Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: michswiss on July 19, 2012, 12:17:34 pm
-
(http://www.michswiss.com/Work-in-progress/Work-In-Progress-2012/i-XsRZZ4H/0/XL/DSC01560-XL.jpg)
-
Hi Jennifer - not sure why anyone might hate the picture. However it's not a pretty picture, and so I guess it is trying to communicate a message. To me it is saying young woman not having an easy life, possibly single-parent, maybe alcohol or drug dependant, generally down on her luck. Why does the subject like the picture?
Jim
-
However it's not a pretty picture....
In this day and age, that is about the highest praise a photographer can ask for. Really.
As for the image, I like it. However, it's hard to decipher and, without some sort of context, my mind creates all sorts of likely and unlikely scenarios. Perhaps that is the point?
-
I like it.
The scene looks like a down on her luck single mom, but she's dressed and the baby is kitted out, as if there's enough income in sight to get by at any rate. The cues we're given are conflicted. What's going on here? We get to fill in the story, don't we? That's "street" or an aspect of it, right there. Except this looks posed -- I cannot think what on EARTH she is doing sitting there, except setting up to get her picture taken.
So, it fails a "street", because the only interpretation that makes sense isn't very interesting!
The kid's pretty cute, and mom's got a bit of something going on too, for all she looks a bit rumpled here.
-
Now you're talking, Jennifer. Bravo! Fine street photography, partly because, as Chuck and Andrew both point out, your mind creates all sorts of scenarios when you look at it. I think the thing that jabs me hardest is the dirty snow along the wall. From the way she and the baby are dressed I'd guess she can't be destitute, but . . .? It's a very moving picture.
-
I don't see "destitution" in this picture at all. In fact, I can't surmise much of anything beyond the probability that's she's a single mom, due to the lack of a wedding ring. But why this relatively well dressed woman should be sitting with this seemingly well-fed and warmly-dressed baby in an alley is totally unclear. It could be merely for an urgent diaper change. The new-looking backpack sitting next to her is open and could well contain baby changing supplies.
-
That's my best guess too, Pop, but it's a hell of a place to change a diaper.
-
I don't see "destitution" in this picture at all. In fact, I can't surmise much of anything beyond the probability that's she's a single mom, due to the lack of a wedding ring. But why this relatively well dressed woman should be sitting with this seemingly well-fed and warmly-dressed baby in an alley is totally unclear. It could be merely for an urgent diaper change. The new-looking backpack sitting next to her is open and could well contain baby changing supplies.
But that is where without any other context the viewer is going to go - destitution. Of course she could be a middle-class girl looking after her niece and just posing for the photographer. But I don't know any mum's who would normally sit on the ground in a back alley without a good reason. Certainly in Europe even quite a deprived mother would still be reasonably well dressed and fed, and the child would almost certainly be so.
Jim
-
"That's my best guess too, Pop, but it's a hell of a place to change a diaper."
Much more considerate than in a restaurant or an airport lounge.
I suspect that the 'she' in 'she likes it' means Jennifer and not her friend...?
Yes, she's right: I don't like it; I dislike all aspects of unhappiness and tough times, and neither am I great for looking at folks in uncomfortable positions or circumstances. Frankly, there's enough negativity of my own life to be more than I need; why would I relish an additional helping? That's not for me to attempt to deny Jennifer the right to shoot anything she pleases, of course, it's just my current reaction to this type of image. Was a time I admired all that stuff, but I grew out of it and eventually saw it for something very else to what it's usually admired for being thought to be.
Rob C
-
But that is where without any other context the viewer is going to go - destitution. Of course she could be a middle-class girl looking after her niece and just posing for the photographer. But I don't know any mum's who would normally sit on the ground in a back alley without a good reason. Certainly in Europe even quite a deprived mother would still be reasonably well dressed and fed, and the child would almost certainly be so.
Jim
Maybe a European viewer would see destitution, but here in the USA it's a bit different. I see lots of destitute people every day and none look as neatly dressed as this woman. Even her shoes look new. But we won't know for sure until Jennifer weighs in with the real story.
-
But I suppose the point I am making irrespective of whatever Jennifer says, is that the message of the picture as shown is surely despair and unhappiness. That to me is the message because of the way the picture is photographed and the setting chosen. But as I also said - it could be something else - in which case the message has failed. For me the picture would be better if there was a connection with the photographer - I want to read the eyes.
I would like to know why the girl likes the picture though, and if she wanted to be portrayed in this setting rather than in the park, and why Jennifer thinks others may hate it.
Jim
-
But I suppose the point I am making irrespective of whatever Jennifer says, is that the message of the picture as shown is surely despair and unhappiness. That to me is the message because of the way the picture is photographed and the setting chosen. But as I also said - it could be something else - in which case the message has failed. For me the picture would be better if there was a connection with the photographer - I want to read the eyes.
I would like to know why the girl likes the picture though, and if she wanted to be portrayed in this setting rather than in the park, and why Jennifer thinks others may hate it.
Jim
I don't see unhappiness or despair either. The only thing that might suggest those things is where's she's sitting, but nothing else does, at least to me. Even the expression on her face doesn't look particularly despairing.
-
Much more considerate than in a restaurant or an airport lounge.
But not considerate for the kid's frozen butt.
