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

(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.

CrescendoIMAGE LINK: http://pics.xyclopx.co​m …th-of-july-2014/e1de3e9b3

Nicely executed, like the composition.

smeghead62 wrote in post #17031929
Nicely executed, like the composition.

Thanks! Appreciate it.

Xyclopx wrote in post #17030153
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.

Clean Gene wrote in post #17069532
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.

Xyclopx wrote in post #17069545
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.

Xyclopx wrote in post #17069545
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.

OhLook wrote in post #17069615
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?

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

OhLook wrote in post #17070209
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.

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

Xyclopx wrote in post #17070237
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.

Clean Gene wrote in post #17069583
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.

OhLook wrote in post #17071528
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.

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.