kirk d

<div></div>

Whenever you see a moronic comment like "nice shot, now do me". Go to that person's site and leave the same message. Maybe they will get the point.

Personally, I find it difficult to just rate an image numerically without leaving a comment. Often I'll leave a comment and totally forget to see if the person has it up for numberical rating. That's probably why my "number of photos rated" is not as high as most other members.

 

Kirk

It appears most of us are on the same page to some extent or another. Thanks for ya'll participation.

 

Gordon, I appreciate your observation of the piano image and while I imparted a softness to convey an elegance and gloriousness to the playing of our new piano, that treatment, in my opinion accomplished what you stated. Although those hands are younger than mine and I do not see age in them at all.

 

Hakon could use a few lessons from you, Gordon, and Fred on transferring observations to text in diplomatic prose.

 

Kirk

Kirk

Vaughan I think you're right about human nature - you mean photographers are human? Good point.

 

Susan, I'm often surprised by the pictures people like not being the ones I thought were best; makes me shake my head in wonder. I think the part about vanity is really good and should be weighted against any negative comments they may have.

Here is the link where you'll find Fred's comment the 23rd down http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00NcbW. You know Fred, I almost did this in my original post.

 

Kirk

I often wonder when I create something if others will like what I did; as far

as seeing, well, that's a pretty grey area.

 

Often I have family members dislike something I've shot of them or using parts

of them yet I think it is really good ar at least decent. Am I looking at my

work through Rose Colored Glasses? Blinders if you will? Here is a latest

example where the model hated the picture because her hands look old.

http://www.photo.net/photo/6726178 I'm not saying its a great

picture but I thought it was a little better than the terrible reception I got

from the model.

 

I think it happens here on PN as well. Many times I'll read comments on images

where viewers wax poetically over an image either inate or portraiture and I'm

looking at it thinking, are ya'll crazy - you're misleading this person into

thinking s/he has something and by the photographer's response, they are

comments that they want to hear and reinforce their perception of their work.

 

Anyway, how much stock do you put into your own judgement of your work and

that of others that view it or when involving a live body, what that person

thinks? Should you believe the model, unfamiliar/public comment, or your own

perception of your work viewed through your particular color of Rose Colored

Glasses?

 

Yes Fred, this topic was spawned from your comment under SCREAM.

 

Kirk

True and I think to take your second paragraph further we should register on Siskel and Eibert's website - not.

 

Have a good weekend.

 

Kirk

Good points Fred, I certainly do find knock you over the head predictable movies boring or at least not worth a second viewing so I'm glad you used movies as an example. Throws a new light on the physical medium we began discussing - thanks. I'm not nearly as studied in art as you are so while I'll use the names you mention to research, I have to rely on your description to understand your point. I've gone mostly on unknown artist/sculptors I've know personally; one of the darkest/bizarre/cinically of them, Kevin Faust, died from HIV 27 years ago. He was good and in hindsight, he did just do what he wanted but because his bizarre style, he was never recognized and unable to get his ideas out. Didn't really bother him I guess but it would have been nice.

Anyway, thanks to you and Gerry, I'll have to watch my use of tasteful and responsibility so as not to be pigeonholed into something I'm not.

 

You think we should have started another topic about 50 paragraphs ago?

 

Kirk

Fred,I guess I used tasteful for lack of words to describe what I think to be soft, tender type of image, maybe tasteful is the wrong word and I should learn to say what I mean instead of using words like tasteful that are really obscure.

 

As for responsibility, I must not have explained it fully enough because you were way off there. When I say responsibility I just have always felt I got more true and honest exposure to reality of emotions and states of being from artists over the years. That includes musicains, painters, photographers, etc. When I say responsibility, I mean that artist seem more in tune to these things intangible things of our being and interaction and are best at making it tangible to the other people. To me if you want to get a message across, it can be one of here is your fear - its ugly and in your face - continue to fear it. Or, the artist can make it where those fears and stigmas are less threatening to the fearful and more likely to be accepted and actually effect change in society.

 

Don't know if any of that makes sense and I'm not one of those intuitive, itellegent artist that intends to reveal and educate society. I think if someone wants to get others to accept a philosophy which he believes in by creating art to present his message than better to use honey instead of vinegar - lace instead of leather.

 

Of course, I'm not talking strictly about nudes, Fred. However as far as nudes go, if I like something, it is tasteful to me. My taste in nudes varies but tends toward the type as done id Vulnerable and a host of others and that could change from image to image and day to day. I appreciate genuineness and tend to like dark stuff with demons often I've liked something, not here on PN, that others thought was disgusting.

 

That's true enought and I think in the other vein of responsibility, artist have the responsibility to be genuine and not misrepresent the truth either about themselves or others.