-
I don't see unhappiness or despair either. The only thing that might suggest those things is where's she's sitting, but nothing else does, at least to me. Even the expression on her face doesn't look particularly despairing.
But then what is the picture trying to say. I cannot believe Jennifer just took it as a random shot meaning nothing. If that was the case it must be one of the most pointless pictures ever and I don't think that's the case. I am only saying what the picture means to me - others can have a different interpretation.
Jim
-
But then what is the picture trying to say. I cannot believe Jennifer just took it as a random shot meaning nothing. If that was the case it must be one of the most pointless pictures ever and I don't think that's the case. I am only saying what the picture means to me - others can have a different interpretation.
Jim
Well, if she was trying to say something, it's lost on me. I'm not sure that social commentary was the goal here. I also don't think that a photograph necessarily needs to "say" anything for it to be effective.
-
Well, if she was trying to say something, it's lost on me. I'm not sure that social commentary was the goal here. I also don't think that a photograph necessarily needs to "say" anything for it to be effective.
We might just have to disagree on that one. But there's no harm in that. Personally I think all photographs need to say something. In the case of a beautiful landscape picture it may just be saying "lovely, restful, tranquil scene - don't you wish you were here?" Michwiss has chosen to show a girl with a baby sat in an unattractive way, in an unattractive setting, in rubbish light. The photographer is not a bad photographer - so there must be some reason for the picture, it's just being left up to us to interpret it.
Jim
-
I think this photo has room to improve technically
composition and lighting mainly, a wider view would be helpful in illustrating a story along with more context clues
-
But not considerate for the kid's frozen butt.
Russ, babies can even bounce! What's a bit of chill on the fat?
Rob C
-
I take it the image isn't posed? If not and it's for real then I wonder how the women feels about someone sticking a camera in her face in what looks like a moment of despair. The image makes me feel uneasy and it looks like to me like an unwanted intrusion into her life. The question is what happened afterwards Did the photographer walk away or stop to offer assistance? :-\
-
Interesting feedback and analysis. Thanks everyone. I don't normally share backstory, but I'll ease your minds a little. This is a friend, also a professional photographer. She'd stopped to adjust a few things. I was struck by the spot, pull a camera out and shot 4 or 5 frames. She liked this one in particular. I realise it's potentially a disturbing image, thus the "you might hate it" portion of the thread title.
-
This means the analysis and the feelings the others had - and possibly myself - were misplaced? Interesting what different people felt about the image which weren't true. I have often wondered about people's differing analysis of an image and how they could reach their conclusions. This confirms that there are different types of imaginations at work that don't really bear any resemblance to the true reality of the situation, only guesses that skewer their liking or disliking of the image?
-
... a professional photographer...
Ah, all clear now... that explains the destitution and despair part. ;)
-
Other people's perceptions and interpretations is the whole point. That you have some of the story (there's my own untold half) distorts the perspective. That can be deliberate or not. The image itself should be taken in unless the photographer or story editor decides to add other elements.
-
The comments clearly show that is akin to a Rorschach test, where people project something of themselves into the image.
I’d call that kind of result a success.
Nicely done.
-
Other people's perceptions and interpretations is the whole point. That you have some of the story (there's my own untold half) distorts the perspective. That can be deliberate or not. The image itself should be taken in unless the photographer or story editor decides to add other elements.
Exactly. If it's photojournalism then the picture's there to support a story. If it's street photography the picture has to stand on its own feet, and the picture IS the story. People get the idea that street photography is documentary photography, but it's not. Jennifer just made the difference clear by turning what was a quite good street shot from which people could arrive at various conclusions into a picture that illustrates a specific story.
By the way Jen, this is the point "Street & PJ" never could grasp. Turning the title into "Documentary" was a smart move. The title now actually describes what's going on.
-
The problem was the story had a different meaning to everyone that saw it but none of them guessed what really happened? There were all sorts thoughts, destitution, single mother etc etc but nobody guessed it was a professional photographer posing for a friend. It was a fraud, but a well meaning one with respect to nobody being fooled in a malicious way.
-
Hi Jennifer,
I like it. I find it ambiguous and intriguing. I think one of its great strengths is the ambiguity, while being bautifully balanced and composed. The leading lines on right and left take you right to the mother's head -- What is she thinking?
And the baby is raching out with one arm and one leg, ready to plunge into an unknown world.
The variety of responses you have gotten so far suggest that it is an image that pushes viewer's buttons and provokes strong reactions, which is great IMHO (even though I don't agree with some of the other reactions.)
Other people's perceptions and interpretations is the whole point.
Brava!
Eric
-
I realise it's potentially a disturbing image...
It's fascinating how many seem to be disturbed by the clean, healthy, mom and baby (both with lots of new stuff) putting arse to tarmac in an astonishingly clean back alley.
I suppose they didn't look but just dived off the deep end anyway.
-
First of all, who cares if it's "real" or "posed"? Honestly it sounds like it was somewhere in the middle. If it's not 100% real maybe it doesn't get to be called truly "street" but again, so what?
It works as an evocative photograph.
