jonglass

It's been a while since I posted on a POW, but then again, it's been a while since a POW has

immediately captured my attention.

This one post, quoted below, really, IMO brings the whole point of this photo into focus....

<

Nice gal... As to her music - have to listen to it. Also, musicians normally do not look into

camera.>>

Everybody is talking about it, but nobody is saying it, so I thought I would (although,

maybe that's bad form?).

First off, I'm really surprised that nobody else has mentioned another _very_ well known

work of art, the Mona Lisa! Comparable in this respect, the eyes, and especially the mouth,

not a smirk, but an enigmatic smile.

It is the eye contact--the expression on the face--the directness of this photo that is the

source of it all, and what makes this photo work. You may disagree with its effect, but the

effect is there, nonetheless, and it is this that makes this photo more than merely another

portrait of just another musician playing on the violin. It reaches out, grabs you, and won't

let you go as long as you cannot tear your eyes from it. It's a great photo! I can find little

to complain about it compositionally or technically, which puts this photo at the top of its

class. I love it! Others will hate it. I wonder how many would say they are blase about it? :-)

-Jon

I continue to be intrigued by the varied responses, especially by the ones that find such strong language to describe it in negative terms. Doug, your comments also intrigue me as regards the "subtle" tonalities, etc. However, as I read the complaints, I know that there are differences in taste, etc. but I see in this photo, something that is seldom seen in photography.

Photography is, by nature, an art of subtraction. In other words, when painter paints, he must add in details as he goes. He starts with a blank canvas, and builds upon it. Photography is the opposite. As a photographer, I must decide what to leave out to make my photograph work.

This photograph is a study in minimal complexity. What I mean when I say that is that if you take out one more element from this photograph, it loses its composition completely, and becomes nothing. Take away the textured wall, and it doesn't look complete. Take away that line, and it looks empty. Remove just one stick of cinnamon, and it ceases to work. Take away the blown hilight, just to the right of the sticks, and the balance goes. Move the sticks a little to the left or right, and again, the balance falls apart. Everything is just as it needs to be--including, I believe, the "overblown" hilights. Those provide a balance--whether intentional or not, I do not know, but for me, if you tried to fix the blown hilights, the detail that would re-appear would distract from the rest of the scene. The balance would be gone. The minimal complexity would be gone. BTW, as to subtle tonalities, I see them, not in the blown hilights, but in the cinnamon themselves. (oops, I just realized I may have been spelling the word "cinnamon" wrong. Please forgive me... I think I combined the spelling of two languages!) It is the contrast between the two that, for me, make the image work.

I see in this photograph, an essential balance that teeters right on the fragile edge. It is this tension that makes it work, and strangely enough, also make it look so peaceful.

Maybe people think I'm crazy, and maybe I am, but I do enjoy this image. It's not the best I've seen, not by a long shot, but it represents a form of photography that is seldom attempted. I know that I could not achieve this level of simplicity (minimal complexity) and get away with it.

In fact, I think it would be a good challenge to ourselves--the detractors especially--to attempt to reproduce this level of minimalized complexity. Personally, I would enjoy seeing the results of other peoples' efforts. Not to criticize, but to enjoy and learn. I think it would be a good exercise in that essential element of photography--subtracting the non-essentials. In any case, it's easy to criticize, but something totally other to perform. While I could find things to criticize about this photo, I find it too compelling, and am humbled by the fact that this artist (which is what she must be) was able to do something I can only dream about doing at this moment. My hat is off to her and to all who can create works of this caliber. Let the critics wax verbulent (sic). I know good stuff when I see it, and _this_ is good stuff. :-)

To the best of my recollection, this is my first post on Photo.net, and certainly my first POW post. To be honest, I seldom visit the POW, as most photos, while good, just haven't compelled me. However, at the first glance of this one, I clicked on it. My first thought was "Ikebana!" Not that this photo is a direct representation of the concept, but it certainly holds to what I consider to be the principles of it. I was fully expecting to see a discussion along these lines, and instead I find complaints about the high key tones, and the various "lackings" in the composition. However, I see in this photo balance. There is balance between the high key whites and high contrast with the subtle tones of the cinnamon sticks and textured wall, and yet again with the gentle shadows. balance between the roughness of the wall, and the smoothness of the "blown" out sections. There is the line at the bottom to balance the soaring, tall sticks, and the short stick in the middle to bring a bit of tension to an otherwise static display. The whole harmonizes rather nicely and aesthetically.

I can understand how it wouldn't be everybody's cup of tea, but I certainly found it compelling enough to click on it. And I was kind of disappointed that the similarities between it and Ikebana have not already been mentioned. In any case, it has been an interesting discussion, and I'm a bit late to the party. Sorry if I've upset the "balance" of the discussion. ;-)

-- Jon Glass