Mannequins

[Rob C]

Inserting oneself between to such mighty protagonists is certainly rash and I may be punished or better, ignored, but it does seem to me that Ray's comment, read all the way the end, could be interpreted as paying the image a perceptive compliment.

Oddly enough, that was my take too.

But then, Americans say "awesome" and mean another thing entirely, which has since been added into the dictionary. Just like cool meant one distinct thing and became subverted into something quite else, and a considerably long time ago at that. I won't even touch on what the descendents of a certain Hungarian hussar regiment must feel.

And that, dear readers, is why I am such a stickler for keeping language a constant!

;-)

Rob

[Tony Jay]

Having carefully read all the posts from Ray I have to agree with Rob and Ken that Ray is not being insulting.
I have to admit that I did not glean from this image what Ray has commented on but on a certain level I guess it could represent the ridiculous lengths human beings might go to to fulfil their narcissistic attempts to look good.
My take on his comments is that he feels that Slobodan has done a great job in capturing this.

It will be interesting to see if Ray clarifies this.

Best wishes

Tony Jay

[Ray]

........ but on a certain level I guess it could represent the ridiculous lengths human beings might go to to fulfil their narcissistic attempts to look good.
My take on his comments is that he feels that Slobodan has done a great job in capturing this.

That's one way of putting it, Tony. You got it! 

[Ray]

On the other hand, I feel I should mention that I'm not sure that Slobodan produced the photo with that intention of showing off the absurdity of human behaviour. He's probably very pleased to get the photo published and get the monetary reward, as well as any associated fame. 

[kencameron]

On the other hand, I feel I should mention that I'm not sure that Slobodan produced the photo with that intention of showing off the absurdity of human behaviour.   

If that were the case (I have no idea about Slobodan's intentions) it wouldn't be the first image that does more than its creator might have had in mind (or at least on the surface of his or her mind). That is a characteristic of some of the most interesting art, IMO.

[Ray]

True! 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

On the other hand, I feel I should mention that I'm not sure that Slobodan produced the photo with that intention of showing off the absurdity of human behaviour. He's probably very pleased to get the photo published and get the monetary reward, as well as any associated fame. 

Ray,

"Fame" and "money" have come after I took the photo.

Therefore, something else must have motivated me to take it and present it. Was it the "absurdity of human behavior"? Most likely not, at least not in the sense Tony mentioned ("ridiculous lengths human beings might go to to fulfil their narcissistic attempts to look good"). In my blog, I said what I see in the image - a certain form of the "absurdity of human behavior," perhaps, in the sense of a pattern of uniformity and lack of individualism - "faceless robot army of the future."

And Ken is right: good images tend to go beyond the initial intention of the photographer, lend themselves to more than one interpretation. If you see fashion as the symbol of the "foolishness of humanity", so be it. The reason I posted it in the Critique section was precisely to see how others perceive the image. Another forum friend saw corporate drones in it, "brain dead and wooden, each stuck in their own little compartment," which reflects his own experience in dealing with certain corporation's customer service.

[Ray]

No problem, Slobodan. I was simply expressing my personal opinion, truthfully, if a bit briefly.

Good luck! 

[mjrichardson]

Morning

Just a personal opinion but I struggle a little with shots like this, we can all look for meaning in a shot we take but for me, the "talent" is all down to the window dresser and this is just looking up and taking a shot of it. I'm sure the person who put the display together would have hoped to engage the viewer and create an interesting scene which he/she has obviously done but I'm not sure I see where the creation of the photograph has added anything to that? I feel the same about photographs of graffiti and things like that, it feels like claiming an image that someone else has put the effort in to. Unless of course the windows were all clear and you have added the tint to each one in which case that's interesting to me but I struggle to find any reason to see it as creative if not. Obviously it's far more important that the photographer sees something than the viewer, me in this case, as photographers we need to be driven by what we see and experience but I'm sorry to say I don't really get it, am I the only one? No offence intended!