We're not disturbed by the the clean, healthy mom and baby putting arse to tarmac in a clean back alley. What we're disturbed by is the potential implications of the scene. The thing is simply littered with symbols of destitution, decay, drug use, and so on. The fact that the mom is apparently clean and healthy, the fact that they're pretty well dressed and equipped in first place does not make the symbols go away, and in the second place by conflicting with that fairly blunt basic imagery makes us even more disturbed.
If it was just a junkie in a filthy alley, we'd "know" what was going on (whether it was a real junkie, or a model, or a model who is also a junkie, or whatever was "true", the scene's internal reality would be clear). It's not, so not only do we have all these unpleasant symbols in front of us, we DON'T know what's going on.
With respect, it's kind of insulting to assert that other people who ideas that differ from yours must simply not have looked closely.
-
Ah, all clear now... that explains the destitution and despair part. ;)
LOL
-
It's fascinating how many seem to be disturbed by the clean, healthy, mom and baby (both with lots of new stuff) putting arse to tarmac in an astonishingly clean back alley.
I suppose they didn't look but just dived off the deep end anyway.
I'm not disturbed by the picture, I am just trying to understand what the photographer is telling me - if indeed anything. It's posted in a user critique section with a provocative header - so we are supposed to react.
Jim
-
I'm not disturbed by the picture, I am just trying to understand what the photographer is telling me - if indeed anything. It's posted in a user critique section with a provocative header - so we are supposed to react.
Jim
+1
-
The thing is simply littered with symbols of destitution, decay, drug use, and so on.
For example?
Is the scene even littered with litter? :-)
It's not, so not only do we have all these unpleasant symbols in front of us, we DON'T know what's going on.
What "unpleasant symbols" specifically?
-
I'm not disturbed by the picture, I am just trying to understand what the photographer is telling me. . .
What the photographer was telling you before she elaborated, Jim, was this: "Here's what I saw, make of it what you will." Why do we think a photographer has to be telling us something? The idea that art has to convey a message sounds as if it comes from the heady, leftist days of Soviet "art." Good art should tell you something about yourself. Yeah, the title was confusing. Sometimes it's best to call something like that "untitled" and let the viewer come up with his own title.
-
Ah, all clear now... that explains the destitution and despair part. ;)
I break a personal rule:
+1
Rob C
-
Good art should tell you something about yourself.
+1.
And the responses tell us a lot about those of us who responded.
-
Stamper has it right, except he's been too polite to spell it out completely: this displays the utter bullshit that's the exercise known as critique.
All it ever achieves is a momentary flash of gratification where the writer finds yet another opportunity of showing off what he/she hopes might be a superior inner-knowledge of the world and its many weird ways.
Boiled down to its essence, the only honest 'critique' - how I hate that word - is I like it/I like it not. Which, of course, renders it futile unless it describes a point-of-sales moment.
Rob C
-
Stamper has it right, except he's been too polite to spell it out completely: this displays the utter bullshit that's the exercise known as critique.
I guess that means everyone is full of bullshit, because everyone is a critic. At least I've never met anyone who wasn't.
-
For example?
- young woman
- baby/young mother
- leather jacket
- sitting on the ground
- alley
Basically, I dunno, every single thing in the frame?
I am pretty sure you're being disingenuous. How do you feel like apologizing for saying, basically, that everybody except you couldn't be bothered to look closely? No? Didn't think so.
-
- young woman
- baby/young mother
- leather jacket
- sitting on the ground
- alley
Basically, I dunno, every single thing in the frame?
I am pretty sure you're being disingenuous. How do you feel like apologizing for saying, basically, that everybody except you couldn't be bothered to look closely? No? Didn't think so.
Relax, amolitor, that wasn't what he was saying. He said he wasn't bothered by the image. Neither was I, for that matter. But let's pick apart your list, just for fun.
• young mother? Nope, nothing upsetting about young mothers, per se.
• baby/young/mother? Nothing terribly upsetting about seeing babies and young mothers together, either. In fact I suspect I wouldn't feel any less sanguine if the mother were middle aged
• leather jacket? I own a leather jacket and I'm not upset when I look at myself in the mirror wearing it. So a big "no" there too.
• sitting on the ground? People sit on the ground in lots of different places and for all sorts of reasons. No, again.
• alley? Well, that depends. Dark alleys with lots of trash everywhere and can look upsetting, particularly at night. But this alley doesn't fit that description, so no.
Did I have to look closely at the image to get any of that? Not at all. I got all that in about 3 seconds. I saw a woman and a baby sitting on the ground in a harmless looking alley in the middle of the day, next to what was probably a open backpack containing baby changing supplies. I figured she probably went to a nearby alley in order to do what she needed to do with a modicum of privacy, and as there were no chairs or benches available for young mothers who need to check their baby's diaper, she sat on the ground. Big deal. Nothing to get bothered by.
-
Well, pop, maybe I am mis-interpreting:
I suppose they didn't look but just dived off the deep end anyway.
but it looks to ME like Isaac is saying 'they didn't look'. Perhaps I am wrong.
Symbols in the sense I mean, taken in isolation, don't admit distinct interpretations. You're (deliberately, I assume) taking each item in my list as a separate and distinct item so you can dismiss it. Glib and witty, but not actually engaged.
I'm out, this discussion is going no place I want to be.
