated by cool cars - for that Dave would park his eight Bentleys there. IMHO Dave's intent was to point out the contrasty difference between the modern cars and the old structure. It's like seeing an old, traditionally dressed, Indian chief getting out of the pilot seat of Boeing 747. This contrast is very well captured here. In fact, I believe that if the cars were somehow unique (in whatever way), the photo would lose this contrast, juxtapostion (who came up with that wacky word, anyway?). The greenery background couldn't be better. It just provides nicely contrasting colour and doesn't distract from the main subjects. Dave, you mean people actually permanently live in this? Cheers, Micheal

I'm in agreement with you and already knew what David's purpose was. I thought I stated so in my original post. ("Your title, and really the image itself, is about this unnerving juxtaposition. The cars are an awful companion to this architectural beauty.") When I described the cars as "awful companions," I was echoing, I thought, David's perspective, not giving my own opinion. (I could have been more precise in my references there.) My opinion came next, when I talked about them as visually uninteresting and just not appreciating the statement visually. I assume I may express disappointment in a visual without risking being cited for not fully understanding the intention of the photographer, no? Part of photography for me is a certain level of visual appeal. I don't think every photo needs to be pretty or pleasing. Even when subjects are ugly, awkward, misplaced, or ironically juxtaposed, there are ways to present them that are compelling. That is not the case for me here. Sorry, David, that I felt the need in this second go 'round to be more adamant than I prefer when critiquing someone's work. And, Michael, I'm sorry if I was unclear and misled you in my original comment. By the way, I hate V-8, so is it ok if I have some cranberry juice?

Well clearly you both understand the my intent in taking the image. Micheal is pleased with it (or, perhaps more accurately finds its purpose to be sufficiently satisfying), and Fred seems to understand perfectly what it is about, but is not pleased with the final product. Not to worry Fred. I'm very pleased that you have pushed the issue a bit and, thereby, forced me to think about it some more.

 

These people, like most of us, are trying to adapt and survive in the complex world of today. Their reality is that they at times embrace the past and still desire to live in the present and the future. While these abodes have great emotional ties for them, they are also set out for the rest of the world to view as a tourist attraction.

 

It is not necessarily my place to make value judgments, nor is it appropriate to ridicule their lifestyle. As anyone who has seen my images knows, I do love the ironic. So there is that element here. Aside from that, I am aware that these people have fairly strict rules about what can and cannot be done to their abodes. They avoid any appearance of modern appurtenances being visible to the public in an effort to keep an "authentic" and "historic" appearance. Knowing that to be the case, one cannot help but wonder how it has seemingly missed their attention that cars and signs are a major distraction to all that they are trying to present in their public personae.

 

So none of that really addresses your concerns Fred. I reckon there is no real reconciliation possible in this particular case. I don't find it pretty, I just find it. I would like to ask this fairly irrelevant question however. If this were a simple picture of the pueblo adobes, would it have been much of an image, and would it have required much attention? Would it have been in any way original?

Thanks. I love hearing, and suspect I already surmised, your approach both to the people and the homes or possessions you photograph. I intuit a great deal of respect coming through your photographs from you to your subjects. I generally perceive no value judgments (as hard as it may be for anyone to stay completely neutral on certain matters) and in this case felt in tune with the irony you were presenting. Without the cars, I agree, it would not be that interesting a shot (even though, as I said, you captured the texture and feel of the adobe quite nicely with very good lighting and exposure and, believe me, this alone would have been submitted as a final photo by many lesser photographers here on PN who would have thought that was enough). As critical as I can be, I am more comfortable making specific and detailed technical suggestions if I feel a fellow photographer needs help in fulfilling his vision than I am recreating that vision or suggesting alternative visions, because those are so personal and there are so many varied ways of seeing things. So, with such matters of actual content, I usually just say it doesn't work for me and give the reasons why as opposed to suggesting what to do about it. Since we have a history of mutual concern and respect and I assume you'll take this as only my personal approach and not a specific recommendation to you but simply as the presentation of a way I think the photo could have more power, I'll give you a "fer instance." Rather than taking it as a straight documentary shot, where the parking area with cars just kind of sits there, I probably would be looking for a shooting angle or perspective that accentuates those cars or more intentionally calls attention visually to the irony, perhaps crouching down low a little closer to the vehicles, getting them maybe even a bit distorted in the foreground against the earthy adobe structure behind them. That's just an off the cuff stab at it and every photographer would approach it according to his or her esthetic. To be sure, I'm quite content if you like or love it as is and don't insist I hang it on my wall. I imagine, desite people's hesitancy on PN to come out and say when they don't like something, that many are not enthralled with some of my own works. Over the years, those who have been critical of some of my photos, friends who have told me outright something just doesn't have it (sometimes they're right, sometimes not) are those whose praise I really value because it feels genuine. On the other hand, those who without a really critical eye wax poetically time after time about every photo I show them get my thanks and a smile but don't help me much in objectively assessing my work. Thanks again for shooting so straight and being so thoughtful and opening up a world in pictures that we all often take for granted.