As new to this forum, I was encouraged by the content and quality of the various comments regarding last month's POTW simply because they seemed of a more serious and developed range of experience than the usual comments made in the usual "empty-nester, housewife's" community photography club. However, this week they seemed to have regressed. I am hopeful that this forum will somehow remain compelling to serious students of photography through thoughtful and studied critique comments. Largely, I agree with the various positive comments about this image as to the technical and compositional elements. I am in complete agreement with Tom Meyer's comments, though, as to the subject matter. Ernest B's interpretation is stupefying as to where that "depth of subject" came from! I'm not sure I was looking at the same image! I cannot help but wonder if this image would have any interest to anyone if it were not placed in this forum for critique. I would presume we all struggle to produce "relevant" art. Or, rather, if someone is not interested in producing "art", is it worth our time to even critique? On occasion, we run across images produced with such high and exceptional technical quality that they reach artistic stature. This image is neither of those to me. It is, however, uncommon to me in two respects: 1) We rarely see technically good photography taken in such inclement weather because photographers usually won't do it. 2) The subject matter is SO common that it compels one to study it for significance and interest. Unfortunately, I don't find any and would take issue with the comments on in this thread that stretch mightily to find "meaning". As much as I respect the producers of this site for their attempt to provide eclectic subject for our critique, it would seem to me that more provocative and uncommon material would make the effort more worthwhile.
Still raining ?
in Street
Posted
As new to this forum, I was encouraged by the content and quality of the various comments regarding last month's POTW simply because they seemed of a more serious and developed range of experience than the usual comments made in the usual "empty-nester, housewife's" community photography club. However, this week they seemed to have regressed. I am hopeful that this forum will somehow remain compelling to serious students of photography through thoughtful and studied critique comments.
Largely, I agree with the various positive comments about this image as to the technical and compositional elements. I am in complete agreement with Tom Meyer's comments, though, as to the subject matter. Ernest B's interpretation is stupefying as to where that "depth of subject" came from! I'm not sure I was looking at the same image!
I cannot help but wonder if this image would have any interest to anyone if it were not placed in this forum for critique. I would presume we all struggle to produce "relevant" art. Or, rather, if someone is not interested in producing "art", is it worth our time to even critique? On occasion, we run across images produced with such high and exceptional technical quality that they reach artistic stature.
This image is neither of those to me. It is, however, uncommon to me in two respects: 1) We rarely see technically good photography taken in such inclement weather because photographers usually won't do it. 2) The subject matter is SO common that it compels one to study it for significance and interest. Unfortunately, I don't find any and would take issue with the comments on in this thread that stretch mightily to find "meaning".
As much as I respect the producers of this site for their attempt to provide eclectic subject for our critique, it would seem to me that more provocative and uncommon material would make the effort more worthwhile.