-
Well, pop, maybe I am mis-interpreting:
I suppose they didn't look but just dived off the deep end anyway.
but it looks to ME like Isaac is saying 'they didn't look'. Perhaps I am wrong.
Symbols in the sense I mean, taken in isolation, don't admit distinct interpretations. You're (deliberately, I assume) taking each item in my list as a separate and distinct item so you can dismiss it. Glib and witty, but not actually engaged.
I'm out, this discussion is going no place I want to be.
You were the one who listed those things as individual examples, not me.
-
- young woman
- baby/young mother
- leather jacket
- sitting on the ground
- alley
Let's find those "symbols of destitution, decay, drug use" in the photo --
- young woman [with new stuff and clean stuff]
- [clean, healthy, unconcerned] baby/young mother
- [clean, newish] leather jacket
- sitting on the ground [sitting on only seat visible]
- alley [that might even get cleaned ! no obvious weeds or litter]
I don't think that, in context, those are "symbols of destitution, decay, drug use". I think you'd need a different kind of "young woman", a different kind of "baby/young mother", a different kind of "leather jacket", a different kind of "sitting on the ground", a different kind of "alley".
I am pretty sure you're being disingenuous. How do you feel like apologizing for saying, basically, that everybody except you couldn't be bothered to look closely? No? Didn't think so.
I don't know what I would have thought if I'd have seen the photo as soon as it was posted -- I have a well proven ability to misunderstand, so maybe I would have failed to look and mistaken what was presented.
However, I hope that I'm getting better at acknowledging and understanding my all too frequent mistakes.
-
What the photographer was telling you before she elaborated, Jim, was this: "Here's what I saw, make of it what you will." Why do we think a photographer has to be telling us something? The idea that art has to convey a message sounds as if it comes from the heady, leftist days of Soviet "art." Good art should tell you something about yourself. Yeah, the title was confusing. Sometimes it's best to call something like that "untitled" and let the viewer come up with his own title.
Russ, you brought up an interesting point and one that I've thought about quite a bit. I agree that good art should stand on its own and allow viewers come up with their own meaning rather than having the title steer them toward a particular interpretation. And if you want to give your work a title, give it a neutral one. For example, Ansel Adams' iconic image "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" has a neutral, informational title. It is, literally, a photo of a moonrise over Hernandez, New Mexico. It's mere information without suggesting an interpretation. It is a much better title than something like "Ghostly Moon Rises Over Lonely New Mexico Church" or some crap like that.
But some photographs depend on their title, because without one they would lose their impact entirely. For example, Robert Capa's famous photo "Fallen Soldier" depends on its title. Without that title or other background information, it could just as easily have been called "Soldier Slips on Wet Grass on Hillside" and it would have been quickly forgotten forever. So too with a photo you mentioned elsewhere recently, Andres Serrano's photograph "Piss Christ". If instead it had been called "Crucifix in Orange Jello" it never would have generated anything like the notoriety it did. It also would not have been auctioned off a few years later for $162,000. For all we know "Piss Christ" might actually have been a crucifix in orange jello. Serrano claimed it was piss, but maybe he just wanted the controversy. It certainly paid off for him in any case. The title made all the difference.
-
Good points, Pop. Especially the one about Capa's shot. Was it real or was it faked? Both answers have been "proven," but I doubt we'll ever know? It may very well have been "Soldier Slips on Wet Grass on Hillside," but the title, hooked on to the picture, made him famous.
I think a documentary shot, one that's used for journalism needs a precise title, but I think you need to be very, very careful when you title a street shot. HCB had the right idea. For the most part his titles were the general location of the shot -- as you suggest, a neutral title. He let you come up with your own title for what you saw.
From what I've read, in the negative Ansel's moon wasn't really ghostly. It became ghostly in the "performance."
And I'm quite sure Serrano was after controversy and the notoriety it brought him as a substitute for fame. He was one of the precursors in a wave of "schlock" (oops) "shock" art.
-
From what I've read, in the negative Ansel's moon wasn't really ghostly. It became ghostly in the "performance."
It was very much so. Adams wasn't at all reticent about discussing it either. I believe it was in his book "The Print" where he showed a comparison of a straight-off-the-negative print of Moonrise next to a finalized version which was the result of an elaborate series of dodgings and burnings. The difference was like night and day. I think he even made schematics of his procedures for printing some of his more famous negatives so that others could see how he achieved the desired result. He also wanted others to be able to work with his negatives after he was gone.
-
That's where I read it. . . Long ago.
-
I guess that means everyone is full of bullshit, because everyone is a critic. At least I've never met anyone who wasn't.
Nope, being a critic isn't the same as making critiques. Being a critic is no more nor worse than offering your view on whether something passes your personal taste-barriers, and that's fine by me even if I disagree with the criticism expressed; critique carries the innate assumption of a better take on something than has its author, and that annoys me very much for all the reasons that make second-guessing the nonsense that it patently is.
But hell, it fills pages and makes 'critiquers' happy...
Rob C
-
Nope, being a critic isn't the same as making critiques. Being a critic is no more nor worse than offering your view on whether something passes your personal taste-barriers, and that's fine by me even if I disagree with the criticism expressed; critique carries the innate assumption of a better take on something than has its author, and that annoys me very much for all the reasons that make second-guessing the nonsense that it patently is.
