Composition and all that Arty stuff - discussion thread.

IIRC, chauncey mentioned in another thread that it's a composite. I do like it, though for some reason I keep feeling that the tree's too prominent compared to the man, and that the elements feel somehow disconnected.

Matt M. wrote in post #16564007
By "overlapping," do you mean that the guy's arm is intruding on the space in the frame that "belongs" to the other two figures, thereby drawing them together as one?
My initial impression of this photo was that it works because all of the people in the frame are equally engaged in their activity of choice, and equally unconcerned with, or comfortably sheltered from, the cold snowy day outside the window.

Thanks Matt,

If you notice, all the people are touching, which pulls them all together visually. Many painters would do this and many photographers also do this to help form a connection between the visual elements. I feel that most of the elements in this image are all supporting the visual statement. I think that the one couple engaged and the other couple unengaged are what drew me to the image at first and they were in and the snow was raging outside. The two were in their own worlds totally oblivious to the engaged conversation yet they are all part of a larger whole connected forever visually.

Chauncey,

I really like the composite. I think I commented on it before but I will comment again.

I think there is a wonderful classic triangular composition with the one point being the lead bird another the tree and another the man ice fishing. The tree and the man also make small arrows that point to the flock and the flock makes an arrow that leads across the top of the frame implying a movement from left to right.

I also think the tree besides being an import element in that regard helps give scale and actually would support how small the man is in the scale of nature.

Of the two you posted the comp is clearly the stronger in terms of composition.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16562209
IMHO with my image I feel a sense of movement and energy in the couple engage in conversation. While the other couple are not engaged and quite detached from each other and the couple that are engaged in deep and comfortable conversation. So two couples in different situations. They are all attached through overlapping that didn't happen before the man raised his arms. No picture before that because all the elements were not connected visually. Now they are but the two on the left are in their own worlds yet everyone is still part of a whole.

I don't see the two on the left as a couple. They appear to be unrelated individuals who just happen to have landed in the same public space. What connects the elements for me isn't the overlapping, because on the left this overlapping is slight and it's in a dark area of little importance to what the people are doing. (The readers intentionally positioned their eyes and hands for the purpose of reading; they let their feet and legs fall where they might.) The connection comes, visually, from the placement of the four heads. The viewer can keep going around within the frame, traveling from one head to another.

On the right, the conversation is animated, but it seems to have hit an unpleasant moment. The woman looks skeptical. She's having trouble absorbing what the man is saying. The man's hand gesture suggests some utterance like "Well, how the hell should I know!" Maybe he's telling her about something that happened that seems crazy or wrong to both of them. So the image presents a contrast between two ways of being in public. You can go with a companion and be sociable, but it might get rocky, or you can go by yourself and seek the quiet stimulation of reading. Emotion versus intellect.

You are right, they are not a "couple" and they are a pair in contrast to the other pair engaged in deep conversation. The overlapping is a classic tool to connect objects in the frame and just reenforces what you stated. If he hadn't have raised his arms, and the woman didn't smile, I wouldn't have pushed the shutter. The woman has a very relaxed and natural smile. The gesture being made by the man adds a tension but the is also in contrast to the woman's expression. Plus the wonderful triangle with the guy creating one side and a line from the woman smiling to the woman reading to the guy readings head being the tip of the triangle and back to the bottom of the chair.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16564286
You are right, they are not a "couple" and they are a pair in contrast to the other pair engaged in deep conversation.

The two on the left also have very closed, introverted body language, contrasting with the obviously open body language of the couple.
Nice shot, in case I haven't already said so. Very interesting, as per usual, Allen.

What do you think of the idea that, because of having relentlessly exposed themselves to works of every sort within a given genre (photography, for instance) for long periods of time, an artist can be led into discounting quality, or even extraordinary, artwork? In other words, is the material on POTN (for the sake of example) like a drug that loses effectiveness over time, leading to a lack of stimulation that can only be cured by increasingly more abstract or avant-garde material?

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16563957
I like the first one....

Totally agreed, great shot

Matt M. wrote in post #16564571
What do you think of the idea that, because of having relentlessly exposed themselves to works of every sort within a given genre (photography, for instance) for long periods of time, an artist can be led into discounting quality, or even extraordinary, artwork? In other words, is the material on POTN (for the sake of example) like a drug that loses effectiveness over time, leading to a lack of stimulation that can only be cured by increasingly more abstract or avant-garde material?

