DSLRUsers.com

Trolly at Circular Quay/Opera house restaurant.....I liked the placement of the geometrical elements.
Thanks for taking the time to click.

art ? no idea.
but it's cracking image. i love it.

What Rooz said!

What Cameron said.

What Basil Fawlty said

sirhc55 wrote:What Basil Fawlty said

Just don't mention the horizon.

Reschsmooth wrote:

sirhc55 wrote:What Basil Fawlty said

Just don't mention the horizon.

I wasn't going to but now that you mention it, it's leaning slightly to the left as usual

Looks tilted to me.

Next time you meet up with Matt look very carefully and you will notice that he has a slight list to port

Would probably sell for a thousand Euros at the Paris Photo show

Not all elements are tilted

Nice symmetry on this Matt.

sirhc55 wrote:Next time you meet up with Matt look very carefully and you will notice that he has a slight list to port

No, Chris, that's what he's been drinking.

I think what Basil Fawlty said is "...don't mention the war!"
I think it is art. It's a simple and yet quiet effective image
that works at various levels. But, it all depends on the
concept of art by the viewer/admirer.

Recently the most expensive picture was sold for
a cool $4.3 millions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2011/nov/12/worlds-most-expensive-photographs-in-pictures

If I had produced the Rhine river here you guys would have at
best ignored it; at worst, told me to get my act together.
Quite justifiably - if I may add... Matt, I would send it
to Christie's in New York for an evaluation.

Very nice lines etc Matt. It comes nicely together but the light doesn't particularly inspire.

is it art?

for those like me who lack any real concept of 'art' I think this would be a perfect image for people to expand on their thinking on why this image works for them and why they think its art.

Bear in mind I actually don't mind this image on a number of levels, but I am interested to know what makes it work and why.

why are we so obsessed with the tilt

Art is an individual conception. That is why we have critique

sirhc55 wrote:Art is an individual conception. That is why we have critique

uh-huh..then what happened?

I think the tilt is what makes it art, but it must be printed very big.

CraigVTR wrote:I think the tilt is what makes it art, but it must be printed very big.

And on canvass. If it's on canvass, it must be art.

gstark wrote:

CraigVTR wrote:I think the tilt is what makes it art, but it must be printed very big.

And on canvass. If it's on canvass, it must be art.

wow... your an informative bunch eh?

CraigVTR wrote: but it must be printed very big.

gstark wrote: If it's on canvass, it must be art.

No relfection on Matt's image, but I think making large prints (maybe on canvas) can make mediocre images look better/arty etc...

Suren
Printing an image very large can give it a sense of authority or worth, whilst small images can appear 'precious' or 'iconic'. What makes some images improve, and which images will improve, with vastly increasing the size, is a great topic to ponder. From my own experience very grainy B&W sports images can come to life when opened up and printed very large. Images which rely on very fine detail are usually best exhibited quite small. Same for images that exhibit fragility as a theme. There is no doubt that print size is an important compositional element to consider when appraising a print. I have been to photographic exhibitions where imagery of all sizes is exhibited and I get a sense of quite joy when a particularly small but beautiful images catches the attention of the patrons at the expense of the larger images. Getting the size right is the final and probably most difficult decision the photographic artist has to make. One of the advantages of shooting 35mm colour slides and viewing them with a projector is that you could play with size and make dramatic changes to it by zooming the projector lens or moving the projecter further away from the screen. Another factor is that size is not so resolution dependant as we might think and you'd be suprised how far you could push a 2 or 3 MP image without it falling apart. However, I don't believe that enlarging a mediocre image will make it look better. It will just be mediocre...but bigger.

biggerry wrote:is it art?

for those like me who lack any real concept of 'art' I think this would be a perfect image for people to expand on their thinking on why this image works for them and why they think its art.

Bear in mind I actually don't mind this image on a number of levels, but I am interested to know what makes it work and why.