But hell, it fills pages and makes 'critiquers' happy...
Rob C
I would say the assumption is that one has a different take, not necessarlly a better one.
But this begs the question of why you hang out in the User Critiques forum at all if you think it's such nonsense. Is it just to complain?
-
Arraaaahhhgggghh! I can't stand it any longer. Pop, it doesn't "beg the question," it "raises the question." To beg the question is to ask something like: "Have you stopped beating your wife?", a question that includes an unwarranted assumption. That's begging the question. I see the misuse of "begs the question" more and more and it's driving me crazy.... crazy!!! I even saw it not long ago in the Wall Street Journal! The English language is being gnawed to shreds.
-
Arraaaahhhgggghh! I can't stand it any longer. Pop, it doesn't "beg the question," it "raises the question." To beg the question is to ask something like: "Have you stopped beating your wife?", a question that includes an unwarranted assumption. That's begging the question. I see the misuse of "begs the question" more and more and it's driving me crazy.... crazy!!! I even saw it not long ago in the Wall Street Journal! The English language is being gnawed to shreds.
I beg to differ. It's not a misuse of the language at all. Colloquial English is never static and always evolving. What you see as increasing misuse is an indication of an evolution in progress. "Begs the question" has evolved to become interchangeable with "raises the question", just as the word "sex" has become interchangeable with "gender", or "flammable" with "inflammable".
Regardless, the question has been raised. Err... I mean begged. :P
-
I beg to differ....
Ha! Another "beg" phrase! As a non-native speaker, I often resort to dictionaries to find the precise meaning of certain words and phrases. Here is what I found: ;D
-
You can beg, Pop, but "equating" "begs the question" with "raising the question" and "sex" with "gender" is exactly what I'm talking about. This isn't "evolution" of the language, it's destruction. If you can't use the term "begs the question" and have the reader understand what you mean, then you have to go all 'round Robin Hood's barn to get the meaning across. In addition, to say: "It begs the question: 'Why doesn't he understand what "begs the question" means?'", isn't even grammatically correct. "Begs" isn't the proper word in that sentence. You're not on your knees begging to know the answer to the question. You're "raising" the question, which puts the question into the air waiting to be answered. And "gender" isn't a synonym for "sex," any more than "persistence" is a synonym for "perseverance." Winston Churchill seems to have been the last person in the world who understood the beautiful subtleties of the English Language, which is why reading him is such a joy. If you haven't tried it, you might consider it.
-
I would say the assumption is that one has a different take, not necessarlly a better one.
But this begs the question of why you hang out in the User Critiques forum at all if you think it's such nonsense. Is it just to complain?
I 'hang out' as you put it, in the hope of seeing interesting photographs. You'll also note that it's very hard to find any second-guessing from me on any of them, if at all. I do sometimes offer praise, seldom (if ever) condemn; but telling another what he should do or have done is something quite else and I don't like it. That's why I started Without Prejudice in order to provide a space where folks could post a pic without the annoyance of hearing how another would have handled it. Have you any idea what a pain in the ass it is to have someone who doesn't know much about you, has bugger-all track record of his/her own, tell you how to take photographs? As for asking for 'critique' I'm afraid all you'll get is the very stuff that irritates me so; just do as Russ and I have so often suggested: absorb the better books and magazines until you can spot a snapper's work before you read the byline. By then you will have educated your mind and eye as far as you need and can safely take off into your own universe.
Oh - Russ is absolutely correct on the point of grammar... but don't feel badly about it - it's like splitting infinitives: many don't even know what that means. Evolution, indeed; murder's more like it! Anyway, this isn't colloquial English, it's written English and as you can see from some of the posts here, without capitals, hardly a vestige of punctuation, meaning becomes almost impossible to understand - something that proper use of English has the means to render quite unnecessary.
At which point, I shall go and make myself a tomato and cucumber sandwich.
Rob C
-
If, as others pointed out and the OP confirmed, there are no "symbols of destitution, decay, drug use" in the photo, just a "clean, healthy, unconcerned] baby/young mother," then it raises the question why we are looking at it (as in: why did the OP show it to us)?
Who cares about "clean, healthy, unconcerned] baby/young mother" (apart from the family members)? If it is nothing but a "clean, healthy, unconcerned] baby/young mother," then it belongs to a family album. So that, years from now, the junior can look at it hear the mother saying: "Look, honey, this is when mommy had to dirty her butt because your butt got dirty!" Cute, yes, but who cares (again, other than the family)?
Tolstoy said "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." In other words, happy families are boring. You saw one, you saw them all. Photos of happy families are suitable for advertising, but rarely, if ever, for art.
I guess you are wondering by now where I am going with this. I am trying to explain why some people, when facing a photograph like this, subconsciously (or not) look for (and find) signs of trouble. Had the mother and the baby looked into the camera and cracked a smile, everybody would agree that it is a cute family-album photo.
However, there is no smile and no looking into the camera. The baby appears uncomfortable and crumpled, mother resigned and tired. Both are looking down. The do appear relatively well-off, but so do millions of middle-class foreclosure victims in the States. People who, until yesterday, lived in half-a-million homes, still have their designer clothing and even fancy cars, yet are suddenly on the street after eviction. That is a scenario I can see this mother in.
