Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Regarding Modern Art (#859, Black on Grey)
#1

[Image: 1098001347_q5voc-L.jpg]

matthewpiers.com • @matthewpiers | robertsonphoto.blogspot.com | @thewsreviews • thewsreviews.com
Reply
#2

This work is recursive - art seeing art seeing art (or like good computer code) ...sort of like Colbert's fireplace photo.

Solid composition - all the technicals completely in order. It simply works on a number of levels. Tremendously well done.

Perhaps deeper insights later - visceral first impression solid...
Reply
#3

Personal thought... I like it very much! Smile

I see a lot of contrast in your picture, the strong lines of the paint and the human curves is something that impressed me the most.... His body language tells a lot too ... Today, it is telling me that he looks a bit puzzle... I love the detail of the camera in his hand...

Excellent post processing, I like the high contrast. I find proportions in the frame working really well. I am unsure about the vignette.

There is a very fine line a diffused line at the left of the frame. It might be the wall but I don't think so because then it would be straight, it looks as the edge of a filter to me. I think if the line has to be there, it is fine, but it would be better if it were straight.

Thanks for sharing your art matthew... Smile

A work of art which did not begin in emotion is not art.
Paul Cezanne
Reply
#4

I think it was Cartier-Bresson who refused to crop his 35mm shots, insisting that all the image should be integral; indeed, some photographers deliberately filed away the edges of the developing mask to as to prove the frame was full and uncropped. I'm guessing that here the vignette and the left-hand line is because we have the whole image as it is, untreated and unsanitised...and for me this helps the realness resonate with more honesty.
In my humble, I think this is a brill shot; it's also managed to retain fullness in all 12 "zones" in terms of monochrome. As a personal reflection and by no means advisory, had I been faced with the decision to take such a shot, I would have mused on how to get the canvas as far to the top right and the viewer as far to the bottom left as I could(or visa versa), thus having the space itself as a more central feature. Mind you, I then would not have been able to include the subject's moment of consideration: that slightly cocked head is captivating, and I would missed this through trying to be "clever". I would have, for instance, only managed by having the man moving either in or out of the frame, thus missing Matthew's quite electric capture of the most decisive moment.
Actually, having had a longer and more studied look, I pick up(or understand) quite a feeling of edgy discomfort: the slightly off-guard and inclined poise of the subject in what could be seen as unnervingly close proximity to the canvas. Plus, neither subject is quite what they initially seem: there are curves and swirls inside the rectilinear canvas...and why is the man carrying what seems to be a camera in an art gallery...if it is a camera?
Sorry to go on here, but I'm also wondering about Matthew's title....even titles as an inclusion or part of art.
I mean, I realise we give our work titles so as to give each other a framework of reference..but is the title a help or hindrance to our freedom and understanding...or is it leading us more firmly than a title should? Would this shot alter in terms of our understanding if it were entitled "Untitled"? And what if Matthew had given it a totally seemingly bizarre title such as "Flying" or "Yesterday"?
Anyway, back to the plot. I find the photo engaging, well-crafted and with bags to both say and suggest. I'm seeing an increased amount of bold and simple shots on these boards of late...and I must say that this is giving me much food for thought, as there is much resonance in such minimalism and it is not merely minimalism for its own sake. I've hardly taken a shot since September...not because of any deep impasse or angst but because my creative tanks have been diverted to music. And yet, since I've had a flick through some of the recent contributions to ST, I'm quite warming to the idea of firing up to a shot or two.

All my stuff is here: www.doverow.com
(Just click on the TOP RIGHT buttons to take you to my Image Galleries or Music Rooms!)
My band TRASHVILLE, in which I'm lead guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mU6qaNx08
Reply
#5

Thanks you three, I appreciate the feedback. Rather than try to reply to the points individually, I'll instead work them into a long undirected ramble as I so often do… Big Grin

This photo has been cropped and adjusted slightly, but I've kept the crop symmetrical so that the lens's natural vignetting - quite strong wide-open with the Zeiss 35/2 - stays in its natural position. The lighting of the painting adds to the strength of the vignette, as it is about a stop brighter than the surrounding wall to begin with. I've pushed the contrast around, making the falloff even more prominent, but I was looking at both dramatic effect as well as a reasonable fidelity to the original artwork. For what it's worth, this is a small 'untitled' painting from Mark Rothko, from the period toward the end of his life. It's still distinctively his style, but has a strong element of minimalism that isn't in his colour field paintings. It is originally in black and white.

...and why is the man carrying what seems to be a camera in an art gallery...if it is a camera?

It is indeed a camera, one of the Canon Elph/Ixus models - and this touches on the recursiveness that Rob mentions. Many of the American art galleries I've been to (three out of four) allow private and non-commercial photographs of their permanent collection: and we're looking at one of them. Many people were taking souvenir photos, or posing in front of them, both of which I may have done as well. But I also went looking for reactions and interactions, of which this is by far my favourite. And yes, I spent a great deal of time just standing as well.

Like many of the colour field artists, Rothko painted huge canvases and wanted viewers to stand so close that the painting engulfed their entire field of view. Tough to do in a crowd, or with those little ropes strung around, but awesome. It's a very different way of experiencing art from what would be expected with water lilies and statues with bits missing.