 

Kirk

Gerry, good point about distracting being used and not explained, I usually do try to state what I find distracting and why. Granted, in this case, I failed to do so in my first post. However, my third post above yours I believe I did address the root of the distraction as being a brown spot in the bottom where there is even toning.

Very good point though. In this case, I don't think the photographer included that part of her anatomy as a gimmick, I think he was trying to do a tasteful nude and he suceeded except in the compositon.

 

Kirk

Al, thanks for the laugh. May the search go on!

10-4

Don, I was referring to the nipple but said brown spot to liken it to a distracting blown highlight or some other single spot in any image that would divert the viewer's attention. The hand is neutral to my eye.

You know its coming back to me now; I used to think and still do, I just forgot; it is the artist of the world that convey the true pulse and heartbeat of the people by creating art that exposes taboo as well as our myriad of emotions and I guess even less serious stuff.

 

Granted the in-your-face stuff can get the message across but I think that has more potential to just shock and not really educate and change anything. I think when stigmas and taboos are exploited such as reporters tend to do to get stories, sell papers and build their viewer base, they are reinforcing people?s fears and stigmas and I think that artist that do that through the examples that both you and I stated merely accomplish the same thing both in reinforcing the taboos and getting attention for themselves. I think you so rightfully pointed that out in many of the top rated here on PN.

 

I don?t mean to sound serious here, but I think art when delving into those forbidden areas has a deeper responsibility than personal recognition. Not that art has to delve into those areas.

 

Kirk

Damn, I wish you could go back and edit your contribution here.

 

Above, I stated, "street shots" aren't synonymous with "landscapes" as much as "nudes" are with "nature shots".

 

My mind wanted to write, "street shots are no more synonymous with landscapes than nudes are with nature shots"...

 

Kirk

Bob, I think you're right and that is probably what Fred noticed about the composition to.

 

Kirk

Hey Fred, I was expecting you to disagree with my statement. First off, I did not use ?to get a reaction? and ?gimmick? synonymously. I stated that a gimmick can be used to get a reaction, which to me is not synonymous. Secondly, I said ?almost always?, which is a pretty large swiping general statement I'll grant you but it does leave room for special cases.

 

As for your challenge to find objects in landscapes, nature shots, street shots, etc that would give the same impression, I have to say led me to a revelation of sorts that helped me understand better what it is that shocks. I know its simple, but things in art that shock people are as you said previously, are Cultural Stigmas, I know that is simple but, hey?

 

Therefore, in landscapes and nature shots, it is almost impossible to find anything that people have not been groomed to accept. Up to a certain point, a child is ?shocked? by animals eating each other so, if a photographer used grizzly scenes of an animal devouring another in a children?s book, I?d have to say, it was done so to shock them and would not be very popular. As adult art, it would be hard to find something in those two categories that would ?shock?.

 

Now, in Street shots, I think objects and appendages that are used by photographers would be weapons, like depictions of suicides, murder, etc., Even adults are afraid of weapons and the resulting effects and yes, in most cases, I would say the artist was using it to get a reaction and unless artfully and tastefully done would be in poor taste and possibly a gimmick to get a reaction or maybe more appropriate, attention.

 

Whatever that says about me, so be it but is does certainly say that there are different categories of art and ?street shots? aren?t synonymous with ?landscapes? as much as ?nudes? are with ?nature shots?. Granted, a street shot is a city landscape and nature shots are of nude animals but they are certainly different categories and can hardly be compared.

 

Those aren?t hard rules, and personally, I don?t automatically dismiss art that shocks based on certain objects or appendages being shown regardless of the category. On the contrary, I?m usually drawn to the different and unusual.

 

True, musicians, painters, and movie directors shocked the world but is was a shock of amazement and a feeling that you just know you are looking at and experiencing something that is beautiful, moving or genius. However, I do think Hitchcock used Cultural Stigmas to shock the people; was it a gimmick? ? to an extent, yes, but he did it in such a way that it would shock and not rely totally on stepping on sacred ground.

 

You?re right, about cultural stigma whether it be here in America or in the Middle East, it is a limiting aspect of human nature.

 

Kirk

Julie, I like that point, and you?re right. Actually that occurs quite often with people trying to make their nude shots more ?artistic?. Many times, the props take away from what could be a better picture.

 

Fred, the last part of your first paragraph describes exactly what this photographer wound up with. The head shot of this woman is, in my opinion, perfectly captured and is likely due to the reasons you so wisely stated; in fact, he named the image Vulnerable. I guess I?ll post a link, here it is: http://www.photo.net/photo/6709777

 

To me, it isn?t the breast that is bothersome; it?s a round brown ?shape? in the lower light area that averts my attention to no benefit. Again, just my opinion, which if continued to critique would say that if the sheet were pulled over and covered the breast, the translucent bed sheet would ?lighten? the brown shape for a more balanced portrait.