Humans are hard-wired to look for justification, explanation, cause-effect. If it was just another happy-family-diaper-changing-scene, who would care?
-
You can beg, Pop, but "equating" "begs the question" with "raising the question" and "sex" with "gender" is exactly what I'm talking about. This isn't "evolution" of the language, it's destruction.
Prevailing use determines correct use. It always has and it always will. It's why we don't talk and write in the 21st century like Shakespeare did in the 17th.
-
... then it raises the question why we are looking at it (as in: why did the OP show it to us)?
I can conjure that into an explanation of the title "She likes it. You might hate it." She likes it for the usual reasons we like seeing snapshots of ourselves (especially when they are so well crafted); and you might hate it because you want profundity, you want tragedy, you want Art :-)
Tolstoy said "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."
And while it is a nice one liner, that isn't enough to show it to be The Truth.
Humans are hard-wired to look for justification, explanation, cause-effect. If it was just another happy-family-diaper-changing-scene, who would care?
Yes, we seek explanations -- but we don't all seek miserable explanations ;-)
-
Prevailing use determines correct use.
Yes, and at the rate we're going it won't be long before "prevailing use" will be a series of grunts.
-
Yes, and at the rate we're going it won't be long before "prevailing use" will be a series of grunts.
I'm sorry, but I no longer recognize the Roman alphabet. Can you grunt that for me? ;) ;) ;)
-
I do sometimes offer praise, seldom (if ever) condemn; but telling another what he should do or have done is something quite else and I don't like it. That's why I started Without Prejudice in order to provide a space where folks could post a pic without the annoyance of hearing how another would have handled it. Have you any idea what a pain in the ass it is to have someone who doesn't know much about you, has bugger-all track record of his/her own, tell you how to take photographs? As for asking for 'critique' I'm afraid all you'll get is the very stuff that irritates me so; just do as Russ and I have so often suggested: absorb the better books and magazines until you can spot a snapper's work before you read the byline. By then you will have educated your mind and eye as far as you need and can safely take off into your own universe.
Believe me, I hear what you're saying. I try to be constructive when I critique and I approach it from the standpoint of what I would do in the same situation, rather than what I think they should do. But in general I prefer handing out praise anyway. It's less likely to provoke confrontation and easier on the old blood pressure. Besides, I think when people offer up a photograph for critique what they're really looking for is praise. I'm happy to give praise when I think a photograph merits it, but I try to hold my tongue when I see something that's really awful or boring. What I like to critique are the near misses. If only the photographer had done this or that it could have worked better. Those are the kinds of shots I like commenting on.
-
Prevailing use determines correct use. It always has and it always will. It's why we don't talk and write in the 21st century like Shakespeare did in the 17th.
JFC.
"Begging the question" is a formal logical fallacy. It has nothing to do with 'prevailing use'.
If you don't understand the term, refrain from using it.
Grow up.
-
JFC.
"Begging the question" is a formal logical fallacy. It has nothing to do with 'prevailing use'.
If you don't understand the term, refrain from using it.
Grow up.
No, you're the one who's wrong here. And speaking of growing up, I'll thank you to keep your ad hominem attacks to yourself.
-
Pop, the problem with this argument is that the current misuse of "begs the question" was started by somebody too ignorant to know much about the language. It's been carried on by others equally ignorant of English, and, because our school system has very few people nowadays who aren't ignorant of the language, the misuse has exploded. I hate to piss you off, because I have a high regard for your critiques of photographs posted here, but Mjollnir is right. This question has nothing to do with prevailing use.
-
Pop, the problem with this argument is that the current misuse of "begs the question" was started by somebody too ignorant to know much about the language. It's been carried on by others equally ignorant of English, and, because our school system has very few people nowadays who aren't ignorant of the language, the misuse has exploded. I hate to piss you off, because I have a high regard for your critiques of photographs posted here, but Mjollnir is right. This question has nothing to do with prevailing use.
You can't piss me off, Russ, because unlike Mjolnir, you engage in civil discussion without resorting to personal attacks--the last resort of those who are incapable of making a rational argument.
But the phrase "begs the question" relies on an obsolete 16th century meaning of the word "beg". A more appropriate wording for the 21st century would be something like "assumes the premise" or "postulates the premise". "Begs the question" depends on linguistic tradition rather than current word meaning so it's therefore perfectly understandable that the majority of people who use the phrase today use it to mean "raises the question". Case in point: in 2008, Philip Corbett of the NY Times wrote an article on the usage of the phrase "begs the question" and discovered that in the previous year, Times writers had used the phrase 17 times in their articles. Of those, only two had used it to mean "assumes the premise", the rest used it the way I, and the majority, did. I'm guessing, but I assume they were all grownups, too, not to mention being better writers than any of us. This is how language changes. People have been changing English since English was first spoken. I'm sure if Chaucer were alive today he'd be livid over how we've bastardized the Saxon tongue.
-
No, you're the one who's wrong here. And speaking of growing up, I'll thank you to keep your ad hominem attacks to yourself.
A. No, I'm not wrong. It has a very specific meaning and is a formal logical fallacy. "Prevailing use" is irrelevant.
B. What ad hom? I offered two suggestions that you might follow.
-
I offered two suggestions that you might follow.
I have one suggestion for where you can go.