Irma, that faint line - good eye - is indeed the corner of the room. I spent some quality time with the perspective controls in LR3 to make sure that the painting was square and level, so I really don't understand how it came away showing perspective distortion. I'll gently nudge it in photoshop, because that's something that I'm usually quite fastidious about.

Part of what makes this photo 'work' for me is the pose of the man, but without the beret, it would be nothing. Big Grin

The title of this photo, and for art in general, is an excellent subject. I chickened out by including two titles here, but that itself is something of an homage. Rothko is my favourite visual artist, and he frequently gave his works titles consisting of a number and a very literal description. I've taken that and added a bit to it, so the #859 is a functional part of my nomenclature, being taken from the date that the file was digitized and the sequential number from the file name. (This way, when someone says "Wow, I'd love to pay you money for a print of "#397, Summer Sunset", I'll be able to track down exactly which one they mean. It hasn't happened, but it's good to be prepared.) The thread title "Regarding Modern Art" was too tempting to pass up, since it could also be the title for a discussion on the subject, which is something like what's going on in the photo itself.

Technical details, for what they're worth: this was taken on Ilford XP2 black and white film, using my Zeiss rangefinder and aforementioned 35mm f/2.0 Biogon wide open. Shutter speed would have been around 1/30 or 1/60; the film is rated at iso400 and I use it at iso320. Scanned with a dedicated 35mm film scanner, the digital file is about 4000 pixels across.

matthewpiers.com • @matthewpiers | robertsonphoto.blogspot.com | @thewsreviews • thewsreviews.com
Reply
#6

Excellent background detail. I like how we all seem to have fallen into the pattern of posting, waiting for feedback and then providing details of the shoot and techniques used. I think the quality of feedback has gone up - and that has lead to a general increase in the quality of what is being shown. Its become a much more intellectual process, and I think that is very positive for the forum.
Reply
#7

I agree. I think as a group we all have made big steps forward in our photography. Our pictures show more where we are walking and where we want to go.

A work of art which did not begin in emotion is not art.
Paul Cezanne
Reply
#8

I simply love everything about this photo, including it's title.
Reply
#9

This is another one that I'm impressed so much today, you captured such a beautiful exposure and yes, with the title too, I loved it so much. This is art in art.... Smile

Thank you Matthew,
with my love,
nia

“There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.”

Ansel Adams



Reply
#10

Hey Nia, nice to see you! Big Grin

Nice feedback Matthew. XP2: ah, neat...that's C41 processing for this stuff, yes?

All my stuff is here: www.doverow.com
(Just click on the TOP RIGHT buttons to take you to my Image Galleries or Music Rooms!)
My band TRASHVILLE, in which I'm lead guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mU6qaNx08
Reply
#11

This is awesome Matthew.

I can't think of a better example of the old saying "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts".
Every single element in this photo helps support a common goal, and you managed so elegantly to tie the whole thing together into a single simple shot that looks effortless.

I love everything about it, but if I did have to pick one particular thing to mention it would be the stance of the man viewing the artwork. Somehow you've managed to capture a curious, questioning pose entirely through body language without ever seeing the face. That's an achievement.

Adrian Broughton
My Website: www.BroughtonPhoto.com.au
My Blog: blog.BroughtonPhoto.com.au
You can also visit me on Facebook!
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Einstein.
Reply
#12

Keith, Nia, Adrian - so great to see you all again! It's been too long, and thanks.

Zig, yes, XP2 is a C41 process film - any minilab can handle it identically to how they work with colour, and return competent results. (It might be tempting to bring a roll into a small backcountry lab, and accuse them of nefariously bleaching the negatives - but it does say "black and white" on the canister, even if it's in much smaller type than the "Process C41" note on it.) It doesn't have quite the same look or behaviour of traditional B&W film; the grain is in the shadows instead of the highlights, and it gets less pronounced with more exposure instead of being exaggerated. In some ways that gives it a slightly 'digital' look, but it opens up an option for people without a home darkroom - and it's certainly nice enough to use even if traditional wet processing is an option. I have some Tri-X in the fridge, both in 135 and 120, but just can't be bothered to use it.

The more I see this photo, the more fixed its title becomes. I now can't imagine ever calling it anything else, including the parentheses.
I still wish that he wasn't carrying a camera, though.

matthewpiers.com • @matthewpiers | robertsonphoto.blogspot.com | @thewsreviews • thewsreviews.com
Reply
#13

matthew Wrote:I still wish that he wasn't carrying a camera, though.
The way his middle finger is extended should bother you more than his camera.
He knew you were takng this exact photo
Reply
#14

Chilling observation there Keith! Big Grin

All my stuff is here: www.doverow.com
(Just click on the TOP RIGHT buttons to take you to my Image Galleries or Music Rooms!)
My band TRASHVILLE, in which I'm lead guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mU6qaNx08
Reply
#15

You are welcome dear Matthew, and once again thanks Smile It is so nice for me too! And yes, never getting bored to watch your photography again and again. I love your style, so impressive. You catch the strong touches and yes, then being an artistic one.

Have a nice day,
with my love,
nia

“There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.”

Ansel Adams



Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread / Author Replies Views Last Post
Last Post by Barbara G.
Mar 19, 2013, 15:10

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)