Street Vectors

This photo, 'street vectors', also could be posted in the 'abstract'

category, I think. It is a 'different' photo than many of mine, but I shoot

and post in many genres, here and elsewhere. Your ratings and

critiques are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly or very

critically, please submit a helpful and constructive comment; please

share your superior photographic knowledge to help improve my

photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John.

[it makes a quite different photo in Black and White - which someday I

may post here or elsewhere]

took me some time to realize that the black object is a dog. I could not figure "what is this"? The title is off. Vectors have both direction and velocity components, otherwise they are just line segments. No big deal. I get the point.

you don't completely recognize all the elements at first of this photo, that's expected.

 

Although presented as a 'street photo' this also probably easily qualifies as an 'abstract', though with recognizable elements.

 

It's that they are not so easily recognizable and not presented in a form in which we usually encounter them - e.g., with the familiar visual and aural cues in which we find such a display.

 

The 'dog' for instance, is not presented necessarily as a 'dog' for 'dog's' sake, but for the blackness and for the line (and vector) he/she represents.

 

The dog is at once a line and has forward velocity -e.g. is a vector, even if the other lines are 'line segments' as noted and not 'vectors'.

 

Please note that the dog and dog's leash are virtually one 'vector' - e.g., a line segment representing forward velocity, as the blackness of the dog and the leash represent virtually one line within this photo and that was its intention.

 

So, both together form a compositional line within the photo, though they are two different things.

 

As a corollary, this is not supposed to be a photo of a dog, so please do not compare it with photos of the family pit bull (who is so kind, he would never bite, let alone tear a child apart), or Fido, or some sleek Weimerauner, seated, reading an eye chart full of dog bones all oriented in different directions).

 

Diagonals, as I've argued repeatedly, are one very goood way to transform otherwise 'static' photos into something seen more dynamic, and this photo has diagonals in abundance, as well as parallel and intersecting lines, accented with various colors as well, most being well saturated.

 

This is presented just as easily, I suppose, as a work of 'fine art', just as 'abstract' is a subcategory of 'art' and if it's done well, it can be 'fine art'.

 

Whether or not this qualifies as 'fine art' is for you, the viewer, to decide, but for me, I like it VERY MUCH, regardless of any ratings or critiques it may receive.

 

This is just past the 'dog days' of summer, as well, but it might well be my representation of those 'dog days' (they ended earlier this month).

 

Since this photo has no corollary on Photo.net, (or maybe anywhere) I understand that it may present a ratings or evaluation challenge, but I don't mind particularly - with over 10,000 ratings received, nothing will change my averages much, even if I were to turn in all 7/7s for the rest of the year, or even the opposite, at the rate I'm posting now.

 

I would appreciate hearing how this sits with you, since it's quite different from my 'mainstream' 'Crosley' work.

 

Enjoy if you can.

 

John (Crosley)

Nice interplay of light, converging lines, and colour. I like this composition. My only wish (don't we all have them) is that the dog wasn't on a leash! Well done.

I wonder if I would have picked up on the photogenic potential of the situation. To me, a photo should evoke questions or be a statement from the photographer. Is there something you wished to portray through this image? Is the dog on this crossing a metaphor for something? Why did you not frame the person accompanying it? And why did you not wait to shoot a person rather than an animal in this setting?

 

Sorry, loads of questions. But to understand a photo, one has to understand the photographer. Or rather, the thought process behind it. Thanks.

One of the best pictures of the day. Very complex and artistic and so well done. So many lines and a dog on top of it all. I like.

 

Tommy

I find your comment interesting as well as flattering to the photo. As you indicate, 'like' or 'dislike' for this may be quite 'personal' to the viewer, and as such even that may make it successful, at least for those who view it.

 

A photo may be considered to be 'successful' if it provokes thought and/or stops the casual or other viewer in their browsing and provokes them to spend more time with it.

 

That can happen with more simple photos because of some extraordinary feature(s); even in portraits where a face depicted is so unusual or has other features or expressions so interesting one wants to linger.

 

Here, one is presented with lines and colors and a barely recognizable dog on leash, and one has to either try to figure things out, or pass it by, and in the process either be attracted to the composition in the sense that non-representational art attracts or does not.

 

Because this is basically something that tends more to the area of non-representational art, even though its elements are clearly taken from the representational world and it is a 'representation' of something that one can actually see, and seen in microcosm.

 

It is an abstract, and at the same time it is 'art', I think, and few on Photo.net are well-equipped to judge 'art' with the tools they judge photographs.

 

I do take 'art' from time to time, and had to be schooled by a world-renowned critic on what I had been doing as he pulled examples from my unpublished work, and lo and behold, he was right. When I posted them, those with artistic backgrounds hailed them, and I learned a lesson.

