Page 91 of 405 FirstFirst ... 41818990919293101141191 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 910 of 4049

Thread: Nude

  1. #901
    jp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    5,628

    Re: Nude

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Petronio View Post
    Ah well a photography teacher should expect more.

    OK, I don't care for - and this is subjective - the added handwork to distress the images. I prefer clarity and frankly, detail and contrast. In this I am with the classic f/64, West Coast American photography, post-pictorial, Edward Weston, straight photography camp.

    I don't see how the distressing adds to the image, other than to suggest that the images are aged and uncared for, disposable, and not worth taking care of properly.
    That's a clear explanation for a photo teacher!

    I haven't a preference for straight or pictorial photography, l like aspects of each. I would expect most people to have a preference for one or the other.

    Regarding "negative ruined using sandpaper. Painted with light." I think the sandpaper work in the image makes it to look like a field of little stars, with the brighter areas being galaxies perhaps. But just as placement of the stars in our sky is not random, neither is this alteration of the image. It's a better and more engaging imaginary scene to me than Peter Lik's so called tree of the universe.

  2. #902
    jp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    5,628

    Re: Nude

    Here's some of my own misinterpretation; don't worry - most people won't look at it this way.

    The second Gandolfi image, to me, first reminds me of biology and culturing nasty things in a pan of agar with the scratches.

    2nd thing to come to mind is old tintype images where the metal wasn't polished well enough prior to use or received scratches after. It adds a timeless or time-ambiguous aspect to the image.

    The uncared aspect which Frank mentions is also noticed by me, but it's part of the story past, not the creation in the present. It was something that was once uncared for perhaps, but now it's valued and cared for. Any pre-modern photo is hopefully with new owners not the original.

  3. #903

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,074

    Re: Nude

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Petronio View Post
    Ah well a photography teacher should expect more.

    OK, I don't care for - and this is subjective - the added handwork to distress the images. I prefer clarity and frankly, detail and contrast. In this I am with the classic f/64, West Coast American photography, post-pictorial, Edward Weston, straight photography camp.
    Frank,

    Jim Galli has a wonderful picture of a Model A Ford in soft focus, itself, a work of art and then it's in a background of detailed leaves, but made soft by the open aperture lens. So the smooth but mechanical curves of the main subject, (the antique man-made car), are balanced by the almost pointillism of the natural leaves.

    Here with Gandolfi's work, we have an analogous situation with 2 main picture elements, the curvaceous nude and the added lines. However, there's a reversal.

    It's Gandolfi's nudes now which deliver wonderful curves, as we saw on Jim Galli's antique car, but now, they are made by God. Let's explore what they might evoke in different folk. Gandolfi's choice of the sharp repeated patterns of lines means he can give

    1. texture,
    2. transparency
    3. grades of importance,
    4. a partial curtain behind which the model is still seen.


    Imagine, the scratches can also represent a curtain of a confessional. That artist, BTW, is a Presbyterian minister.

    That's all pretty rich, but it's full force of impact on our imagination, requires both a prepared mind and then an open an enquiring attitude, on our part, to look for the significance of things. One cannot appreciate metaphorical potential, passively, without awareness of that possibility.

    Jim Galli and Gandolfi, they both use analogous esthetic maneuvers to go beyond a simple snapshot of beauty. Each has a contrast element to the curves. Just that Jim got them both in one snap of the shutter, composing perhaps without even realizing the structural make up of his picture in terms of the contrast between elements. He's just that good! That hardly makes one picture better.

    Did the lines have to be used? Of course not. Instead of the shading with Gandolfi's obvious lines, Weston and other classicists would have used subtle burning in, done under the enlarger. So what? I prefer the more obvious intelligent fingerprints of the artist here. After all, it's what moves us that counts and I personally like to see the artist's unique fingerprints on the work!

    Asher

  4. #904

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    Re: Nude

    deliver wonderful curves, as we saw on Jim Galli's antique car, but now, they are made by God
    But Asher, declaring something a work of art by describing it with flowery language doesn't convince me it is superior to the straight print. What you're saying could be plucked right out of some early pictorialist publication.

    I'm willing to listen and be enlightened but I need an argument that is a little more vigorous and concrete to be swayed.

  5. #905

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Denmark, Europe
    Posts
    2,165

    Re: Nude

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Petronio View Post
    But Asher, declaring something a work of art by describing it with flowery language doesn't convince me it is superior to the straight print. What you're saying could be plucked right out of some early pictorialist publication.

    I'm willing to listen and be enlightened but I need an argument that is a little more vigorous and concrete to be swayed.
    well....