Mat

[Rob C]

Morning

Just a personal opinion but I struggle a little with shots like this, we can all look for meaning in a shot we take but for me, the "talent" is all down to the window dresser and this is just looking up and taking a shot of it. I'm sure the person who put the display together would have hoped to engage the viewer and create an interesting scene which he/she has obviously done but I'm not sure I see where the creation of the photograph has added anything to that? I feel the same about photographs of graffiti and things like that, it feels like claiming an image that someone else has put the effort in to. Unless of course the windows were all clear and you have added the tint to each one in which case that's interesting to me but I struggle to find any reason to see it as creative if not. Obviously it's far more important that the photographer sees something than the viewer, me in this case, as photographers we need to be driven by what we see and experience but I'm sorry to say I don't really get it, am I the only one? No offence intended!

Mat

That's an interesting stance, Mat. I wish a reply could be straightforward but it can't: too many levels.

I feel exactly that way about landscape - in a majority of cases  - but not always. Across the world, and closer to the Medium Format borders, there's a new thread that wants to speak about photography as in images. Unfortunately, it appears that that is impossible for most, because even when specificlly designed to avoid technical discourse, that's where it inevitable returns. For many, photography is technique - the two inseperable as the point of interest. With these people, image is almost meaningless

In the world of landscape, I think I can claim only one photographer I think really surprisingly good:

http://www.chuckkimmerle.com/

I also like Michael Kenna, but unfortunately he has spawned a plethora of lookalikes to the extent that his own work is now reduced to being indistinguishable from the rest. Always happens with good ideas.

So why two exceptions to my general take on landscape? Because they bring something I never saw before.

I think that applies to all genres of photography. If you venture into so-called street, what do you see? Old ideas attempted time after time, in places where the conditions don't exist, and the results but very pale imitations of past masters.

In fact, I think the naked reality is this: if you simply point a camera at something that exists, then you are just recording, however interesting the object before you might be. You have to do more: you have to put in, and satisfy, a demand for more than the 50% relationship-split of the object existing and you being there to witness its existence.

And that's where professionals have a far easier ride: that requirment is provided by the client, and you know what he wants you to do with it. You can't usually just go back to him with a record shot and expect a second gig.

Which is why working with a human subject is so different - and more difficult in many ways. Not difficult technically at all, but in the making of something pleasing and novel. Putting a camera on a tripod, using the most expensive equipment, is all an exercise in defeat and futility unless there is something in your own mind that you have to say about the subject. It applies to all genres.

And as it's photography, totally dependent on what you can do with what exists, the problem is far greater than faces the painter. By virtue of the  very act of painting, the painter creates his own version of that reality through his style, which he probably can't avoid manifesting every single time he lays down paint. What can photographers do if without ideas of their own?

Rob C

P.S.

Not to hijack the thread, but to illustrate my concerns of just being there to capture something that existed before and after I was present to see it:



I like the shot I made, but would far have preferred making the shot of the girl. But there the problem we face at such times: should we look and walk on, or try to capture something of the buzz we felt at that moment...

[mjrichardson]

Hi Rob

Good points, I feel less conflicted about landscapes in general, our artistic influences can be easier to translate to a final image, I run a lot of workshops and it's quite amazing the differences you see from a group of photographers in the same location, on rare occasion down to equipment used but mainly due to the vision of the individual. We can wait for the light, transform a fairly dull scene to something interesting by playing with lots of the tools at our disposal and of course with processing, we can add our style, or not! With the OP's image, whilst a decent enough image in it's own right, I feel myself appreciating the vision of the window dresser far more than the photographic representation, it just is what it is and nothing appears to have influenced the scene other than standing slightly off centre and pointing up, I saw a mention of "signature graphic colours" which I find interesting only if those colours were created by the OP but I presume they were just part of the scene so I don't see the signature reference.