Why do I like it ? I love the symmetry. I love the lines, both parallel and intersecting. I love that they are softened by the round wheels and mocked by the crazy pavers. I like how it's noticing an everyday thing and revealing some quirky beauty.

I'll give this ART thing a crack eh ?

For me, let me repeat this...FOR ME. art is something that makes me think. It engages me, challenges me and ellicits a response. It's as simple as that.

I think there are very few artists on this site, alot of great photographers mind you...but Matt for me is an artist first.. Much like I regard piro as a storyteller first and a photographer second. Whenever Matt posts I like to look and try and see what he saw and why he saw it. What peaked his interest ? Why this shot ? Why that moment ? Why is he posting a pic of a bum with a newspaper, (I still remember that one). I look for it and think about it rather than it being spoonfed to me like a landscape or portrait shot. Dont get me wrong, i still love a beautifully executed photograph...but I look at this image and its immediately apparent to me that it's not about critiquing the photos merits in a quantitative sense. Like you talk about exposure and composition and shutter speeds and post processing and lights and angles. Its a frame its a finite entity contained within that frane that stands on its own merit. No other input is required, just look at it and see if it speaks to you.

I hope Matt won't mind me saying this but I sometimes see Matt's work and think...yeah and ? Or I think...are you fuckin kidding me here champ, that's crap. And I wonder why others see anything in it, so I look again and then again and sometimes I still think "nah...still crap"...but therein lies the beauty...it's engaging me and making me think. It's challenging me to love it or hate it. And I just love that experience.

^
that there is probably the best response I have seen on this site for quite some time.

Matt. K wrote:Suren
Printing an image very large can give it a sense of authority or worth, whilst small images can appear 'precious' or 'iconic'. What makes some images improve, and which images will improve, with vastly increasing the size, is a great topic to ponder. From my own experience very grainy B&W sports images can come to life when opened up and printed very large. Images which rely on very ...snip...r factor is that size is not so resolution dependant as we might think and you'd be suprised how far you could push a 2 or 3 MP image without it falling apart. However, I don't believe that enlarging a mediocre image will make it look better. It will just be mediocre...but bigger.

I went to the Annie Liebowitz exhibition a couple of years ago (fricken hell, she is NOT just another high profile photographer) and she used print size to great effect. Delicate landscapes printed big so you can walk through them. Imposing portraits of Arnie printed big. Small, careful family portraits printed small.

biggerry wrote:^
that there is probably the best response I have seen on this site for quite some time.

It is not always easy to put into words what you feel about something so subjective as a photograph or art let alone explain your reasons behind the feelings. Very well said Rooz.

Err... at the risk of being controversial...

If this image had been the first post of a new member, what would the feedback be?

Looking at some of the responses above, I have the feeling that we may have been influenced by the (deserved) reputation of the photographer.

Naturally, each of us is entitled to his/her own opinion - even me!

I think that it is a dull, boring image. It lacks contrast, the vertical lines are too central. I wonder what the point is.

I know Matt won't be upset by my harsh criticism because he knows that we all see different things in each image.
It would take a week to list the images of his which, over the years, could truly be classified as art.

But not this one.

IMHO.

I have known Matt for some time and he knows me so I say with due respect that in my eyes this photograph has no artistic content at all - it’s a very ordinary photo of a very boring subject.

And, if this photo had been put up for critique by a total newbie it would have been ignored or, at best, been given a weak critique.

Now blow me out of the water folks in the same manner that you hand out critique

well of course you take the poster in context when critiquing a photo. why would you not ? how is that much different to anything we do in any other part of our lives ? the context of the artist/ author/key party is always taken into account when assessing a body of work because they earn the right for that to occur. matt has earnt the right for us to look a little longer at an image and wonder why it caught his eye.

if you're in a business meeting and an idea is presented to the group by a subject matter expert, do we not take that opinion in context of the author ? do you think we would regard the idea with equal merit if it were proposed by the a 21 year old blow in out of university who had been with the company for 5 minutes and it was his first ever job ? if you see tendulkar nail a perfect off drive between 5 fieldsman, do we not give afford him a little more credit of assuming this was perfect timing and placement as opposed to seeing the exact same shot played on saturday at the local pub ?

good discussion but again, i refer back to my opinion that art will speak to you or not. there are many things that i have seen chris or trevor comment on or even a POTW and i think...HUH ? to me they may be ordinary snaps that i would delete before it even made my PC but to others they are wonderful. this is precisely the beauty of any art, photography included.

to try and say with any authority that this one shot is average where as another may be brilliant is completely and utterly subjective.

Rooz wrote:to try and say with any authority that this one shot is average where as another may be brilliant is completely and utterly subjective.

It's hard to be compltely objective, isn't it? As you said, it has to speak to you.

As for considering the reputation, I would expect a more experienced artist to submit better work than a beginner. But a bad piece of work, whether it is photography, music or painting, is still crook even if it is put forward by an acknowledged master.

And finally, Matt asked the question, so clearly he wasn't sure himself!

the foto fanatic wrote:
As for considering the reputation, I would expect a more experienced artist to submit better work than a beginner. But a bad piece of work, whether it is photography, music or painting, is still crook even if it is put forward by a master. up:

How do you define "better" or "good"?

Reschsmooth wrote:

the foto fanatic wrote:I would expect a more experienced artist to submit better work than a beginner.

How do you define "better" or "good"?

lol exactly what i was thinking.

trev, i have also taken photos and thought...hold on...theres something here...i think. so i think that is quite common for us to ask of ourselves the same others would ask of us. i would also ask you this...what if matt looked at this shot again and thought the image was crap after reflecting on it ? would that somehow de-validate my opinion of it ? do i need the author to believe it is a pearler of an image in order for me to like it myself ?

as another case in point, i showed lara the POTW by cam. now, i really like it. she shook her head and couldn't understand it. have we not all seen POTW choices and wondered what the hell the mod was thinking ? if anyone says that they loved the choice every week i would suggest that the individual wasn't thinking hard enough. i think the discussion of this photo is exactly in the same vein. its personal.

i think its fantastic that biggery asked the question to begin with, he asked for an explanation cos he didnt get it. i know gerry has been agitating for improved quality of comments/ critiques for some time and this is why its healthy to do so !

This seems to me to be an appropriate time to chime in with something from the past.

Here's the PotW from July 26, 2005. I think it's the most controversial PotW we've ever had, and I commend to you the discussion that ensued from this selection.



The original PotW is here.


Unfortunately, while the second most controversial PotW thread still exists, the image is no longer available within its thread.

This is the thumbnail that shows you what was shot.



Again, I commend the discussion to you.

For both of these though, please continue the discussion here.

Rooz wrote:i think its fantastic that biggery asked the question to begin with, he asked for an explanation cos he didnt get it. i know gerry has been agitating for improved quality of comments/ critiques for some time and this is why its healthy to do so !

I see so many threads with such potential to be more than just a flickr style love fest and this is a prime example, i think these kind of discussions really make it worthwhile to be a regular member here.

I guess its not so much that 'i did not get it' but moreso that I wanted to know why people did 'get it' why it gelled with them. As you mentioned it is a very subjective and personal thing... but insight like this helps me broaden my knowledge and exposure to differing types of art/photography that I would not normally give a second glance to.

I also think there is another aspect to differing opinions and likes/dislikes, the age one is and also the experience and exposure to art and photography the other, where you can be part of a discussion that encompasses people with a wide range of ages and experiences is invaluable, where they are happy to discuss and share is even better.

gstark wrote:Here's the PotW from July 26, 2005. I think it's the most controversial PotW we've ever had, and I commend to you the discussion that ensued from this selection.

thats a nice shot, however it could certainly be a shot from someone who accidently f'up the focus then went wow cool photo, or it could be someone with a interesting and creative mind who SAW the end result then took the photo.

gstark wrote:Unfortunately, while the second most controversial PotW thread still exists, the image is no longer available within its thread.

thats a snapshot photo in my opinion, not necessarily sh*t, but for me, uninterestign and uninspiring.

wendellt wrote:Any photo that incites so much debate is ART in it's truest sense!

biggerry wrote:

gstark wrote:Unfortunately, while the second most controversial PotW thread still exists, the image is no longer available within its thread.

thats a snapshot photo in my opinion, not necessarily sh*t, but for me, uninterestign and uninspiring.

Just a bit of background to that image, for all y'all.

That image was made over the forum's first anniversary weekend. It was taken, and photochopped to provide the end result that the photographer wanted. The image was selected as PotW in the full knowledge that it was likely to be a little controversial, and bring some vigorous discussion to the fore.

Some of the ensuing discussion failed to take account of the selection criteria for PotW, and that is true for both of those images.

As is being stated in this thread, what one might consider to be art is very subjective, and very personal. The same is true for music, or tv shows, or just about anything else.

Five years on, I'm interested in hearing more about this from everyone, including discussion on the images and threads I've linked here.

Rooz wrote:trev, i have also taken photos and thought...hold on...theres something here...i think. so i think that is quite common for us to ask of ourselves the same others would ask of us. i would also ask you this...what if matt looked at this shot again and thought the image was crap after reflecting on it ? would that somehow de-validate my opinion of it ? do i need the author to believe it is a pearler of an image in order for me to like it myself ?

i think its fantastic that biggery asked the question to begin with, he asked for an explanation cos he didnt get it. i know gerry has been agitating for improved quality of comments/ critiques for some time and this is why its healthy to do so !

Chris, each of us is entitled to their own opinion. Mine is no more valid than yours or vice versa. That is why it is not purely objective, or we would all think the same. I understand that others may not like what I like.

Or, in this case, that I may not like what they like!

My original point was that we should not "try" to like a work because of its author's reputation. I love the Beatles, but a couple of their tunes are absolute rubbish.

Most of Matt's work (that I have seen on this forum anyway) I find varies between good and great, whereas this one totally underwhelms me.

The creator of the work has relevance for a number of reasons, not least due to the belief that if a person has demonstrated, over a prolonged period, a keen eye for previsualisation and execution of that vision, then, when we see an image from them that looks, say, underwhelming, we may well ask: "What has this artist seen that I am not seeing?" Such a question may not be asked when the creator is unknown or unfamiliar to us. That is why a newbie would receive such a different reaction. I wager that all of us would treat an image from Matt differently to the same or similar image from a newbie. How we articilate that different perception is questionable.

Given the importance the reputation has, consciously or sub-consciously, I would like to propose the idea of a thread whereby a moderator host some images from a member (that can be rotated - there aren't that many of us posting images) that can be posted anonymously, inviting critique. It may not elicit a significantly different response, but could be interesting.

I'm impressed with the intelligence of the responses to this thread and I love the diversity of views. (That's why it is such a wonderful forum). The question of what is art is hotly debated in every academic art institute by every first year art student. And the answer is that it can be whatever you want it to be. You might as well ask which is the true religion and which side of politics is best. Toilet seats and Christian crosses in urine have been exhibited and worshipped, (by some), as high art. Picasso took a bicycle seat and some handle bars and fashioned a bulls head, (of sorts), from them. That piece today is worth millions of dollars. As a youngish art student my philosophy was that if I liked it....then it was art. If I didn't like it....then it was crap. What a narrow view that was. I think I've matured since then and now enjoy looking at works with a far more enquiring mind. I should also mention here that trained or practicing artists, as musicians become more sensitive to sounds and pitch and rhythm, become more sensitive to colours, shapes, forms, tones, balance, perspective, symmetry and texture. (It took me 3 years to learn how to tune my classical guitar by ear….but I got there). I imagine that going to a gallery with an academically trained artist and perusing the works of the masters would be a totally different experience to going with someone who had never been to a gallery before. I would enjoy both as they would be so insightful as to what they were reacting to. The image I posted here is, to me, a delightful image. It speaks to me. I love it that a utilitarian object that was designed to carry food and drinks so that they could be pushed from 1 place to another….could grab my attention. I saw the beauty and the rhythm of its geometric shapes and I saw the subtle colours and the different textures, the symmetry and the order and the balance of the structure all seemed marvellous. It demanded to be photographed. One member commented on the poor lighting….but the lighting was perfect! It was frontal and flat, low contrast. It reduced the form to a 2 dimensional pattern, which adds to the complexity of the photograph. For those who don’t like it, that’s perfectly understandable. Some of us like red wine and others white. I suspect that this image will make it to my fine print list and I’m confident that it will stand up quite well. But I could be wrong.

Matt. K wrote: Picasso took a bicycle seat and some handle bars and fashioned a bulls head, (of sorts), from them. That piece today is worth millions of dollars.

I can't help but think that once you made a name for yourself, you can define art, fashion etc so most of your works will be considered in high regard.
This is why, IMHO it's good to detach the author when you are critiquing art. It preserves your vision without too much thought pollution.

On the other hand, I have started to think about what Patrick and Rooz said about using the author as a contextual element when you are dishing out some critique... Who knows, perhaps it's something I will consider.

Matt. K wrote:As a youngish art student my philosophy was that if I liked it....then it was art.

Can't argue with that Matt. I always consider 'art' when I wanted it printed (big or small) on my wall where I can see it everyday.

Matt. K wrote: I think I've matured since then and now enjoy looking at works with a far more enquiring mind.

How do you develop this?

Matt. K wrote:One member commented on the poor lighting….but the lighting was perfect! It was frontal and flat, low contrast.

I said 'uninspiring' .... .

Matt. K wrote:I saw the beauty and the rhythm of its geometric shapes and I saw the subtle colours and the different textures, the symmetry and the order and the balance of the structure all seemed marvellous.

Thanks for offering your view and also for the explanation of why you like this image. It is most insightful!!

Reschsmooth wrote:Given the importance the reputation has, consciously or sub-consciously, I would like to propose the idea of a thread whereby a moderator host some images from a member (that can be rotated - there aren't that many of us posting images) that can be posted anonymously, inviting critique. It may not elicit a significantly different response, but could be interesting.

This is a very interesting exercise. I have some experience in this [Also Gerry and Rodney] as we post pictures on photosig.com . It is a relatively annonymous site with huge membership and you get 'fairly' unbiased critique/comments unless you piss someone off..... Unfortunately it also suffers as some people try to appease others to get higher scores.
My guess is, if a newb or anonymous person posted this picture, people would be very negative. The obvious way to check would be to post this picture anonymously elsewhere.

Thanks Gerry for persisting with your question to start this off.

Couldn't sleep - must be this thread gnawing at me

Ahhh - well do I remember Leigh Stark's controversial PotW of the girl on the bus. I liked it at the time, and considering it again now, I think that it is a wonderfully enigmatic image.

I also remember the avid discussion that followed its selection. Some liked it, some hated it. Some thought that it was evidence of elitism and nepotism within the forum.

Similarly with the sign on the Harbour Bridge.

Matt was right when he listed some of the strange and wonderful things that are art. Crikey, I can remember some of Andy Warhol's work and the fierce debate about that. Imagine a Campbell's soup tin being art!

So, I'm changing my tune.

Matt's trolley photo IS art.

But it's very ordinary art!

the foto fanatic wrote:Chris, each of us is entitled to their own opinion. Mine is no more valid than yours or vice versa. That is why it is not purely objective, or we would all think the same. I understand that others may not like what I like.

I would say it is hardly objective at all and almost entirely subjective. That's why everyone's opinion is different.

