There is a certain value to reality as well. Capturing what actually is, warts and all. A matter of personal choice, entirely subjective of course.
"we have to have a feeling for the geometry of the relation of shapes, like in any plastic medium. And I think that you place yourself in time, we’re dealing with time, and with space. Just like you pick a right moment in an expression, you pick your right spot, also. I will get closer, or further, there’s an emphasis on the subject, and if the relations, the interplay of lines is correct, well, it is there. If it’s not correct it’s not by cropping in the darkroom and making all sorts of tricks that you improve it. If a picture is mediocre, well it remains mediocre. The thing is done, once for all." Cartier Bresson
In this picture I like the angularity provided by the wires and lamp, but it is just a preference, not something that will determine the outcome of Western civilization.
Within what passes for my brain, the image is about the tension between the many angles and shapes vs the simple flat color field, so I like the clutter and business of the whole thing. If I start removing elements I am likely to wind up with a "flat" image. I don't hesitate to remove obnoxious objects from an image that is otherwise nice but I tend to think of photography as a record of visual reality so I am biased toward doing as little messing with stuff as I can get away with. Of course that didn't stop me from changing the red color quite a bit from the original. I lack Cartier Bresson's purity but I still point my stuff in that direction.
I can't quite understand my slavish devotion to what is, but I try to stay close to reality in these matters, the alternative is perfectly fine too, just don't make me do it the way you do it...
I feel that “what is” and “what is ‘real’ “ are hardly the same thing – you know “the shadow on the wall of the cave” stuff, etc. I believe that we interpret what we see and that those interpretations are quite variable. Consider the ellipticity of a coin! If the coin is photographed at an angle, it certainly appears elliptical. I have hardly seen a round coin. Are coins round or elliptical? What is real? Another example involves the heliocentric or geocentric movement of planets. Both are right. It seems as though context and convention lead to variations of what we see – of reality. So why sweat it. Jon’s wires are “real” and they are also “not real”. Take your choice, but be clear about the variables involved in your judgement.
Very nice shot, Jon!
ReplyDeleteJon... I like this! Suggestion: remove wires and hanging light... Will make it a lot stronger!
ReplyDeleteLove the wires Jon. Don't touch them! They create an aesthetic grid a la Mondrian. It is what it is.
ReplyDeleteDistracting is what it is!
ReplyDeleteThere is a certain value to reality as well. Capturing what actually is, warts and all. A matter of personal choice, entirely subjective of course.
ReplyDelete"we have to have a feeling for the geometry of the relation of shapes, like in any plastic medium. And I think that you place yourself in time, we’re dealing with time, and with space. Just like you pick a right moment in an expression, you pick your right spot, also. I will get closer, or further, there’s an emphasis on the subject, and if the relations, the interplay of lines is correct, well, it is there. If it’s not correct it’s not by cropping in the darkroom and making all sorts of tricks that you improve it. If a picture is mediocre, well it remains mediocre. The thing is done, once for all."
Cartier Bresson
In this picture I like the angularity provided by the wires and lamp, but it is just a preference, not something that will determine the outcome of Western civilization.
ReplyDeleteWithin what passes for my brain, the image is about the tension between the many angles and shapes vs the simple flat color field, so I like the clutter and business of the whole thing. If I start removing elements I am likely to wind up with a "flat" image. I don't hesitate to remove obnoxious objects from an image that is otherwise nice but I tend to think of photography as a record of visual reality so I am biased toward doing as little messing with stuff as I can get away with. Of course that didn't stop me from changing the red color quite a bit from the original. I lack Cartier Bresson's purity but I still point my stuff in that direction.
ReplyDeleteI can't quite understand my slavish devotion to what is, but I try to stay close to reality in these matters, the alternative is perfectly fine too, just don't make me do it the way you do it...
ReplyDeleteI feel that “what is” and “what is ‘real’ “ are hardly the same thing – you know “the shadow on the wall of the cave” stuff, etc. I believe that we interpret what we see and that those interpretations are quite variable. Consider the ellipticity of a coin! If the coin is photographed at an angle, it certainly appears elliptical. I have hardly seen a round coin. Are coins round or elliptical? What is real? Another example involves the heliocentric or geocentric movement of planets. Both are right. It seems as though context and convention lead to variations of what we see – of reality. So why sweat it. Jon’s wires are “real” and they are also “not real”. Take your choice, but be clear about the variables involved in your judgement.
ReplyDelete