I agree with your recent comment on the images presented in that other thread, I feel there is balance in everything, it's necessary to have technical skill but not at the expense of vision, I see nothing appealing at all in a well composed scene, sharp, technically perfect but with absolutely no drama/life or excitement, a couple of images on that thread are just plain flat, a complete lack of tonal variation, something that may well be choice of the photographer but luckily we are all free to like/be inspired by different things. I agree the human form is an incredible thing to capture, there is the added influence of the mood of the subject rather than the just the mood of the photographer, I love shooting people. As for "street" a lot of people love the genre, I'm not necessarily one of them, I appreciate classic street photography but less so because of technique and more because the scenes depicted are not the scenes I witness now, I like the social documentary aspect, maybe more modern street photography will come of age in another 50 years, who knows.

That was a little off topic, sorry about that, returning to the original image, I think I would appreciate it much more if the influence of the photographer could be seen in some way, maybe something as simple as choosing to photograph it when it was raining for example, if the image stirs feelings of people lined up then it would have been more powerful if the weather had been bad? No idea, just thinking.

Have a good Sunday.

Mat

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I struggle a little with shots like this, we can all look for meaning in a shot we take but for me, the "talent" is all down to the window dresser and this is just looking up and taking a shot of it. I'm sure the person who put the display together would have hoped to engage the viewer and create an interesting scene which he/she has obviously done but I'm not sure I see where the creation of the photograph has added anything to that? I feel the same about photographs of graffiti and things like that, it feels like claiming an image that someone else has put the effort in to. Unless of course the windows were all clear and you have added the tint to each one in which case that's interesting to me but I struggle to find any reason to see it as creative if not. Obviously it's far more important that the photographer sees something than the viewer, me in this case, as photographers we need to be driven by what we see and experience but I'm sorry to say I don't really get it, am I the only one? No offence intended!

No, Mat, you are definitely not the only one.

You are actually in good company on this forum, as many members claim the same, just not for the photography in general, but the genres they do not like. For instance, street photographers will consider their photography art, but landscape photography as just "looking up and taking a shot of what someone else has put the effort in to" (that "someone else" in this case being God or Mother Nature, depending on your beliefs - and even if you wait for light to change, it will still be God's light, right?).

Just like fashion and model photographers would consider only their work truly creative, although it takes the model, fashion designer, hair stylist, makeup artist, etc. to arrive at the final result, and the photographer then "just presses the shutter."

For architectural photographers, it is all about the architect, right? The photographer just "looks up and takes a shot of it." Architectural photography can not possibly be creative, right? It is just "claiming an image that someone else has put the effort in to."

By the same token, street photography, photojournalism, and war photography can not possibly be artistic either, right? They are "just looking up and taking a shot of it." Forget Eugene Smith, Robert Capa, HC Bresson, Sebastiao Salgado, they merely pushed the button.

The bottom line, everything we photograph is a found object, either God's or another man's. Which makes photography a non-creative, lesser art (if at all). In your interpretation, at least.

So, no, you are definitely not the only one who denies photography can be art (or, at best, considers it a lesser art).

It appears that you'd allow for certain creativity and level of "artness" only for heavily Briotized or Raberized photography? If only I added different colors to clear shop windows in Photoshop?* Selecting the viewpoint, angle, moment, composition, geometry, can not possibly transform a mere record into art? Simplifying, extracting, emphasizing, distilling. No?

If I was "just looking up and taking a shot of it," this is what I would have ended up with (attached). It has the same elements as the OP photo. The question is, would it have the same impact? Or would the viewer be distracted by the numerous extraneous elements, the name of the store, recognizable street elements (if you are from Chicago). Instead, I changed my viewpoint (and slightly cropped in post) to exclude everything extraneous, all recognizable elements, in order to make it more universal. Position them so that each occupies the same area, thus emphasising uniformity. Made identical mannequin positions and the lack of facial features obvious, emphasising the lack of individuality.

And no, no offense taken.

* Come to think of it, in the attached photo, windows to the right are clear. Would it make it creative and artistic if I photoshopped some color into it?

[Rob C]

Actually, Slobodan, I like your second, oblique shot more.

