Please post your comments about the picture add in attachament..

It will help me verry much! Thank you !


By th way ...there is an Url where you can see the image too..

http://www.foto.md/ro/photo/34397

What is it that you are trying to express in the image? Is it just a pretty picture or is there a theme? What is the purpose of the image? Am I, the viewer, changed in any way by seeing this picture?

I don't think it matters, Shouldn't the image stand on its own without explanation from the photographer? Expecting a viewer to be "changed" for having seen the image seems a bit demanding.

razvan

Why not just show the girl? She seems pretty enough to be able to make it on her own.

Rob C

Judging by that reply it must be art!

Though as it's photography, it probably isn't art any more, judging by this account by Pete Myers at an unnamed Museum.

http://www.petemyers.com/themuseumfile/themuseum.pdf

Not really. To me, the picture is lacking something. The composition is non-standard and mis-balanced. It reminds me of the "floating heads" senior portraits that were popular several years ago. Unless there is a greater meaning to the picture, it falls down under the weight of its unusual composition.

I looked at the image again and really studied it. I tried to find something to it that spoke to me or in any way connected. The only thing that I got out of it was the technical execution of the lighting.

The model is pretty, and the expression is neutral. But with the one eye darkened out, it's not easy to connect with her either. I wanted to look into her eyes, but wasn't able to.

Thank you Razvan for posting your image. I concur with image 66 on this one. I too was looking further for something other than - 'beautiful woman with holographic barn'. There just didn't seem to be any other narrative and if it weren't for the specific request in this post for some comments, I would not have spent much time giving it further consideration.

Razvan, I think that a few more elements need to be included when you are trying to make an 'art' image and in this instance, as mentioned above, the eyes are all important. In film and theatre every micro movement of every facial muscle conveys something, and this woman's expression to me is conveying - sweet innocence - which just doesn't seem to fit the dark layered barnyard effect.

Compositionally it feels a bit cumbersome.

If you want to make it 'arty', you could try to give us more of the story and layer in some more items to help with the narrative. You could also get her to look toward the viewer and speak with her eyes.

Sometimes the 'less pretty model' creates a stronger more interesting, arresting image. I think we are saturated with 'beautiful people' in advertising, music, tv, videos. It is often the gnarled characters of our species who intrigue us the most.

Julie

Julie, Julie, don't be so naive; the only reason guys photograph girls is because they fancy them, the prettier the better. Unless you are into blender gender politics, of course, which is somewhere I'll not follow you.

(I'd put one of those silly wink-eyed little figures here, but I hate the damn things.)

Ciao - Rob C

The question "Is it Art..or Not?" is not a very good question. Consider the following. 1) will you accept that it's Art if you think it's Art? 2) will you accept it as Art if one other person does? 3) how about if a majority of a "focus group" does? 4) how about someone you regard as a "expert"? You see where this is going, right? For any of the above, or other source of validation of your choice, you would need to conform to the "rules for Art" as held by the source of your validation for an opportunity for the work to be considered as Art in their context. In the larger "World of Fine Art" the criterion may have more to do whether one provides the "reigning authority" an opportunity to illustrate a pet theory or to support their clever narrative. One may be given a pass on the basis, simply, of being a congenial social/sexual partner. If you think I'm cynical (and I am, but...) then read, as I did recently, the biography de Kooning - An American Master by Mark Stevens and Annalyn Swan, which provides a depressingly telling portrait of the Modern Art Market as it emerged in the '50s. Then I recommend Johanna Drucker's Sweet Dreams - contemporary art and complicity which sets the terms under which a currently ambitious artist can align themselves with the Art Market. A shorthand bit of advice based on the latter reference could be "Forget all you have been taught about Art, get yourself a powerful sponsor."

Nice light on her, but very dark eyes and the layering technique get in the way for me. I teach a lighting class every other quarter, and one thing I try to drill into my students is that an image is usually more effective when the photoshop technique is not the first thing one considers when viewing.

Thanks for sharing.

Russell

Sponsorship. Ain't that the truth! Just look into the recent short history of Britart; without mega-rich patronage these people would still be looking for the way in...

Rob C

Interesting. Aside from the colors, I think the woman tries to tell something. Very good.

______________________________
Volkswagen New Beetle Cabriolet Specifications 2006 -- :: Volkswagen New Beetle Cabriolet Specifications 2006 by Volkswagen Australia

Answers.com says this about fine art photography : http://www.answers.com/topic/fine- art-photography

"Fine art photography, sometimes simply called art photography, refers to high-quality archival photographic prints of pictures that are created to fulfill the creative vision of an individual professional. Such prints are reproduced, usually in limited editions, in order to be sold to dealers, collectors or curators, rather than mass reproduced in advertising or magazines. Prints will sometimes, but not always, be exhibited in an art gallery".

Since you wonder whether it is or not, it isnt.

Seriously, dont let anybody force some definition on you about whats art and what not. You decide what you think is what - but nobody has to agree with you. Consider magnum stock photos being displayed in museums, the Beuysian butter spot, cheesy postcard landscape shots claimed by their makers to be art etc. Art is free, and that is why it as an entity actually is of value, particularly today.

O.

Hi folks - I think that to say it´s art if you think it´s art is just too glib.

In all walks and endeavours in life there are standards, not always all that clear, but they do exist.

From the moment that photography is selected as the medium (just one such medium) then it has to be assumed that photographic standards will apply. If one chooses not to do so, then all that is being done is to allow anarchy to enter the game. Without some easily seen set of values, there are no standards and the proverbial monkey-with-the-typewriter rule applies.

The best judges of whether a photograph has or has not reached the level of art are not to be found in magazines or in galleries; the people who know are those who toil in the game for their living and can spot a fraud at a hundred paces.

You may not like this, but it is true.

Ciao - Rob C

Your photo kinda reminds me of the difference between say, Total Recall and Forrest Gump. Both movies have lots of special effects, but use them in very different ways. In Total Recall, the effects are blatant, and designed to call attention to themselves and in many ways are the focus of the movie. But in Forrest Gump the effects are used to tell the story, and do not generally call attention to themselves. The focus is the story, not the effects, and as a result Forrest Gump is generally regarded as the better of the two movies.

You have an effect, but not a story.

That, Jonathan, is a delightful and very well put response!

Ciao - Rob C

As a very pragmatic sort of bloke, if you ask a question like "Is this art?", then in order to answer it you have to define precisely what you mean by 'art'.

Having done that, you can then try to match the qualities you see in the image with your definition of art, and then claim that according to this particular definition of art, this particular photo does or does not meet the requirements to be deemed as 'art'.

Of course, others will no doubt disagree with your matching process, and if they don't disagree with this, then they are likely to disagree with the definition, so such questions are unanswerable in any absolute sense.

I get the impression the photographer who took the image in question was trying to create a pensive, floating, ambiguous mood of mystery, which is the 'artistic' paradigm.

Do you get the feeling that there are not many of us about? I seem to find myself talking with the same guys day after day - not a complaint at all, just an observation.

I often feel that if only Mr P could be persuaded to say more than just offer the occassional cryptic clue that we might have a usefully expanded forum for debate...

Sweet dreams - off to watch House.

Ciao - Rob C