Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Justinr on November 28, 2010, 04:21:17 pm
-
Mmmm...... not sure that I would.
Was messing around with a few bits and bobs from the kitchen this afternoon and this was the result.
-
Mmmm...... not sure that I would.
Was messing around with a few bits and bobs from the kitchen this afternoon and this was the result.
I think it is art,
I think many people would want it on their wall,
I think it has composition.
Art is in the eye of the beholder.
-
I'd be afraid of being absorbed by amoebas during the night.
-
Some people might put it on their wall, but I wouldn't. I don't find the subject very interesting. From the standpoint of composition it looks pretty random to me. Not much holding it all together.
-
Nice abstract shot, but I would not hang it on my wall. Reasons: (1) color, (2) the texture does not grab my interests, (3) amoeba paramecium protozoa is what comes to my mind when I look at the little blobs--maybe good composition for a lab waiting room?
Thanks for sharing!
Darr
-
I wouldn't hang it on my wall either. But I would think about using is as an overlay in PS.
-
Well thank you all for the response, it is genuinely appreciated.
I suppose the fact that it has created an informed and critical response at all suggests that it is in fact art rather than a photo of a mess, and yes I did set out with artistic intent so it is reassuring to think that is what I achieved. The contra argument is that I arrived at the structure and to a certain extent the composition by accident so therefore it is only a lucky mess. In other words I did not set out to create something so suggestive of primitive life but that is what happened, I just wanted to experiment with colour and fluids, does this fact devalue it's message?
I really don't know.
-
Justin, Your post and your response to the responses leads me to ask these questions: Why does it matter whether or not this blob of color can be classified as "art?" And: Who gets to establish that classification? And, finally: You ask the question whether or not chance devalues it's "message." Why do you think it ought to have a "message?" And: If it had a message, what would its un-devalued message be?" The thing is what it is. By the way, luck always enters into the production of a thing that ends up being accepted as "art" by those to whom that kind of categorization matters. There are painters who do things like spatter paint on a canvas and walk around on it, producing something accepted by the "art community" as "art" and selling for absurd amounts of money to the terminally gullible. Is that what you're shooting for?
-
Well thank you all for the response, it is genuinely appreciated.
I suppose the fact that it has created an informed and critical response at all suggests that it is in fact art rather than a photo of a mess, and yes I did set out with artistic intent so it is reassuring to think that is what I achieved. The contra argument is that I arrived at the structure and to a certain extent the composition by accident so therefore it is only a lucky mess. In other words I did not set out to create something so suggestive of primitive life but that is what happened, I just wanted to experiment with colour and fluids, does this fact devalue it's message?
Nah, you're just beating yourself up over a problem that's completely invisible and inconsequential to everyone but you.
I kinda like it, but IMO it's the kind of thing that does better in a series, as opposed to a singular image. Actually, if the intent thing is bothering you, there's your solution: go make a bunch more of these that are intentionally complimentary to this one.
-
selling for absurd amounts of money to the terminally gullible. Is that what you're shooting for?
It's a lovely idea but I really don't think I have the brass neck to carry it off. But you are right to ask why I am questioning it, perhaps a rush of honesty in that that I have never considered my self a true artist creating new artefacts or images from simple materials, rather, whatever mean creative talents I have are expressed only in interpreting a scene or merely rearranging a subject and lighting. To suddenly find myself producing something that may be considered fresh and valid is a bit of a shock to the old system.
Actually, if the intent thing is bothering you, there's your solution: go make a bunch more of these that are intentionally complimentary to this one.
Great minds think alike! That is precisely the solution I had alighted upon. So watch this space, or not, depending on taste. ;D
-
To suddenly find myself producing something that may be considered fresh and valid is a bit of a shock to the old system.
Well, you might want to take a shot with it in the "fine art" world. You could end up the new sensation among the terminally gullible. Ah, celebrity -- the environs of Lindsay Lohan, and Madonna.
-
Justin, Your post and your response to the responses leads me to ask these questions: Why does it matter whether or not this blob of color can be classified as "art?" And: Who gets to establish that classification? And, finally: You ask the question whether or not chance devalues it's "message." Why do you think it ought to have a "message?" And: If it had a message, what would its un-devalued message be?" The thing is what it is. By the way, luck always enters into the production of a thing that ends up being accepted as "art" by those to whom that kind of categorization matters. There are painters who do things like spatter paint on a canvas and walk around on it, producing something accepted by the "art community" as "art" and selling for absurd amounts of money to the terminally gullible. Is that what you're shooting for?
Wise words, thanks!
-
hmmm.... I do have a suggestion/question: have you tried this shot with stronger side lighting? could be interesting...
David Saffir
GuruShots Photo Critique (http://www.gurushots.com) - a contributor on Gurushots, a new resource for creative photographers