Rob

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I saw a mention of "signature graphic colours" which I find interesting only if those colours were created by the OP but I presume they were just part of the scene so I don't see the signature reference...

Interesting.

Once again we are facing the concept that only photoshopped, not just found, colors can be truly creative and artistic. How does a photographer "create" colors, by the way?

As for "signature graphic colors" (as much as it might be my wishful thinking), it requires a body of work to properly evaluate. I have a gallery on my web site, Graphics & Abstracts, where you can see if graphic colors are my style.

There are much better photographers than I am that can be described as having signature graphic colors style. Most of their photographs in that style are found colors. For instance, Pete Turner, Eric Meola, Jay Maisel , to name a few.

[RSL]

No, Mat, you are definitely not the only one.

You are actually in good company on this forum, as many members claim the same, just not for the photography in general, but the genres they do not like. For instance, street photographers will consider their photography art, but landscape photography as just "looking up and taking a shot of what someone else has put the effort in to" (that "someone else" in this case being God or Mother Nature, depending on your beliefs - and even if you wait for light to change, it will still be God's light, right?).

Just like fashion and model photographers would consider only their work truly creative, although it takes the model, fashion designer, hair stylist, makeup artist, etc. to arrive at the final result, and the photographer then "just presses the shutter."

For architectural photographers, it is all about the architect, right? The photographer just "looks up and takes a shot of it." Architectural photography can not possibly be creative, right? It is just "claiming an image that someone else has put the effort in to."

By the same token, street photography, photojournalism, and war photography can not possibly be artistic either, right? They are "just looking up and taking a shot of it." Forget Eugene Smith, Robert Capa, HC Bresson, Sebastiao Salgado, they merely pushed the button.

The bottom line, everything we photograph is a found object, either God's or another man's. Which makes photography a non-creative, lesser art (if at all). In your interpretation, at least.

So, no, you are definitely not the only one who denies photography can be art (or, at best, considers it a lesser art).

It appears that you'd allow for certain creativity and level of "artness" only for heavily Briotized or Raberized photography? If only I added different colors to clear shop windows in Photoshop?* Selecting the viewpoint, angle, moment, composition, geometry, can not possibly transform a mere record into art? Simplifying, extracting, emphasizing, distilling. No?

If I was "just looking up and taking a shot of it," this is what I would have ended up with (attached). It has the same elements as the OP photo. The question is, would it have the same impact? Or would the viewer be distracted by the numerous extraneous elements, the name of the store, recognizable street elements (if you are from Chicago). Instead, I changed my viewpoint (and slightly cropped in post) to exclude everything extraneous, all recognizable elements, in order to make it more universal. Position them so that each occupies the same area, thus emphasising uniformity. Made identical mannequin positions and the lack of facial features obvious, emphasising the lack of individuality.

And no, no offense taken.

Very well said, Slobodan! it's an argument that goes back to the very beginning of photography, and, I think, laps over into painting and other forms of visual representation.

[mjrichardson]

Ha! Nice response! I thought this part of the forum was about passing on your view, is that not the point?

I love all forms of photography, I don't see myself as a genre of photographer, I happen to make a living as a photographer which means for the majority of my time I produce work that a client wants, with my spin on it of course. To dismiss my view as being anti photography as art is a little silly, I'm just questioning the creativity and the claim to the colour being your trademark. I think it's a great scene, beautifully put together by the creative employed to do so and you have captured it adequately, by just looking up and taking a shot of it, obviously by the fact that that is the viewpoint you got of it.

I am not a follower of god, nor Raber and certainly not Briot, I am a follower of images that appeal to me in some way, as we all are, this appeals to you and not so much to me and I have explained why for me, it's just the way it is. I feel that we can make choices in all aspects of the final image we produce, you have made yours. I have never claimed any form or genre as being more artistic than another, that's ludicrous, an image can be more creative/artistic than another to my eye, due to many factors, artistic intent, persistence even, whatever it is. You can say that everything we photograph is just a collection of things and we document it and that is true (apart from the god bit!) but the way in which we decide what and how to capture it is what makes it different or unique.

