james_gilmore

Eyes and lighting are worthless without excellent composition. This image is framed beautifully by the folds of fabric, and the "diagonality' of the composition renders it dramatically.

This image needs no describers, no catchy title. Let it float out there - it's a "universal" picture!

Keep up the good work.

Yeah, the DH sucks. But this is serious.

This is film, so your digital vs film argument holds no water. Neither does your definition of realism. The way you describe realism, you must assume that we all see the same as you. No offense, but if we all saw the same way as you (or anybody who believes in a common "realism") there would be no need for art.

Also, if you look at history, it is the ones that redefine the medium (science, art, literature, etc.) that cause change. If we don't take chances, everything will photographically look like it should be on a placemat.

Finding Simon's artwork difficult to critique is a good thing. It reminds me of my favorite types of movies, the ones where you walk out of the theater scratching your head, trying to sort things out. You think longer about them.

Without change, we die. I think it's serious. Now, back to the DH question.....

I guess I don't understand the difference between a "photograph" and a "piece of art". That is not a critique.

Unlike most of the content-driven photos on this site (bland, trite, lifeless), this photograph offers sublimity and "otherness". I appreciate the way it breaks the rules of composition (nothing 'interesting' in the foreground, horizon line dead center), yet still is able to be evocative for those that wish to participate, rather than just look.

Thanks, Simon , for a refreshing 'artwork'.