 

As to the dog's leash, while you may not like it, for me it is a fundamental part or element of the photograph --- the dog and the leash essentially represent one basic black line (yes, I know, the dog does have a tail), which extends the dog's line and form farther to the edge of the frame.

 

In fact,the owner's feet in the original were barely visible at the very top of the frame, and I cropped them out -- they were indistinct and completely detracting. The crop was quite small.

 

Saed, thank you so much for the comment. I'm glad it appealed to you.

 

It will not appeal to everyone, and others will expect different things (perhaps wrongly).

 

John (Crosley)

Hi Samrat,

 

You ask if you would have 'picked up on the photogenic potential' of this situation. I would suggest, based on your comment, probably not.

 

When I saw these stripes on the walkway/roadway, I nearly jumped out of my skin, as I saw an opportunity to create a photo featuring 'art' and just stood there and later walked around, photographing this and others with people's feet as they walked past these and similar pedestrian hash marks.

 

This is by far the most complex and interesting of the photos and the only one that adapted to a color presentation - there is one black and white that also was very good, and some day I will post it. It is far more simple and perhaps more easily understood.

 

You question why I took it, and I have said so briefly, but let me explain further. As noted above, I have some familiarity with the world of 'Art'. A former wife used to work for the magazine 'Art in America', a magazine that catered to collectors, and had an audience of then the highest income people of any magazine in the world.

 

I frequently browsed that magazine, and it introduced me to another world - one where the questions you asked were entirely irrelevant -- a world where in more modern work, one looked to form and substance and one's inner reaction to what the artist was 'expressing'. Although there was and still are lots of phonies in the art world, and I certainly am NOT a high class art aficionado, I have some taste for certain 'art' that is not entirely representational, or even photography based.

 

So, when you say a photo should evoke questions or be a statement from the photographer, perhaps you are right, and the answer is in your question. Your response is to raise questions, about why I would take this photo, and my answer is that I wanted to take this as a mostly abstract work, taken in a split second from the representational world and present it to you as more 'art' than representation.

 

Thus it has done exactly what you have suggested - it has raised a question, as perhaps you have judged me and my work by past efforts you have seen and maybe rated. My statement may be somewhat a surprise to you, but consistently over my posting time, if you looked at 'every' photograph I have posted here (and on another site) you will find a subset of photos that meet the criteria for 'art' as opposed to representational work.

 

I was told by a world class critic who evaluated my work for six months and for free, that some of such work belonged in strictly 'art' galleries, and not in 'photo galleries', at the same time he was telling me some of my work then was 'fantastic' to 'stop shooting' and 'aim for the highest-class galleries and museums in the world', which he knew and would help me, but it was an expensive proposition, for which I did not have financing and I had a life and a girlfriend elsewhere.

 

Now is the time maybe to pursue those goals, if he will continue his offer.

 

Now in further answer to your questions - no, the dog is not a metaphor for anything. This is more on the order of an 'abstract' work of art, in which the emotion lies with the viewer, so you may read in it what you wish.

 

I have explained that the dog and the leash (and the tail) represent essentially one line, in this case a heavy black line, extended to the edge of the frame, and that line intersects at an obtuse a variety of parallel lines within the photo to make a variety of nearly identical geometrical forms (if one extends those lines within the figure(s) of the dog/leash).

 

There is a great deal of 'geometry' in this photo, and I was attracted by the potential of that, in part because the waning sun cast a yellow pall over everything, and because of the flash of red on the pavement signage, which allowed this to become a 'color' work - something I had not hoped for in the split second I maneuvered to take this capture.

 

I was standing or walking slowly, turning and twisting sometimes to avoid being seen to 'aim' my camera, because all those polite people who would pass me, then would politely step aside. So I had to feign interest elsewhere, then turn around to take my capture, then quickly turn some other way, and assure them I was only interested in the composition if they appeared distressed at my behavior, as such behavior can appear 'erratic' to passers-by though it is not and is very goal-oriented and rational. Most just do not understand its logic, and waning light is no time to be explaining.

 

It is seldom in life one sees an opportunity like this, with wide hash marks like this, but also with splotches of paint and red signage, and I was there only for a short time, so I tried to take best advantage and felt I did well.

 

You are used to seeing my work as a 'people shooter', something with which I have some level of skill and comfort -- am accepted as such by many members here, but my skills reach far outside that box, if someone were to study ALL my work and if I were prevented from shooting people.

 

In the end, this just appealed to me, and the more I see it, the more I like it.

 

I think it defied your expectation both of what you have seen from me, and possibly what you enjoy from photography.

 

In this photo, I put my 'art' hat on, which I do from time to time, and do so quite comfortably.

 

It keeps the world more interesting and diverse.

 

I sometimes post that I shoot in many genres; street is my first love and that is so. This perhaps is just one of those other genres -- 'art' -- that you may not have associated me with.

