young_y

Regarding the yellow tint, it just adds another aesthetic dimension to the photo and thusly creates a more complex overall aesthetic of the photo.

Although the mainstream aesthetics have been geared toward beauty, there are many aesthetics other than beauty. Dreadful, for instance, is an aesthetic and an example of it although I subjectively may not call the aesthetic of the color dreadful.

Though simplistic and limited, the dichotomy of beauty and the sublime can be used to illustrate the point. Or, we can talk about, say, prettiness vs. non-prettiness.

The subject of the photo is a pretty lady smiling in wind. But, the treatment of the photo including the yellow tint, eye details/shadow, texture, crudeness, etc., is not to enhance the superficial prettiness of the subject but to create aesthetic tension by introducing contrasting aesthetic qualities other than prettiness. This creates aesthetic complexity and can deepen the abstract, whatever the author intends it to be. This strategy is rather common in the art world; therefore, I am going to assume it is at least not uncommon in photography -- I am not sure since I am not a photographer.

BTW, if one approaches aesthetics in terms of “good or bad,” one may be committing an artistic suicide. Different aesthetics are employed for different effects and abstract. One can be selective about them depending on your intention with your photo. And, there may be no such thing as a bad aesthetic. The more open-minded one be about them, the broader and deeper one’s artistic world be.

Simple yet complex.  Beautiful yet so sublime. 

 

You are an artist.

I have not read all the comments in the thread. My apologies in advance if redundant.

I would consider composing/cropping even more aggressively by cutting out the left and the top to the extent that the eye is placed in the corner. Heck, I might even go so far as to cut out some of the details of the eye. Though such composition/cropping would not make it good as traditionally defined, it might make it even more shocking or interesting depending on subjective preference. I appreciate interesting bad photos more than tame good photos.

It may say something about beauty as we are "trained" to see and appreciate.

I really liked it. The striking contrast between the eye and the skin. Even the odd composition.

Jayanti Basu,

The reason I want my comments removed is that I do not wish to unnecessarily turn the course of discussion into one about religion by directly mentioning female Jesus, especially when the idea of female Jesus can be considered “sacrilegious” by many people of the faith. I really do not wish to initiate anything with religious overtone here when the context provided in the photo (visual cues, title, etc.) suggests little of such. Thanks for taking your time on my comment and the thoughtful response, Jayanti.

Please, disregard my previous comment. Apprarently, I mistook the garment she is wearing. She is sleeping alright. Still a wonderful image.

I guess I had seen one photo too many of symbolism and religious pastiche before this one. :o) So, dear moderator, please remove all my comments if possible. Thanks.

There seems to be such great complexity underlying the simple appearance. The facial expression along with the feminine features is to a large extent reminiscent of Virgin Mary in some great art works of the past, especially that of the iconic version, La Pieta by Michelangelo. Once the explicit femininity is discounted, there appears Jesus on the Cross immersed in the light of hope -- this, though, may not be the first artistic attempt to symbolically depict a female as Jesus if it is the abstract behind it.

Or, am I reading too much into it? Is this just a stylistic study of light? Should I just take the abstract as the title suggests? I see in your portfolio similar attempts to reinterpret icons or iconic images, so I just cannot characterize it as a stylistic exercise.

At any rate, such a discrepancy between the title and what appears to be a great display of symbolism content-wise is unexpected and somewhat discouraging.

Either way, the photo is expertly crafted and challenges me to think. The interpretation and execution are creative and stimulating.

Gordon,

 

The reason I mentioned Dostoevsky was that he might have loved your tonal treatment here since many of his novels explore extreme characters and their psychology as you noted. In , it is possible that you in the photo resemble the main character of one of his novellas, commonly known as Underground Man. I remember I had a good laughter about it.

 

As for my photos, I am learning digital B&W conversion. So, I am just trying various styles to see their effects and relevance to my casual photos. Thanks for the advice, as well.

 

Thanks once again for the explanation.