-
From that flawless & always correct <ahem> source, wikipedia ...
Many English speakers use "begs the question" to mean "raises the question," or "impels the question," and follow that phrase with the question raised, for example, "this year's deficit is half a trillion dollars, which begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?" Philosophers and many grammarians deem such usage incorrect. Academic linguist Mark Liberman recommends avoiding the phrase entirely, noting that because of shifts in usage in both Latin and English over the centuries, the relationship of the literal expression to its intended meaning is unintelligible and therefore it is now "such a confusing way to say it that only a few pedants understand the phrase."
-
... I'll thank you to keep your ad hominem attacks to yourself.
Technically, it wasn't an ad hominem. You might have discerned an insult, but they're not the same thing
-
Had to check ROFLOL. Urban Dictionary says
1. roflol
Means "Rolling on floor laughing out loud".
Suggested use : Never.
Note the suggested use ;)
-
But the phrase "begs the question" relies on an obsolete 16th century meaning of the word "beg". A more appropriate wording for the 21st century would be something like "assumes the premise" or "postulates the premise". "Begs the question" depends on linguistic tradition rather than current word meaning so it's therefore perfectly understandable that the majority of people who use the phrase today use it to mean "raises the question". Case in point: in 2008, Philip Corbett of the NY Times wrote an article on the usage of the phrase "begs the question" and discovered that in the previous year, Times writers had used the phrase 17 times in their articles.
Hi Pop,
Yes, I understand what you're saying, and I don't entirely disagree. I'm certainly not in the (French?) camp that abhors changes in the language. I got into computers in the mid fifties and for the last sixty years I've watched that technical world enlarge and enrich the language. Our willingness to adopt words from French, Spanish, and many other languages makes the language much more useful, and precise. And precision is important. We think with language, and when the language becomes less precise and weaker our collective ability to think suffers. Which is why I hate to see a useful term like "it begs the question" become corrupted and meaningless. It's shorthand for an important concept, and there's a perfectly useful and precise alternative: "it raises the question." So why make the two terms synonymous and thereby lose a useful language tool? Who cares whether or not the phrase itself depends on linguistic tradition? Until quite recently the meaning was clear.
The fact that a bunch of New York Times writers used the phrase incorrectly doesn't surprise me, and bears out what I said earlier: the phrase is used that way by writers too ignorant to know the difference.
-
Technically, it wasn't an ad hominem. You might have discerned an insult, but they're not the same thing
Actually, technically it was.
http://www.answers.com/topic/ad-hominem
-
Hi Pop,
Yes, I understand what you're saying, and I don't entirely disagree. I'm certainly not in the (French?) camp that abhors changes in the language. I got into computers in the mid fifties and for the last sixty years I've watched that technical world enlarge and enrich the language. Our willingness to adopt words from French, Spanish, and many other languages makes the language much more useful, and precise. And precision is important. We think with language, and when the language becomes less precise and weaker our collective ability to think suffers. Which is why I hate to see a useful term like "it begs the question" become corrupted and meaningless. It's shorthand for an important concept, and there's a perfectly useful and precise alternative: "it raises the question." So why make the two terms synonymous and thereby lose a useful language tool? Who cares whether or not the phrase itself depends on linguistic tradition? Until quite recently the meaning was clear.
The fact that a bunch of New York Times writers used the phrase incorrectly doesn't surprise me, and bears out what I said earlier: the phrase is used that way by writers too ignorant to know the difference.
I predict that the genie, being out of the bottle, will never go back in.
-
Can I just point out to our US cousins, that 'gotten' is old, old English in form, & shows just how far behind the times you all are. Just saying.
BTW, it's basil, not bay-sil, and oregano is defintely not pronounced oreg-ano, and route is pronounced 'root', not 'rout'. Just so you all know.
[/public service announcement]
-
Can I just point out to our US cousins, that 'gotten' is old, old English in form, & shows just how far behind the times you all are. Just saying.
BTW, it's basil, not bay-sil, and oregano is defintely not pronounced oreg-ano, and route is pronounced 'root', not 'rout'. Just so you all know.
[/public service announcement]
There is something rotten with gotten.
-
Actually, technically it was.
http://www.answers.com/topic/ad-hominem
No, technically it wasn't. In common (mis)usage it might have been, but that's no more technically correct usage than 'bad' or 'wicked' meaning 'good'
-
No, technically it wasn't. In common (mis)usage it might have been, but that's no more technically correct usage than 'bad' or 'wicked' meaning 'good'
Please explain.
-
I predict that the genie, being out of the bottle, will never go back in.
I'm afraid you're right. Seems we've taken up improving our ignorance with a vengeance.
And I don't see anything wrong with "gotten." I use it all the time. Give me a nice, concise synonym.
-
I'm afraid you're right. Seems we've taken up improving our ignorance with a vengeance.
And I don't see anything wrong with "gotten." I use it all the time. Give me a nice, concise synonym.
Perhaps it's a U.S. thing; in Britain we do say ill-gotten gains, but I can't, off the cuff, think of another instance when we'd use it.
Rob C
-
Please explain.
Technically, an argumentum ad hominem refers to an attempt to dismiss or negate an argument/line of reasoning by attacking the person, not the argument. Attaching a negative characteristic to the individual, is used to undermine their case.