 

I very much am delighted that you commented - I had anticipated that some very worthy photography commentator and perhaps a follower of my 'street' work might ask some of these questions.

 

I once asked them of myself, until the very famous critic and Lucie Award winner took me through my own work after he went through it, photo by photo (terabytes worth) at home on his own motivation, studying and analyzing my work the best of which he called 'fantastic' and urged me to highest level galleries and museums - and separated the 'photographs' from the 'art' and said 'find different destinations' for each, because the 'art' you shoot is very good, and does not always fit with the stories of the street photographs you take' (paraphrased).

 

Maybe that tells you that you recognized something seen by another of prominence. (E-mail me for the name and bio,if you wish, and I'll respond. I don't want to trade on this great person's name, but if I do achieve prominence, then I will dedicate my work to him,as he has been instrumental in helping me understand the 'worth' of what it is I do.)

 

Samrat, thank you for taking the time to ask your questions - they are worthy ones, and I hope you understand my answers.

 

There have been many 'modern' artists and beyond for whom your questions would be entirely irrelevant and meaningless. They just create 'art' and often it has no 'meaning' other than what the viewer takes from it.

 

From this, you took questions - good ones.

 

I hope you find this somewhat satisfactory as explanation.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

Yes, artistic, complex and so many lines.

 

And most of all, the viewers' reactions are entirely personal and idiosyncratic.

 

To you 'one of the best of the day' and to others, perhaps, an enigma,especially because for many viewers, I do not have a portfolio of such shots (because they have not looked carefully at ALL of my work on more than one site).

 

I am proud of it, but this is a site, where unless one gets a 'following' for certain types of work, and therefore rated by those followers, work such as this, is likely to languish, largely unrated.

 

You might look at my photo, in my Color portfolio, entitled 'Red, Rushing', showing a giant work of abstract art in red, on a wall of a Paris Metro corridor, with a man rushing by in blur, carrying a large, red shopping bag, an example of split-second 'mirroring' but featuring my own 'take' on abstraction - my own 'reflection' or interpretation of the display of 'abstraction' in our life.

 

It and this are sisters in a way. Photos taken in a split second, that have 'appeal' (or maybe none at all depending on the viewer's perception, because 'art' is 'felt' within the emotions and often such 'art' is not something easily explained when it tends toward the non-representational.

 

'Red Rushing' got picked up by some 'blogs' and did get a substantial number of viewers who clicked through, much to my surprise, but it is much more coherent than this and very much simpler.

 

Thank you for a cogent critique; I'm glad it appeals to you.

 

John (Crosley)

And don't try too hard and keep your thoughts open, when you recognize that is a dog in the middle of the frame and do not try to be too scientific about 'shadows', then look at the red letters.

 

In some way from a distance from the screen, the letters' shape appears to take on the somewhat distorted form of a dog, perhaps like a shadow, but an unworldly one.

 

In reality, after some substantial wondering and figuring out, it appears the letters are painted out 'O' and 'P" from the word 'STOP' which was placed over the pedestrian hash marks, then the 'T' to its right was painted over by the white paint splotches or plastering type splotches on the photo's right, furthering the enigmatic appearance of this photo.

 

That is my impression.

 

I find this photo interesting and 'enigmatic'. and I personally like it, but I am interested in Your statement.

 

Your opinion need not be expressed in detail or with 'art' terms or elaborately - even a short statement of like or dislike is of interest to me, as this is a different photo, and evaluation is somewhat personal to the viewer.

 

What is your view? Brevity is fine. If you have reasons, I'd like to hear them, but there needn't be any.

 

Humor me; let me know your thoughts.

 

John (Crosley)

This is an image that grows on you. I'll confess I initially rated it fairly low some time ago, but revised my rating as I began to understand what went into forming it. I love how the leash and dog form part of the vectors at issue.

That is a most interesting and informative comment -- somehow I think it reflects 'growth' on your part.

 

That is something that has happened to me, particularly after I was mentored by someone significant in the 'arts' as well as the 'photographic reproductive arts' - someone who taught me enough to believe in my own work and as a consequence I have no hesitancy in posting something like this that is as much 'art' as photograph, and keeping it posted in my highest-viewed folder of all time.

 

I congratulate you -- it's very hard for some people to admit they have changed their mind - some people in fact cannot change their mind, and still more cannot either admit it or even tell others about the fact, let along write about it.

 

I am very pleased, and it shows some personal maturity on your part.

 

I was disappointed with rates on this, but knew this would be a difficult photo to rate - and others of mine recently which I think are 'excellent' or 'close to excellent' are getting some initial low rates, but again, better-educated and more experienced members then are stepping in, so rates have not been languishing too much.

 

It's something that happens -- if you post something and believe in it, then unless raters teach YOU something (and they often do), then you should stick with your instinct, if you have certainty, and my more recent knowledge and education (masters classes by a world class expert over the dinner table a year ago, just for me), taught me to have some certainty and also some perspective about my many genres and styles of shooting.