 

 

 

David,

 

I did not take your comment negatively. Not at all. A bit of self deprecation is my dry humor. Never intended to express displeasure or sarcasm. I have also been trained to think and write without much pathos, which sometimes gets in my way, as well, especially in internet. I swear I am a normal dude. :o)

Sorry, David. I am just trying to say that there is a strong contrast in mood between the two worlds, one inside the car and the other outside of it. By preserving/inserting the blots that some may consider as distraction, the contrast gets heightened. With mid-tone rather subdued, the stark tonal treatment of this photo strengthens the contrast in mood and possibly reveals his thoughts and feelings about the dog and the whole situation, which makes the photo more emotionally engaging for me.

 

The effectiveness of the tonality and blots here demonstrate that it is not always wise to go after tonality for the sake of beauty and/or define distraction without first thinking about what a photo tries to convey.

 

By the way, I think the abstract of the photo may be something about estrangement/alienation (wonderfully presented with a dose of wit and humor). Most people feel it one time or another. I do. Hence, I find the photo more appealing.

 

Didn't try to make it sound as pretentious. I perhaps was not thinking clearly enough to exercise economy in writing. A bad habit of mine.

 

Ton, thanks for the kind words.

BTW, one of your self-portraits suggests that you be very familiar with Dostoevsky. If so, have you ever thought about what kind of tonality or tonal range would he have used if he had been a photographer? If I am mistaken, please disregard the comment...

Gordon,

 

It seems to me, a camera wielding non-photographer, that photographers in general are too obsessed with visual distractions or seemingly distracting details. There is no denying that visual distractions can make a photo less compelling. But, isn’t distraction ultimately defined and determined by context or abstract rather than by sensory gratification? What appears to be a visual distraction could easily be a contributing element in the greater frame of what the photo tries to achieve -- be it of abstract, theme, mood, etc.

 

By the same token, a visually pleasing element could diminish the photo if it were not optimal for what a photo tries to convey. For instance, a compulsive adherence to great tonal range sometimes can work negatively when an option more conducive to achieving intended effects exists.

 

The photo is stimulating in composition, DOF, texture, etc. But, I find most interesting the bold gesture with respect to the seemingly distracting blots and the mid-tone parsimony to achieve the striking tonality in a thought provoking way. The blots and the tonality, aided by the great texture, heighten the mood and strengthen the contrast between the two worlds. To me, they make it much more engaging emotionally.

 

The photo is far more than just a “clever” shot.

 

 

Brad,

I also am an economist by training. Unlike you, however, I have never taken photography as seriously. All I have ever wanted, as far as photography is concerned, is to take decent casual photos I can be happy with, which has proven to be quite elusive.

My first impression is that your work is a study of composition on asymmetry and contrast as demonstrated by the four sections in the photo with abstract elements including some patterns. Upon further investigation, I notice the subtle yet tangible gradation in gray in each section mainly caused by light, and I realize that it is more of a study of light in contrast and gradation with a compositional twist.

A more interesting thing to me about the photo, though, is the spirit of exploring unconventional/non-traditional beauty. The concept of conventional/traditional of beauty is mainly drawn upon form and to a lesser degree color as far as photography is concerned. One common way to challenge it is to soften or even annihilate form by various means, most notably blur. A more popularly acceptable way, yet possibly far more difficult to execute than, say, to incorporate simple blur, is to introduce less familiar and variously interpretable forms as you are doing here.

I find that a big portion of unconventional beauty is to be accounted for by the aesthetic concept of “sublime” which can be different from the casual meaning of it. While conventional beauty is intuitive in understanding and immediate in gratification, sublime can be less intuitively obvious and more rigorous although one can get aesthetic appreciation from it similar to that from conventional beauty. Although sublime is usually associated with “formless and boundless,” I often think about the possibility of being so and its inspiration in more defined yet unfamiliar forms (which, for instance, can lead to the elevation of consciousness through reason). Speaking only for myself -- sublime is as subjective as beautiful is -- your work here is rather sublime than of conventional beauty.

One suggestion: If I were you, I would change the title as it seems to reduce your work into something less than what it is. The title strongly suggests that your work be a mundane study of line or curve in a bit uncommon landscape and therefore undermines its potential as a sublime abstract. (As a simple landscape, I find far less value in it.)