So, "Chairman Bill is such a horrible person, therefore his views on photography are execrable" would be an ad hom. I might be horrible, but that has no bearing on my views vis a vis photography.
In contrast, "Chairman Bill is just a horrible person" doesn't constitute an ad hominem, even though it could be seen as a personal attack.
-
Technically, an argumentum ad hominem refers to an attempt to dismiss or negate an argument/line of reasoning by attacking the person, not the argument. Attaching a negative characteristic to the individual, is used to undermine their case.
Right. Like dismissing one's argument by saying that they need to "grow up".
-
No, he seems to have dismissed your argument, then added that comment for free
-
No, he seems to have dismissed your argument, then added that comment for free
LOL whether it was before, after or within his opening statement, it's part of his entire rebuttal and therefore still qualifies.
-
LOL whether it was before, after or within his opening statement, it's part of his entire rebuttal and therefore still qualifies.
No, not really.
Perhaps if you could be bothered to understand the terms you're trying to use, this wouldn't be so difficult for you.
-
C'mon girls! You are hardly the first, nor the last, to "beg this question" (i.e., raise the issue), and you are definitely not the ones to solve it.
How about just shaking hands (or not) and moving on? The pissing match is getting boring, you know.
-
No, not really.
Perhaps if you could be bothered to understand the terms you're trying to use, this wouldn't be so difficult for you.
Yes, really. I've made my case. You haven't made any case. You have managed to hurl personal insults, however. Congratulations.
-
C'mon girls! You are hardly the first, nor the last, to "beg this question" (i.e., raise the issue), and you are definitely not the ones to solve it.
How about just shaking hands (or not) and moving on? The pissing match is getting boring, you know.
Agreed. I'm done.
-
Yes, really. I've made my case. You haven't made any case. You have managed to hurl personal insults, however. Congratulations.
Yes. My case was that you don't know what you're talking about, and incorrectly trying to use terms you don't understand. I'll let your posts speak for themselves.
Ironically, there wasn't even a personal insult; but rather an admonition to both try and understand those words and grow up.
Sorry that you feel insulted by that.
-
C'mon girls! You are hardly the first, nor the last, to "beg this question" (i.e., raise the issue), and you are definitely not the ones to solve it.
How about just shaking hands (or not) and moving on? The pissing match is getting boring, you know.
LOL? "Girls"? Not in this case.
Fine, it's done.
-
It's very obvious that the photo is work of professional photographer with assistance of another professional stylist or photographer.
The creators skillfully placed half-opened backpack on the left side so that it leads the viewer's eye to the hand of the girl with which she signals to the assistant holding the reflector to position it slightly higher.
Compositionally, the main part of the scene is arranged in the shape of a large triangle that contains additional sub-triangles, namely both arms; one arm and the head with falling hair; and the legs clad in deep blue jeans, one of them showcasing a new shoe. Even the face of the baby and its hood resemble two triangles. Finally, by using a wide angle lens, the photographer masterfully added the alley itself as another triangle in the background.
It's regrettable that the photographer overlooked the potential to arrange also the backpack into a triangle shape. Closing it on the top or squeezing gently the opened flaps would have done the trick. Otherwise, it is a great composition with a lot of fine geometry. Clearly, a lot of preparation, professional expertise, thought, and planning had been put into the creation of this image.
-
It's very obvious that the photo is work of professional photographer...
Anyone want to offer me a job? :D
Thanks Les. And thanks also for the education on linguistics and logical fallacies.
-
Anyone want to offer me a job? :D
Thanks Les. And thanks also for the education on linguistics and logical fallacies.
Jennifer, all joking aside you described yourself as a professional photographer in an earlier post, and then you ask if anyone can offer you a job. Do you have a website for your professional work? The link to your galleries shows a lot of quite good photography - but most of it will not have much commercial application, and might confuse a potential client. On a practical point it may be best to have another site just dedicated to the kind of work you particularly want to be commissioned for. Of course you may already have this. What sort of work do you do, or want to do?
Jim
-
Jim,
Apologies if I implied that I'm a professional. I've sold some work, taken a more than a couple of commissions, been published and exhibited in group shows a few times. I don't make my primary living with a camera. Long story, but this might be changing soon.
Funny you mentioned the website. I'm close to releasing a more focussed site of my stuff under my own name. Still struggling with the "about me" write up as well as some image selections and organisation. The initial intent is to support gaining a solo exhibit. Beyond that, I'm patient.
-
No apologies needed I assure you - a lot of people claim to be professional but in my experience not many of them make their living solely from photography. And of course there is nothing wrong with that as long as they are not kidding themselves. Being part-time or even completely amateur in no way implies any lesser ability or creativity, in fact quite often the reverse is true. Much of your work is very interesting and good, I was just really pointing out that generally professional photographers have a more focussed portfolio - at least the better ones tend to. I mainly photograph people, and even then I think my website is diluted because it encompasses weddings, portraits and schools. A specialist website for each of these might be better.
My advice is find something you are really good at and go for that, doing anything else you have to do on the side in addition. I would also say as far as you can, try to do it your way - to succeed nowadays you have be good, and to charge a good rate you might have to be a bit different, so no point copying anyone else.
Best wishes
Jim