 

This is just one - and it may be hard for members who are used to seeing one or another style of shooting from me to make the switch in their mind.

 

So, this posting may have confused and disappointed them (as it also may have done the same to you, initially.)

 

I congratulate you for your candor - you don't have to like it, either, to gain my approval - just tell me something intelligent about your reaction is probably enough.

 

Best to you this late summer day.

 

And thanks.

 

John (Crosley)

One function of 'art' is to make an impression on the viewer - to affect and engage that person, the viewer, now always in a rational way, and very often in an 'emotional' way.

 

If after all this time, you still 'felt' strongly enough to come back and re-rate this photo, that indicates some rather strong possibly emotional feelings.

 

Unless you have such strong feelings about everything, it may say something special about this particular photograph that it has brought forth such feelings in you in that strenth - can that be true?

 

Again, thanks.

 

John (Crosley)

John,

 

I certainly don't usually come back and utterly revise my opinion of an image. But by rating more photographs, I've begun to have a better sense of what makes something strong. And, you have a strong portfolio, so I spend more time on your images.

 

Finally, for me, this image is particularly compelling. It's odd, just looking it as I type this small addition to my critique, its grown stronger now. But it took time for it to click initially so that I could appreciate it. Now I just shake my head when I think how I low-rated it initially.

 

Peace,

 

 

Mark

I would suggest that is what happened when I was 'mentored' by a rather famous 'art'/'photography' expert (he undertook it on his own after seeing my images).

 

He separated my work out into those which were 'pure photographs' of various genres, many of which he pronounced in his typical hyperbole 'fabulous' and others of which he separated into 'pure art' which he said should be presented to 'art galleries' as 'art' and not as 'photographs' except that the medium happened to be photographic.

 

He seemed rather thunderstruck that, without tutelage, and without any showing or experience, I should just walk in off the street (and I literally did 'walk in off the street') and show such a varied amount of work.

 

He spent six months (on his own dime) culling through several terabytes of my work, choosing what he thought should be presented to galleries/museums -- some as pure photographs cum photographs - others as 'art' to 'art' galleries using the photographic medium. It astonished me.

 

We got caught hung up on personal problems, I went to Ukraine, returned, and re-connected with him. He resumed taking me to galleries, then I got very, very sick, and just got better.

 

He does the same thing for some very, very famous photographers (curating their work), and even I can see and almost predict the photos he might choose and why he has chosen them. They aren't always so popular on Photo.net (or another service on which I post) in critique, but you can be dead certain in the gallery world, they'll be noticed - or at least they will be most likely to be noticed - for the galleries he has taught me to present each group to (when I choose to do that, if I do).

 

I am about to re-connect with him, if he is available. He has a very busy life; he's subject of a feature documentary film (I was to be part of it, I understand before my recent illness, and possibly could still be???)

 

In any case, he taught me that a photo such as this might have worth beyond anything I might expect -- often in dialog in what I call 'master's classes' over the dinner table, over a period of a couple of months -- all for me alone.

 

What a treat! And he was an excellent cook besides being a superb conversationalist, superb raconteur, and an amazing tutor, using the give and take of the Socratic method.

 

Of course, though I didn't know much about many subjects or people in the art world he knew everything about and that had formed his life, I do catch on rather quickly, and although I think he thought I wasn't paying attention sometimes, I heard and learned from nearly everything he said and taught me.

 

I think he'd be proud of me in fact in fact.

 

Maybe I'll get a chance soon to find out.

 

From the start, he offered me his 'endorsement' without being asked. He said an enormous number of photographers/artists would die for that endorsement, but he has only given it three or four times in his entire career, and he is nearing the end of his life -- and only now am I understanding the true enormity of that gift, although I always have been greatly thankful for his help from the start, as that I did understand and appreciate.

 

I think as your estimation and view of this photo has grown with your willingness to acknowledge the change that you have 'grown' artistically - in that way this photo and your evaluation have been your own Rorschach test for your own artistic development.

 

That is not to say that this photo necessarily has any 'greatness' to it, but it obviously has affected you on some emotional level, which is something 'art' can often be judged by, especially when it's more abstract and less representational.)

 

My very best to you - this may be some sort of milestone to look back at - that will be for you to decide.

 

(I did have my milestone too,, but I had to be dragged kicking and screaming to realize the 'worth' of some of the captures I might have deleted or let corrode on my hard drives, if it weren't for that visionary mentor and his desire to share his vision with me - literally to pound it into me (in a most friendly manner).

 

With great respect.

 

John (Crosley)

John,

 

Thanks, I appreciate your words.

 

Mark

I wonder if someone above ask about the paint spill. That attracts my curiosity. Must have been union worker.