You need not click my name as I do not have a profile or a portfolio.

Good luck.

Gordon, thanks for the generous reply and explanation.

The very first word entering into my mind is “disorder” from the first glance of the photo. The drive-by or camera movement naturally assumes an element of chance or randomness unless one can precisely predict how time changes the nature of static state. Randomness and disorder can be argued to be an essence of the world we are living in. Hence, randomness and disorder, in my opinion, can make photos more immediate and intimate to life, if not more real, than ones governed by predictable normalcy and order.

 

The disorder in arises mostly from the unbalanced and askew composition/crop -- the double vision and blur only suggests uncertainty -- which is quite unusual comparing to the other photos in the portfolio. Even the Porcupine crossing road seems to follow a conventional wisdom of composition except the slight tilt. What appears to be disorder in the other photos may be a dispersion of order, not necessarily a breakdown of order.

 

I think it is Gordon Bowbrick’s artistic sensibility in attempting to diffuse and channel the potential disorder into a mitigated, more familiar form through color, composition/crop and stylistic overtone. Here, he makes no such attempt. He appears to make a conscious decision not to do so, which I find, mildly put, interesting.

 

Curiously, the subtle and light treatment suggests that the creator be distant from the world he created. As an observer in , he is just examining the beauty of the world he has created without even rendering any opinion to it, let alone making any emotional commitment. Perhaps, disorder is no longer part of his life. Quite a transformation from to which he was committed both emotionally and intellectually.

 

It is a very interesting photo, to say the least.

 

Marius,

I am a casual shutter-clicker. I do not have much photography skills and am struggling even with basic PP. Nor do I have passion or insight for photography. So, please, take my comment for whatever it is worth considering my acumen on photography, or lack thereof to a significant degree as confessed.

First of all, your embracing seemingly unpleasant colors and conviction about it are commendable. Beauty is not only in pleasantness and prettiness but also in otherwise, I believe. Your works, this and the one titled <Inside my soul>, are a good reference for me with respect to how to use unpleasant colors.

Secondly, image manipulation often results in a pompous gimmickry of fantasy genre for looks and marketability. However, you elevate yours into an introspective work. I suspect there is an inner working of one’s soul here, maybe in conjunction with <Inside my soul>.

If art is a journey of self-discovery and includes a process of allowing viewers’ participation in which they set out their own journeys, the depth of art may often be affected by how much the artist is to bear and show. You are willing to show a deeply personal side that many of us would have kept private, which could not have been easy for you. I hope you keep it up.

Thirdly, although it took me some time to shake the smell of “stylized kitsch” off the work incorporating soft light and sunset/sunrise in a setting that evokes, say, excessive lyricism -- I really do not want to use the term, romanticism, so I am adopting lyricism -- as commonly found in landscape/waterscape photos, the contrasting treatment of the foreground seems to discourage such impression. But, is the contrast strong enough? To me, it isn’t. The result is, the two worlds depicted in the piece are neither in harmony nor sufficiently disjointed so as to forcibly pull me into your worlds. Perhaps, the ambiguity is intentional. Nevertheless, it is still perplexing.

In that sense, I actually think the tilted horizon is effective as it serves as a source of tension that perhaps resides or should reside between the two worlds. Otherwise, the rather conventional composition aided by the lighting would look even more dangerously conforming, which may not be suitable for a personal work such as yours. BTW, why in the world should the horizon always be straight?

Lastly, I believe a great work of art either deepens aesthetic it is committed to or broadens the entire horizon of aesthetics itself by embracing elements that are thought to be inartistic. One can submit oneself to the mainstream aesthetics in an artistic pursuit. Or, one can challenge it. Or, one can even question the meaningfulness of photography itself. So, I would like to ask a question: Where are you at now? Of course, more or less a rhetorical one regarding if or not you are ready to "offend" aesthetically.

I am slightly embarrassed having pretentiously talked about something I don’t know well. I don’t even have a profile or a simple portfolio, so you can save yourself an inconvenience of clicking my name to check out non-existent credential. Please, consider my comment as an observation from a novice and take it for whatever it is worth.

Good luck.