    When asked by people what I am, I don't claim to be a photographer. I also don't claim to be an artist. (I'll never use that word about my self..).

    I call my self an image maker. I try to make images, and as it happens, I use the camera/film as a starting point.

    I have been taking pictures for many years, and sometimes I find the results a little boring.. too safe maybe.
    I think I know a little about posing models - I know a little about light.
    Sometimes I feel this knowlegde is actually intruding/blocking the results of my images.

    Walk on the broad side. Not taking chances. I have tried to re compose, but I am not good at that.

    Then I get all these images that are of perfect women in perfect poses in perfect light...

    So sometimes I kill those! It has to be one of the "perfect" ones. If not, then I am just playing.

    I have to put the image at stake. I have to dare ruin it all together. It has to hurt my stomac.
    In the attempt to get something better than "good enough"....

    I loose a lot of photographs this way. I also get a lot of images.
    And I make images.

    And yes - I am more pictorialistic then straight these days. I love straight photography, and I try not to kill all my negatives. Some actually cries out to be done the straight way!

  6. #906

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Denmark, Europe
    Posts
    2,165

    Re: Nude

    Straight nude...camouflaged...


  7. #907

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    Re: Nude

    Gandolfi, I like your attitude and desire to explore, thank you for explaining. What images we like will always be subjective and it seems you have a widely appreciative audience.

  8. #908

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,074

    Re: Nude

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Petronio View Post
    But Asher, declaring something a work of art by describing it with flowery language doesn't convince me it is superior to the straight print. What you're saying could be plucked right out of some early pictorialist publication.

    I'm willing to listen and be enlightened but I need an argument that is a little more vigorous and concrete to be swayed.
    Frank,

    It has to move us. The rest is commentary. It either is beautiful or ugly having no meaning or has a message engraved by the artist. There's a tetra, unintuitive possibility. It contains no beauty, ugliness or messages, just a place where we are drawn in by some force to explore with our own imagination.

    I only describe in poetic terms what moves me. But first of all that has to happen. Let me define what can be called art of any kind in the Western World.

    Art is simply the export into a physical form of parts of the creators imagination to materials and objects which evoke emotions, thoughts and feelings in us and lead us to recruit others to appreciate that work too. The work get's a life of its own, air is breathed in its nostrils and it becomes art, independent of the artist and valued enough to pay for, collect and for the best, guard for eternity. © Asher Kelman

    When I look at a photograph, it's not the quality of the workmanship that counts primarily, (although I admire artisans), but what it does to my heart, soul and mind, for these are all that count in art.

    So to be concrete we'd have approve a group of folk to experience the work. Obviosuly, Mahler and Bach might be more interesting to some than a pile of empty shells or the moon rise. But a short way is to look to see what is collected in museums.

    The appreciation of simple beauty, the nude and the rose, requires little training. However, looking at a scene with a cross requires some embedding in Western culture. So there are families of what appear to be subjective responses that in the end are likely to pretty objective within the framework of cultural and historical understanding. So, if I see a Hunderwasser and say it's good, likely as not, someone who knows that kind of work, would also have the same judgement. Similarly, appreciation of classical prints depending on workmanship, can be objectively judged by photographers on different continents and the assessments will be more objective than subjective.

    So I think that it's simplistic to view opinions of art as simply subjective, because, in fact, it's all anchored by lineage of close to objective but stochastic sensibilities.

    Asher

  9. #909
    45-57-617
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Toowoomba, Queensland
    Posts
    644

    Re: Nude

    Blimey !

    Stochastic what ?!

    I think I need a dictionary.

    It is true to say that the reason images 'work' is much more to do with their emotional content than any technical considerations - in my view. So with this in mind, I'm not buying any more gear and I'm going to go take yoga classes and take something to get me all existential.

    Bye.

  10. #910

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    304

    Re: Nude

    Sensibilities stochastic? No! They are by their very nature, deterministic.

Similar Threads

  1. 3. Would you yourself pose nude?
    By Frank Petronio in forum On Photography
    Replies: 117
    Last Post: 26-Jan-2022, 10:31
  2. Nude photography in New York
    By cyrus in forum On Photography
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 4-Sep-2011, 18:04
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1-Apr-2010, 03:58
  4. ELOQUENT NUDE World Premiere
    By Robert Brummitt in forum Announcements
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 25-Feb-2007, 13:57
  5. 5. Would you be OK with your grown children (18+) posing nude?
    By Frank Petronio in forum On Photography
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2-Nov-2006, 10:23

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •