Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Still Life, B/W & Experimental 
Thread started 13 Jul 2014 (Sunday) 22:42
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

They See Rocks, I See Music? : Minimalism @ the Golden Gate Bridge

 
Xyclopx
Goldmember
1,714 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 202
Joined Jul 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Jul 13, 2014 22:42 |  #1

(Adjusted: )

Thousands see these rocks from above, walking across the Golden Gate Bridge, each day. Some may take note of the curious threesome, seemingly placed purposely, but perhaps their former Zen garden home was washed away. Or some may see a different profound beauty, the kind found most anywhere if one were to just let their eyes rest and their mind wander.

(Previous: )

Thousands see these rocks from above, walking across the Golden Gate Bridge, each day. Some may take note of the curious threesome, seemingly placed purposely, but perhaps their former Zen garden home was washed away. Or more likely most merely glanced their way, oblivious to any statement to be made beyond the walls of the bridge, blind to the simple yet profound beauty that could be found most anywhere if one were to just let their eyes rest and their mind wander.


by Dean Chiang | Xyclopx (external link)

(Adjusted: )

They are rocks, I see music, what do you see?

(Previous: )

They see rocks, I see music, what do you see?


Also @ my blog: http://pics.xyclopx.co​m …hey-see-rocks-i-see-music (external link)
And Facebook: https://www.facebook.c​om/DeanChiangPhotograp​hy (external link)

Dean Chiang (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Blog (external link) | Gear (external link)
My Photos (external link)
Instagram @xyclopx (external link) @feetandeyes (external link) @gastramour (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
smeghead62
Goldmember
1,100 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 31
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Ottawa, Canada
     
Jul 14, 2014 17:47 |  #2

Nicely executed, like the composition.


Doug
6D, more glass than sense

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Xyclopx
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,714 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 202
Joined Jul 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Jul 31, 2014 23:55 |  #3

smeghead62 wrote in post #17031929 (external link)
Nicely executed, like the composition.

Thanks! Appreciate it. :)


Dean Chiang (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Blog (external link) | Gear (external link)
My Photos (external link)
Instagram @xyclopx (external link) @feetandeyes (external link) @gastramour (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Aug 01, 2014 00:24 |  #4

Xyclopx wrote in post #17030153 (external link)
Thousands see these rocks from above, walking across the Golden Gate Bridge, each day. Some may take note of the curious threesome, seemingly placed purposely, but perhaps their former Zen garden home was washed away. Or more likely most merely glanced their way, oblivious to any statement to be made beyond the walls of the bridge, blind to the simple yet profound beauty that could be found most anywhere if one were to just let their eyes rest and their mind wander.

I really like this image, but I just have to comment on your description. Maybe it's just me, but that's almost coming off as a little bit insulting. I've never seen those rocks, but suppose I did? I'd probably be thinking, "who the heck is this person to be talking about how other people react to the scene?" Don't get me wrong, I realize that one has to puff themselves up to some degree, but you're sort of puffing yourself up by bringing everyone else down. How would you know if most people are blind to that simple and profound beauty? And even if they are blind to that beauty, why even bring it up? It's not like that somehow makes your image any better. No one needs you TELLING them that you are deep enough to recognize simple and profound beauty while others ignore it. If that's even true, then it's gonna be evident in the image.

The bottom line is that you're sort of criticizing people for simplifying something beautiful into a mere rock, for ignoring its aesthetically pleasing qualities. You're saying that they're blind to something that's really there. But in doing so, you're kind of doing the same thing to your audience. Now you're simplifying PEOPLE. Which means that you'd darn sure better be correct. Because unlike rocks, people can react to unfair judgements about them. A rock is never going to get annoyed that people are calling it just a rock, but PEOPLE might get annoyed that some photographer is calling them blind to nature's simple yet profound beauties. If you're gonna be making those kinds of statements, your work should be consistently DAMN good. And if your work is that good, then you probably don't need to be making those kinds of statements at all.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Xyclopx
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,714 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 202
Joined Jul 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Aug 01, 2014 00:37 |  #5

Clean Gene wrote in post #17069532 (external link)
I really like this image, but I just have to comment on your description. Maybe it's just me, but that's almost coming off as a little bit insulting. I've never seen those rocks, but suppose I did? I'd probably be thinking, "who the heck is this person to be talking about how other people react to the scene?" Don't get me wrong, I realize that one has to puff themselves up to some degree, but you're sort of puffing yourself up by bringing everyone else down. How would you know if most people are blind to that simple and profound beauty? And even if they are blind to that beauty, why even bring it up? It's not like that somehow makes your image any better. No one needs you TELLING them that you are deep enough to recognize simple and profound beauty while others ignore it. If that's even true, then it's gonna be evident in the image.