Good question.

I think it can have that effect especially if you are not getting influences from the right places. Most of the greats had influences. We don't live in a bubble. Having limited time I would rather spend time with work that challenges me as a viewer and as a creator. Whether it's music, art, photography, movies or literature I like to get involved with work that challenges and inspires me.

I think if you try to stay current and still keep your feet in the past and if you care about the art form then you will not become complacent. If you look for deeper meaning and more subtle uses of language then you will constantly be challenging not only your own vision but the type of work you are inspired by. I have been a photographer for well over 40 years and I am still learning and growing.

On POTN there are so many photographers on so many different stages of the journey if you only look at the work of those only growing in a horizontal direction then the fact that you also will probably only progress in a horizontal direction is only logical.

If you are looking at the works of the great visual artists (painters, sculptors, photographers, etc) and then looking to see if those things and visual elements that made their work great are showing up in the works of those on the web and ultimately then in your own work then you will probably continue to grow vertically.

Whether it's abstract or not the question should be is it effectively communicating.

Matt M. wrote in post #16564571
What do you think of the idea that, because of having relentlessly exposed themselves to works of every sort within a given genre (photography, for instance) for long periods of time, an artist can be led into discounting quality, or even extraordinary, artwork? In other words, is the material on POTN (for the sake of example) like a drug that loses effectiveness over time, leading to a lack of stimulation that can only be cured by increasingly more abstract or avant-garde material?

I think this is something that doesn't really happen. I actually think the more you are exposed to others' work, the more it dilutes your own. For this reason, I don't really follow a ton of other photographers' work because once you have the technical aspects down, all that counts is your unique vision. I of course look to the best of the best for inspiration, but there are only a handful of photographers that fit that description for myself. Erik Almas (use of light), Gregory Heisler (connecting with subject), Nick Merrick (composition), etc.

The photographers I think that inspire me the most have been Frank and Davidson for their vision in regards to a body of work. Adams for his technical ablility. Bresson for the moment. DeCarava for his ability to look beneath the surfaces as well as White and Bullock for that. But the more we look at those that were fluent in the language that we all try to communicate with the more fluent we can become.

I have a circle of friends that include artist and photographers. We do get together several times a year to discuss art and photography. Content meaning and deeper discussions are what we usually its all about. We all have to have new work and we have amazing critiques that not only help us see in new ways but it also gives us more insight into out own work and helps us keep and become more fluent.

Matt M. wrote in post #16564571
What do you think of the idea that, because of having relentlessly exposed themselves to works of every sort within a given genre (photography, for instance) for long periods of time, an artist can be led into discounting quality, or even extraordinary, artwork? In other words, is the material on POTN (for the sake of example) like a drug that loses effectiveness over time, leading to a lack of stimulation that can only be cured by increasingly more abstract or avant-garde material?

The opposite happens for me. Looking at all these images is stimulating. Even the shots by people on paths very different from mine, such as sports or concerts, can offer something. When you look at your second 10,000 photos, you notice different things than in your first 10,000.

OhLook wrote in post #16564798
The opposite happens for me. Looking at all these images is stimulating. Even the shots by people on paths very different from mine, such as sports or concerts, can offer something. When you look at your second 10,000 photos, you notice different things than in your first 10,000.

There are photographs and other works of art that I have a very different feeling now than I did say 30 years ago. I hope that my vision and my fluency has improved in 30 years so that brings different life's experience to the vocabulary. I love art. I can't get enough. I go to galleries and the art institute as much as time allows. I look at work here and many other places. I also get inspired by viewing work and it seems the more I look and participate the more inspired and creative I become.

Happy New Year EVERYONE!!!

Good to see you posting here Mike...

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16564822
There are photographs and other works of art that I have a very different feeling now than I did say 30 years ago. I hope that my vision and my fluency has improved in 30 years so that brings different life's experience to the vocabulary. I love art. I can't get enough. I go to galleries and the art institute as much as time allows. I look at work here and many other places. I also get inspired by viewing work and it seems the more I look and participate the more inspired and creative I become.

This has been my experience, as well. However, I find myself avoiding certain types of photographs - certain threads here - when I'm going to be shooting similar subject matter. I feel like it can stifle creativity. Looking at dozens of photographs on POTN does not have the same effect as visiting an art gallery, or perusing the work of Adams or Bresson.