I'm sorry that you have taken it personally, it's not meant to be, I honestly don't care what you photograph, but I did wonder if anyone shared my view and whether it would prompt a discussion on whether capturing the artistic work of another individual in a direct way we could lay any claim to it. For example, I have seen 2 photographs of a street previously with graffiti on it, one a square on shot filled with the artwork and another of the street itself with the artwork as a dominant factor but with a person walking through the frame, the first I personally see no creativity in beyond the work of the artist, the second I appreciate because the photographer took the opportunity to wait, frame the image and capture something that told more of a story to me, either that or he just happened to be passing and snapped a shot and got lucky, either way I am only interested in how it speaks to me.

So, I stand by my post, it was a genuine response to an image within the critiques section so I gave my opinion, it hasn't changed after reading your reply.

Mat

[mjrichardson]

Very well said, Slobodan! it's an argument that goes back to the very beginning of photography, and, I think, laps over into painting and other forms of visual representation.

With all due respect, it's not well said at all! I'm not dismissing all photography as just simply being the act of capturing objects, I'm merely suggesting that this particular image says nothing about the photographer and the creativity was down to the person who put the display together, that's just my opinion. Slobodan has dismissed my personal view as being anti artistic photography or even more ludicrous, anti natural colour and that I only like my own style of photography or images created in photoshop, neither of which is true.

Would it be easier if I just said I think it's a great shot? It's a great shot.

Mat

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Would it be easier if I just said I think it's a great shot? It's a great shot.

That isn't necessary, Mat.

I fully accept anyone's criticism and you at least invested an effort to elaborate, which I appreciate. I get your point of view and respect your right to express it. But, as you said, you wanted to prompt a discussion, so I gave you my point of view on issues that I feel are not just your personal, but quite perennial in arts and photography.

[Ray]

Interesting discussion! My background was the UK where I think it's true that traditionally photography was always considered to be more of a 'craft' than an 'art'.

When I first joined the Luminous-landscape forum many years ago, I was uncomfortable with the often-expressed view that photography is an art. I still recall Michael Reichmann's distinction between the two, which he summarized along the lines, 'The painter begins with a blank canvas and adds to it. The photographer begins with a fully-formed scene and subtracts from it."

Such a statement might appear to be a bit too simplistic, but I think it's essentially correct. Every scene that is photographed is unavoidably cropped in a way that is determined by the camera format, the focal length of the lens attached to the camera, and the position of the photographer at the time he presses the shutter. Of course, further cropping (or subtraction) can also be done in post-processing, as well as an almost unlimited number of other adjustments.

The thoughtful photographer, as opposed to the snap shooter, tends to make many decisions before taking a shot, using whatever options are available at the time. Such choices prior to taking the shot, as well as further choices in post-processing, determine the artistic merit of the shot.

However, at some point most analogies break down, and this one is no exception. With the help of processing programs like Photoshop, the photographer can now easily add to his canvas and create composite images, or at least expand a scene using techniques such as 'Context-aware fill'. Perhaps the photographer has the best of both worlds. 

[BobDavid]

I think a great image is a great image--whether it's a pencil drawing, a painting, or a photograph. If a painter had painted the mannequin scene, everybody would be going gaga over it. I probably wouldn't. Why? Too many painters duplicate exactly what's in a photograph.

There are of course excellent painters who use photos as source material to extrapolate from.

Slobodan's photo works, especially within the context of his overall body of work. I like the way he saw the mannequin scene and that he chose to photograph it. The photo compliments his architectural photos--most of which are devoid of people. Interestingly, the mannequins are not real; they were designed, built, and then arranged to be displayed through windows. Just about all high rise buildings since the 1950s are modernist designs with roots going back to the Bauhaus. Slobodan's architectural photos are two dimensional extrapolations of mid-century based architecture. The play of light, color, compositions, and choice of lenses  (wide-medium-tele) show he's spent thousands of hours observing aspects of the built landscape.