Thank you so mcuh, Edna.
This was one of those - in the middle of daily activities spottings for a photo. I'm so glad people are enjoying it as much as I do.
Without further explanation from you—barely supplemented by your reply to Edna—the door remains open to infinite interpretations.
This is one of the aspects of photography that I love; which aligns with my appreciation of painting, right up to modern art.
This composition evokes for me a variety of atmospheres encountered in real life as well as in novels and films—that is, through the imagination of many authors, among whom your work truly finds its rightful place.
It’s a mystery to me, too. Penetrating another person’s soul remains an impossible challenge. Art is its manifestation, and our appreciation of it can only stem from our objectivity.
Isn’t that right?
(even though I’m, of course, aware of the criteria specific to each era)
PS: I’ll respond to the thoughtful comment you left on my WPD post - and for which I thank you in advance
ah, the explanation. I stopped giving those way back when. I think mystery is something that we live with. We strive for understanding, but knowing isn't always as wonderful as the pursuit.
I stopped giving explanations because of an experience of a photograph I had that a person had bought (well, their husband had bought) that they enjoyed. They asked me for that "explanation". I told them - in that case a photo of a wall, and which wall it was (in an area they knew). They replied - I hate that wall! So did they gain anything from the explanation? Or would they have continued to wonder at the photo and enjoy it without the explanation - I think yes.
My poet husband actually likes it when people don't "understand" his poetry. Because it has words, it is harder for people to get that great poetry is a work of art. One can feel something when one hears it, one can be filled with the beauty of the words as they sound next to each other, one can ponder where the words takes one. But the direction one goes is never the same for any two people. So who is right? If one "understands" the poem, isn't that just ones own personal experience to have and enjoy? It certainly isn't wrong if someone else feels or thinks something else about it. At least not for poetry as a work of art. (Poetry is often used as a confessional or to make a statement - that to me is like the difference between an art photo and a photo used for promoting something.)
And this is how I think of photography. My goal is to create a work of art. Certainly not all my photographs fall in that category, but when it is, I never 'explain'.
Will I say what tools I used? How I might have processed the image? Maybe. Depends. I might tell people why I took an image, in some cases.
This is a straight photo (as straight as digital images can be). The only manipulation I did was minor contrast and then a saturation adjustment. The other version of this had greater saturation adjustment so that it is basically black and white image.
But where is this? What is it an image of? I won't tell more than what I said to Edna. *smile*
Loading
6 comments
Günter Klaus said:
Wünsche noch einen schönen Sonntag,liebe Grüße Güni :))
raingirl replied to Günter Klaus:
Edna Edenkoben said:
raingirl replied to Edna Edenkoben:
This was one of those - in the middle of daily activities spottings for a photo. I'm so glad people are enjoying it as much as I do.
Eric Desjours said:
This is one of the aspects of photography that I love; which aligns with my appreciation of painting, right up to modern art.
This composition evokes for me a variety of atmospheres encountered in real life as well as in novels and films—that is, through the imagination of many authors, among whom your work truly finds its rightful place.
It’s a mystery to me, too. Penetrating another person’s soul remains an impossible challenge. Art is its manifestation, and our appreciation of it can only stem from our objectivity.
Isn’t that right?
(even though I’m, of course, aware of the criteria specific to each era)
PS: I’ll respond to the thoughtful comment you left on my WPD post - and for which I thank you in advance
raingirl replied to Eric Desjours:
I stopped giving explanations because of an experience of a photograph I had that a person had bought (well, their husband had bought) that they enjoyed. They asked me for that "explanation". I told them - in that case a photo of a wall, and which wall it was (in an area they knew). They replied - I hate that wall! So did they gain anything from the explanation? Or would they have continued to wonder at the photo and enjoy it without the explanation - I think yes.
My poet husband actually likes it when people don't "understand" his poetry. Because it has words, it is harder for people to get that great poetry is a work of art. One can feel something when one hears it, one can be filled with the beauty of the words as they sound next to each other, one can ponder where the words takes one. But the direction one goes is never the same for any two people. So who is right? If one "understands" the poem, isn't that just ones own personal experience to have and enjoy? It certainly isn't wrong if someone else feels or thinks something else about it. At least not for poetry as a work of art. (Poetry is often used as a confessional or to make a statement - that to me is like the difference between an art photo and a photo used for promoting something.)
And this is how I think of photography. My goal is to create a work of art. Certainly not all my photographs fall in that category, but when it is, I never 'explain'.
Will I say what tools I used? How I might have processed the image? Maybe. Depends. I might tell people why I took an image, in some cases.
This is a straight photo (as straight as digital images can be). The only manipulation I did was minor contrast and then a saturation adjustment. The other version of this had greater saturation adjustment so that it is basically black and white image.
But where is this? What is it an image of? I won't tell more than what I said to Edna. *smile*