Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Literature, Music, Art & Entertainment => Topic started by: Gonnagle on January 04, 2016, 02:06:05 PM
-
Dear Forum,
Your thoughts,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35214873
Comparing the drunken guy on the ground to Michaelangelo's Creation of Adam :o
Gonnagle.
-
For a completely accidental setup that lasted just a second it's a pretty damned good photograph. It's not bonkers and it's not really art per se, although arguably it's closest to the latter.
-
Yeah, it's a great photograph. And it is art, the "golden ratio" pulls you immediately into "the story".
-
If any photography can be (and IMO it can) then this is art.
The art of photography includes skills such as framing the picture, use of light (& dark), conveying a story in an image. All those skills (& more) are in this picture. Top marks.
-
Dear Forum,
Your thoughts,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35214873
Comparing the drunken guy on the ground to Michaelangelo's Creation of Adam :o
Gonnagle.
Here is a 15th century version of the same thing........
http://tinyurl.com/pdcye4w ;)
-
Here is a 15th century version of the same thing........
http://tinyurl.com/pdcye4w ;)
I was expecting a Bruegal, ekim ;)
Regarding the OP picture, the whole thing is so amazing, probably only existed for a split second, and poses so many questions - eg how did the guy on the ground stretching for his bottle, get there? (apparently by accidently being caught up in a fight)
-
Yeah, it's a great photograph. And it is art, the "golden ratio" pulls you immediately into "the story".
That golden ratio thing is bullshit if the overlay in the article is to be believed. They've just put a spiral in that doesn't really intersect with anything much. Also, the version of the photo "above the fold" has been cropped so the spiral no longer fits and it arguably improves the composition.
-
It might be bullshit. But bullshit itself can be art given a pleasing layout and promise of a story.
-
It might be bullshit. But bullshit itself can be art given a pleasing layout and promise of a story.
I didn't say it wasn't art, I just said the Golden ratio thing as applied to that photo was bullshit.
-
Why do people think its such a great photograph? I'm a member of a local photoclub and can't see anything special about this.
-
It is subjective of-course, though technically it may be good or not, who knows? - It is not too light or dark and has enough detail in focus to make us think about what is going on rather than what the things in the photograph are. The colours are good with the various blues and yellows offsetting or reflecting each other, with the bold red of the skirt picking the woman out in contrast. The composition (though presumably encountered by accident) seems to reflect characters and emotions or attitudes portrayed in many classical paintings - possibly forming a bridge from the renaissance to the 20th/21st century?.
The thing about the "golden ratio" is that here it encourages the eye to move backwards and forwards across the image, treating it as a story rather than fixating one at one particular feature or other. I don't consider it to be, as often promoted, a magic number that happens to somehow encode beauty in an absolute sense. The picture has also been cropped to help with this.
Obviously people seem to like it - does one have to specify why?
Everyday the newspapers are full of photographs capturing contemporary events. These are nearly all technically excellent, but it is easy to go through them picking out the "great" photographs from the dross.
Eg. Today there are a lot of pictures accurately capturing Obama's tears over school killings, but I wouldn't say that any of them are "great". A great image has to make you feel connected somehow or spark an unexpected insight.
-
Thanks for the reply. No, of course no one has to specify why they like it but that wasn't really what I was asking. I was wondering why people were commenting on the technical quality of the image when it isn't anything special - modern cameras and photoshop make getting a picture like this technically right isn't hard.
The beauty of the image or otherwise is of course subjective - I personnally see nothing much in it and actually find the idea of roaming around a picture looking for a story to be a negative point. Don't get me wrong, I do see that images such as this can be considered art in that they provoke a reaction and thought in the viewer regardless of the technical ability. There are many technically brilliantly taken photographs which provoke no reaction in me so are they art? I probably wouldn't consider them so - more reportage or record shots. I can see that this type of picture could be considered art, I'm just not sure this example is that good as I have seen many better in my time in my photoclub. Each to their own though.
-
My take is that if there are people that consider it art, it is. Art, as with beauty, is in the eye of the beholder . Rather like Maeght, I have little reaction to the picture, what is interesting is so many people do.