The bottom line is that you're sort of criticizing people for simplifying something beautiful into a mere rock, for ignoring its aesthetically pleasing qualities. You're saying that they're blind to something that's really there. But in doing so, you're kind of doing the same thing to your audience. Now you're simplifying PEOPLE. Which means that you'd darn sure better be correct. Because unlike rocks, people can react to unfair judgements about them. A rock is never going to get annoyed that people are calling it just a rock, but PEOPLE might get annoyed that some photographer is calling them blind to nature's simple yet profound beauties. If you're gonna be making those kinds of statements, your work should be consistently DAMN good. And if your work is that good, then you probably don't need to be making those kinds of statements at all.

Gene, I completely agree. Everything you say is correct.

But the description is there to serve a purpose. I am sure 99.99% of people walking by do not give those rocks a second look. These rocks are right off the Golden Gate Bridge where thousands walk by each day. You, I, and many here, and many elsewhere, looking for greatness to capture with your camera will probably take note. And that's why you're offended. And I apologize for that. But the other 99.99% do not care for the rocks. And those are the ones I am trying to attend to.

Yes, it's insulting to the minority. But it's meant to get your attention. I realize you don't appreciate the manner that was used. So sorry.

These days sensationalist titles fill Facebook. They're stupid titles. Stupid articles. Stupid videos. All for attention. It's the way it is. This is my experiment. Sorry it rubbed you the wrong way.

But I am glad you appreciate the picture itself. Just ignore my poorly chosen words and find the art itself. :)


Dean Chiang (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Blog (external link) | Gear (external link)
My Photos (external link)
Instagram @xyclopx (external link) @feetandeyes (external link) @gastramour (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Aug 01, 2014 01:10 |  #6

Xyclopx wrote in post #17069545 (external link)
Gene, I completely agree. Everything you say is correct.

But the description is there to serve a purpose. I am sure 99.99% of people walking by do not give those rocks a second look. These rocks are right off the Golden Gate Bridge where thousands walk by each day. You, I, and many here, and many elsewhere, looking for greatness to capture with your camera will probably take note. And that's why you're offended. And I apologize for that. But the other 99.99% do not care for the rocks. And those are the ones I am trying to attend to.

Yes, it's insulting to the minority. But it's meant to get your attention. I realize you don't appreciate the manner that was used. So sorry.

These days sensationalist titles fill Facebook. They're stupid titles. Stupid articles. Stupid videos. All for attention. It's the way it is. This is my experiment. Sorry it rubbed you the wrong way.

But I am glad you appreciate the picture itself. Just ignore my poorly chosen words and find the art itself. :)

Oh, I'm not saying that I'm offended. I'm just pointing out how such comments can potentially come across. You say that the comment was meant to get my attention, but that just seems a little backwards to me. What gets my attention is the image. I feel like the image is important enough to hold people's attention, it should (generally) be about the image and not the commentary. Notice that now we're not talking about the image, we're talking about your observation of other people. That's a distraction from the image, that's not what we should be talking about right now. Granted, I didn't have to say anything to you, but even if I hadn't commented I'd still be thinking about your observations of other people. I would still be distracted from the image. You can argue that I shouldn't have gone there, but I'm not special. If I went the wrong direction due to that kind of comment, I can guarantee that it's gonna happen again with other people when you make similar comments.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
you get what you get
Avatar
19,347 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7200
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Aug 01, 2014 01:40 |  #7

Xyclopx wrote in post #17069545 (external link)
I am sure 99.99% of people walking by do not give those rocks a second look.

That's a pretty high level of confidence in such a large percentage, considering that people may be contemplating the rocks without giving an outward sign.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | Comments welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Xyclopx
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,714 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 202
Joined Jul 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Aug 01, 2014 01:42 |  #8

OhLook wrote in post #17069615 (external link)
That's a pretty high level of confidence in such a large percentage, considering that people may be contemplating the rocks without giving an outward sign.

Point taken.

So... I see you're from the area. Have you seen the rocks? If so, what did you think?


Dean Chiang (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Blog (external link) | Gear (external link)
My Photos (external link)
Instagram @xyclopx (external link) @feetandeyes (external link) @gastramour (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
you get what you get
Avatar
19,347 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7200
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Aug 01, 2014 10:35 |  #9

I wouldn't have seen those rocks. You won't catch me walking across anything as high as the GG Bridge.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | Comments welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Xyclopx
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,714 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 202
Joined Jul 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Aug 01, 2014 10:52 |  #10

OhLook wrote in post #17070209 (external link)
I wouldn't have seen those rocks. You won't catch me walking across anything as high as the GG Bridge.

ha ha okay. :)

I am looking for people to go out shooting with though. i'd do basically anything. if you ever wanna go on a photowalk or something that'll be cool.


Dean Chiang (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Blog (external link) | Gear (external link)
My Photos (external link)
Instagram @xyclopx (external link) @feetandeyes (external link) @gastramour (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2cruise
Goldmember
Avatar
4,486 posts
Gallery: 696 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 6743
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Virginia.....I'm also known as Whisle
     
Aug 01, 2014 21:26 as a reply to  @ Xyclopx's post |  #11

I like the shot! Great tonal value, composition is good and I don't care about the words one way or another.


5D Mark IV~100-400L II IS~16-35 f4L IS ~Zeiss 25mm f2~Zeiss 50mm f2 Makro-Planar~ Sigma 24-105 Art~Rokinon 14mm 2.8~Lee filters
My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
you get what you get
Avatar
19,347 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7200
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Aug 01, 2014 23:51 |  #12

Xyclopx wrote in post #17070237 (external link)
I am looking for people to go out shooting with though. i'd do basically anything. if you ever wanna go on a photowalk or something that'll be cool.

I like the idea. However, it's hard to arrange because I don't drive, and the high rate of street crime keeps me from going out by myself (walking, even walking to public transit) unless I have to. I do Urban Fragments shots when my husband and I are out together.

I used to look at the Bay Area thread, but those people were always shooting something I couldn't get to.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | Comments welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Xyclopx
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,714 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 202
Joined Jul 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Aug 02, 2014 19:14 |  #13

Clean Gene wrote in post #17069583 (external link)
Oh, I'm not saying that I'm offended. I'm just pointing out how such comments can potentially come across. You say that the comment was meant to get my attention, but that just seems a little backwards to me. What gets my attention is the image. I feel like the image is important enough to hold people's attention, it should (generally) be about the image and not the commentary. Notice that now we're not talking about the image, we're talking about your observation of other people. That's a distraction from the image, that's not what we should be talking about right now. Granted, I didn't have to say anything to you, but even if I hadn't commented I'd still be thinking about your observations of other people. I would still be distracted from the image. You can argue that I shouldn't have gone there, but I'm not special. If I went the wrong direction due to that kind of comment, I can guarantee that it's gonna happen again with other people when you make similar comments.

I agree with some of your points. I would say originally I was going after a different audience, the sort that responds to the sensationalist headings typically now found on internet stuffs. but after reading the replies here I realize that photographers are my real audience, and yeah, like you previously said, they are the ones that would get offended, being trained to see differently than most.

I've changed the wording in the original post in a way that I hope still gets attention in a facebook post, but shouldn't be offensive to other artists.

thanks all for your perspectives. probably made my text better.


Dean Chiang (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Blog (external link) | Gear (external link)
My Photos (external link)
Instagram @xyclopx (external link) @feetandeyes (external link) @gastramour (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snafoo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,431 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 712
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Peculiar
     
Aug 03, 2014 23:53 |  #14

OhLook wrote in post #17071528 (external link)
I like the idea. However, it's hard to arrange because I don't drive, and the high rate of street crime keeps me from going out by myself (walking, even walking to public transit) unless I have to. I do Urban Fragments shots when my husband and I are out together.

I used to look at the Bay Area thread, but those people were always shooting something I couldn't get to.

Sorry, but just how bad is the street crime in SF that you don't feel safe walking around? I'm visiting my uncle this week in SF and although I'm always cautious, your comment has unnerved me somewhat. BTW, he lives in Sunnyside, just south of Mt. Davidson. And I live in Kansas City, which is always on somebody's "most dangerous city" list, but crime there is confined to very specific parts of town and is therefore generally avoidable.


http://www.jonstot.com​/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
you get what you get
Avatar
19,347 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7200
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Aug 04, 2014 11:00 |  #15

Snafoo, I live in the Bay Area but not in SF. Armed robbery and purse snatching are popular here, and law enforcement can't keep up. Sunnyside is better. You have an advantage if you're male: no purse to snatch, and you won't look so vulnerable.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | Comments welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,306 views & 0 likes for this thread
They See Rocks, I See Music? : Minimalism @ the Golden Gate Bridge
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Still Life, B/W & Experimental 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Karteek007
969 guests, 307 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.