09/12/2014 09:34:44 PM · #1
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
That moment when you click on the "Give Me An Image..." button and what you get is something you cannot find anything to say about, even after staring at it on and off for a couple hours? Yep.
I didn't want to bail on it, so I said what little I could and asked for a little more input (all it lists is EXIF and a title in Abstract Macro), and let the person know that if they could at least nudge me towards what it is and/or what they were trying to say then I'd be happy to amend the critique. I'm somewhat embarrassed because I can usually find something to say even about some of the blurred messes that get posted here, but this one? Eh.
My apologies to the group. I've gotten some pretty good feedback up until now.
Jake asked for my views on this image and this is what I wrote:
This is what makes an excellent critiquer! Jake did indeed get in touch with the maker. Yeah it happened to be me as I wanted to see what happened to an image when the critique box was checked these days.
Abstract is a difficult category to critique in the first place and my image was very, very abstract, ending up with a low score.
We established a dialog on the subject - I won't quote Jake's end - my response to his query is below.
What is important is that we both learned from the experience. Not a bad result.
Jake, it is very thoughtful of you to send this PM and discuss your critique of 'Study in Red.'
DPC and I have a running (but one-sided) battle over the definition of 'abstract.' Here's the definition I go with:
ab·stract art
noun: art that does not attempt to represent external, recognizable reality but seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, forms, colors, and textures.
Now, I love abstract art and have studied it in many museums and galleries. I've even tried both in painting and photography to create such art and spent a long time in attempting representational art to try to gain the insight to attempt it.
With all this for prologue, I'll try to explore "Study in Red" a bit with you.
First I used that 65mm lens that is so macro the composition I selected probably measured no more than 1/2 inch, total. This took it out of any possible context. Then the predominant red colors created a pattern that led to a divide. What's in that divide? The viewer can decide. There were several focal points: the yellow to rest on, and the white to focus on. What these focal points mean is up to the viewer. can the viewer sink into the image and find meaning or adventure or some other thought provoking form?
Did it make the viewer think? If it did, then the abstract was a success. If not, well, there's always next time.
I'll close this overly long message with a story: A friend of mine, who is as traditional as they come, was discussing an abstract painting by some well-known artist. She was vocal in her displeasure, saying that painting, which she had gone on about for quite a while, "made me see red!" To me, it was "mission accomplished" because it made my friend think, whether she liked it or not.
Jake, I am delighted you have taken on the Critique Club. Your insight has been refreshing and rewarding to our community. Keep up the good work.
Alice
File Name IMG_8429.JPG
Camera Model Canon EOS REBEL T5i
Firmware Firmware Version 1.1.1
Shooting Date/Time 9/2/2014 1:02:12 PM
Owner's Name
Shooting Mode Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed ) 1/40
Av( Aperture Value ) 5.6
Metering Mode Evaluative Metering
Exposure Compensation -1/3
ISO Speed 1600
Auto ISO Speed OFF
Lens MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo
Focal Length 65.0 mm
Image Size 5184x3456
Aspect ratio 3:2
Image Quality Fine
Flash Off
FE lock OFF
White Balance Mode Auto
AF Mode Manual focusing
Picture Style Auto
Sharpness 3
Contrast 0
Saturation 0
Color tone 0
Color Space sRGB
Highlight tone priority 0:Disable
Auto Lighting Optimizer Standard
Peripheral illumination correction Enable
Dust Delete Data No
File Size 5826 KB
Drive Mode Continuous shooting
Live View Shooting ON
Statistics
Place: 60 out of 87 Avg (all users): 5.1489 Avg (commenters): 6.0000 Avg (participants): 5.2273 Avg (non-participants): 5.0800 Views since voting: 283 Views during voting: 160 Votes: 94 Comments: 4 Favorites: 0
I happened across the thread where Jake was talking about this image and you posted a response. I came back to spend some time with this one (far more than I gave it when breezing through the voting process, I'm afraid).
So here's my take on this.
I see two forms "facing" each other. The one on the left is plain red (more or less) with little variation. It presents itself with little disclosure or identity beyond its shape and color.
The interesting one on the right is positioned so that it is doing the same thing to the one on the left -- that is, if I were looking over the back side of the left shape and viewing the one on the right I would see the same plain, curved, red shape with little else to distinguish.
But because the photo allows me to view these two "facing" shapes from behind the one on the right I can see the obverse side, the inside of the curved form. And here all the distinctives can be seen...the white-winged shape, the yellow form, and the red-mottled variations not visible from the "facing" side. Because the red edges are all turned in a concave manner, it's as if I am looking at the internal workings of the outwardly plain red shape, and peering into the inner reality of the shape itself.
The "a-hah" moment comes when I realize that the shape on the left side is probably doing the same thing, and that it too has more to offer than meets the eye. I am left wondering if the inner workings of the left shape are just like those that I can see within the one on the right (so that both objects are essentially the same) or whether they are substantially different inside so that the outward similar appearances disguise inherently different objects.
The parallel, of course, is the tendency of people to hold their inner thoughts and personalities from view, letting the world see only the outward appearance of themselves...even when in close proximity and "facing" each other. This masks the inner reality of each person to the extent that the inner person is carefully safeguarded from view.
Given my reaction to this photograph, I would say your definition of abstract art is met hands down. This image, upon reflection, within the context of what abstract art seeks to do deserves a better response than I gave it the first time around (which is to say, no comment at all)...and likewise a higher score.
I will apologize right up front and let you know that I've stared at this for 2 hours and have very little to say about it other than, "Yep. It's abstract macro. That kind of abstract macro." There's not much here to command my attention - even the desire to figure out what the heck it is (it looks like a partial white silk-screened logo on something red). I'm not crazy about the level of noise. Otherwise there's little I can critique because it's so abstract that I can't tell if what I would want to correct or do something about was accidental or intentional. I gave it a 5 because it fit the category and moved on. Obviously I'm not alone in my ambivalence towards this photo when I look at the voting breakdown.
I truly wish that I could give you some kind of real feedback on this. If you'd like to add some information to it other than your full EXIF, like what it is and what you were trying to say with the photo, I'd be happy to try to add some value to this. Otherwise, I'm sorry I couldn't be more constructive. Your "Study In Red" is absolutely lost on me.
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