This particular image does nothing for me - but I'm not very artistic at all. For me, images that work are usually ones that tell a story, show me something that interests me or are just plain stunning. Nature images work best for me because I am interested in nature. Seeing something I haven't seen before or even something I'm am familiar with but from a different perspective captures my attention.

I remember looking through Peter Stubbs' books and I can pretty safely say that every image caught my attention - even crusty old buildings and rusting boats. I don't know if I'd call it all art, but the images certainly appealed to me. The two old POTW images that Gary posted do very little for me.

Cameron's POTW image for this week does appeal to me - a bit. Perhaps because it tells a bit of a story.

Reschsmooth wrote:Given the importance the reputation has, consciously or sub-consciously, I would like to propose the idea of a thread whereby a moderator host some images from a member (that can be rotated - there aren't that many of us posting images) that can be posted anonymously, inviting critique. It may not elicit a significantly different response, but could be interesting.

I reckon you will be able to pick the author of most of teh images - on a slight variation to this theme, I reckon it would be very interesting to have a thread with a series of images and you have place the image with the author, now that would be a challenge, it would really get you to try different techniques/styles to evade the branding of the photo with your name

surenj wrote:This is why, IMHO it's good to detach the author when you are critiquing art. It preserves your vision without too much thought pollution.

I agree, but its a very difficult thing to do, especially here in such a small community.

biggerry wrote:I reckon it would be very interesting to have a thread with a series of images and you have place the image with the author, now that would be a challenge, it would really get you to try different techniques/styles to evade the branding of the photo with your name

I would like to play this one.

surenj wrote:I would like to play this one.

I reckon this could actually be quite a good idea

gstark wrote:This seems to me to be an appropriate time to chime in with something from the past.

Here's the PotW from July 26, 2005. I think it's the most controversial PotW we've ever had, and I commend to you the discussion that ensued from this selection.



The original PotW is here.

yeah this one im really feeling. love the off kilter frame. love the OOF, love it as a mono. its brilliant.

Unfortunately, while the second most controversial PotW thread still exists, the image is no longer available within its thread.

This is the thumbnail that shows you what was shot.

[/quote]

sorry, cant say the same about this one. its just crap. i dont see any merit in it at all personally so in the spirit of gerrys post which started this discussion in the first place...someone..pls help me understand.

Rooz wrote:sorry, cant say the same about this one. its just crap. i dont see any merit in it at all personally so in the spirit of gerrys post which started this discussion in the first place...someone..pls help me understand.

It doesn't do anything for me as a photograph but I think the point of it is the message....

"SPECIAL EVENT D70 6&7 AUG". That's the anniversary of the forum (D70Users).

Judging by the interest in this subject, maybe we should have a new sub-section called "Art" in the critique section.

ATJ wrote:

Rooz wrote:sorry, cant say the same about this one. its just crap. i dont see any merit in it at all personally so in the spirit of gerrys post which started this discussion in the first place...someone..pls help me understand.

It doesn't do anything for me as a photograph but I think the point of it is the message....

"SPECIAL EVENT D70 6&7 AUG". That's the anniversary of the forum (D70Users).

Ty for explaining that. I can now understand the relevance. As a photo though...no cigar.

I just read thru those threads, quite an amusing read actually. Leigh's line "It's just a picture of a girl on a bus." had me in freakin stitches...lmao

I just have one request of Gary...no, request is not strong enuf...i have a DEMAND for Gary. Immediately ban anyone who has an avatar like the one of hoff in a g-string...I mean come on now...fairs fair.

Rooz wrote:I just have one request of Gary...no, request is not strong enuf...i have a DEMAND for Gary. Immediately ban anyone who has an avatar like the one of hoff in a g-string...I mean come on now...fairs fair.

you mean this one??



or this one?



MattK, those two image are rest assured to generate soooooooo much traffic to this thread that you will be famous for art in a matter of days

feel free to shoot me now...