 

I like your other points as usual but have to note that I am far from a prude yet I find male or female genitals when shown in art work to be, almost always, blatantly presented as a shock effect; almost a gimmick to get a reaction or response. Rarely does it ?add? anything except one of two extremes ? sexual interest or appalling shock, of course there are in-betweens but I think the majority fall into those two categories.

 

Thanks for sharing your experiences in the ?studio?.

 

Kirk

Nude models have been a part of art from the beginning. Mostly it is used to

showcase the human form with settings, light, and shadows, etc. Other times

it?s used to show raw emotion, and of course, like anything else it can be

boring.

 

I think the lack of clothes or near lack when used tastefully is a beautiful

thing. However, what if when you cover up the nude parts and you find the

image actually has more impact to you? Is this possible or am I being a prude?

Can an exposed ?private? part, even the common breast be a distraction in a

great portrait full of feeling? Or should that be overlooked because the

photographer created the image with that element present?

 

I bring this up because I recently commented on an exceptional portrait of a

woman but to me, the breast showing seemed a distraction, I think if it were

covered with the translucent sheet from the bed she was lying on and was

present but pulled across her chest below her breast, it would have allowed

the feelings of the model?s face and the photographer?s post-processing to be

more powerful.

 

I hope this is philosophical enough, I didn't think it went good under

portraits because that was mostly technical stuff. To me, the above are

questions about more how you see, judge, and feel about partial nude images.

 

Thanks,

Kirk

Fred, good point about this environment on PN being a learning one and I'd like to add that a lot of conversation also stems from the other environment I think PN fosters and that is the friendly one.

 

Often I write stuff about my image in the comment box when putting it up for comment/rate and almost always in the comments section after someone has commented. In doing so I usually feel like I'm communicating with and in a way that I would were you my friend sitting in my physical presence and having a conversation about your photo or mine. I don't know about you all, but when I'm with a photog friend or even a friend with interest in my pictures, we usually talk about how we obtained the image and other stuff because they "know" you already and don't have to stare at your picture and figure that part out.

 

Now, with strangers its probably best to let them observe, absorb and enjoy your image on their own terms. I guess that is what makes PN a little difficult to draw the line with the titling subject because while many people are friends and casual, its unavoidable that strangers will look at your stuff; hell, even your friends here were at one point strangers.

 

If your stuff ever makes it in a gallery, I'd say cut the fat. Here, I think its much less important. Actually as a learning environment as Fred mentioned, I wish some photographers would put a little more information than they do. There are many that have to large of egos and mightier than thou complex that they are above sharing or just don't care.

 

Kirk

 

Kirk

Larger prints require larger bucks too. You'll be impressed at some of your own stuff when you do get to do it. I've yet to do any of mine larger than 8x10 but a friend of mine does some big ones and its amazing how much better some of his stuff looks compared to the same image at 5x7 or 8x10.

That Speed Graphic sounds interesting whatever it is - I'll have to "Google" it.

Sorry bout the mistaken identity, Don.

Thanks, no problem Fred.

 

Don, maybe you need to reflect more of yourself and not just the subject. Sounds like what you think is missing is the ominous/alien "feel" you get. Now how are we going to get that reflected from your subject if you don't reflect your feeling of that into it? Just kidding. I think the larger the image you can print, the closer you'll come to having that image reflect that feeling. Sometimes big is better, which, I think you have referred to several times.

 

Kirk

Thanks for the thoughtful answers Fred and Don.

 

Don - I respect your approach to titling and am often torn between doing so or not, I usually do although I shouldn't because most of my titles suck. Most of the time, I do it for the fun and other times to communicate to the viewer. I don't know if that is "right" or "wrong". Its odd though, some images I title, I feel very comfortable doing so, others, I feel a uncertainty or reluctance.

 

Fred - I wasn't necessarily questioning Don's approach, not sure if you were saying I was or were just stating there's no reason to question his approach as a general statement. But, for the record, I did not intend to question it, if anything, I was defending what I thought Don was questioning about my interpretation of the post.

 

As for approach, I'm not sure that I have a concious one but in reading your reply Fred, I see photography in many of the ways you stated.

 

Thanks again,

Kirk

"You First"

 

I thought I did in the second paragraph above.

 

Don, I viewed your folder since you mentioned it is different than the OP's and you're right. I can see your images reflecting the subject, the people are presented very uninhibited and natural and your neighborhood shots show their face and your landscape shots convey a beautiful tranquility.

I'll tell you though, I took a tangent train of thought when I was scrolling over your thumbnails and noticed only a few were titled. That train I took leads me to believe that the photographer possibly reveals more about himself in the titling of his images than if the image was untitled; not to everyone of course but to the majority, an untitled image allows the person to absorb the subjects reflection easier without being influenced by the author's reflective title??

 

Kirk