In another thread we discussed idiosyncratic images we like because they strike a personal chord that perhaps no one else will find appealing. Here's one that works for me as an off-the-all image:
First,
always nice to see you post some of your own work Karen
Second,
impossible to critique for me. Its all about the mood, the reaction it creates
Third,
I like the mood, the reaction. A bit startling, a bit whimsical
Scott
When we make images because them appeal to our feelings and emotions, how can we understand them? How can we address the subjective? Can we find commonality in the subjective experience of others? It's hard to critique idiosyncratic images that are spawned from personal intuition and the subconscious. I imagine they are a bit like a shrink's ink blot test. You bring to them your own individual meanings, emotional associations and very personal projections. I suspect popular artists can bring more universal meanings and emotions to the table which makes their works generally appealing. Perhaps it's like an articulate writer who expresses universal truths in ways that resonate with those who read them vs. someone who writes a letter to grandma. To the writer, and perhaps to grandma, the letter my be more meaningful than a great novel, yet any universal truths may be hard to tease from the content.
Sometimes I have an idea for an image. It's a feeling or maybe a hunch. It can be a moment of recognition when a passing scene strikes my fancy. Or, it can be a scene I imagine which demands I attempt to construct it. If I work longer and harder, can I find a more universal subjective expression? Can I be more articulate? Is it necessary to appeal broadly? Is turning naval gazing into an image enough? I wonder. There's always a question in my mind when I critique an image. What was the photographer trying to capture or express? Is it an idiosyncratic image meaningful only to the photographer? Can it/should it express a more universal or appealing meaning? Can I guess it's intended meaning? Could it be expressed more articulately? Can it be polished to improve the expression? Hard to know how to respond when we must deal with the visually the subjective with only our own experience and intuition to guide us.
I have a pet rabbit who is something of a sculptor or perhaps an engineer. From time to time, probably when he's bored, he empties his kibble and oat bowls and stacks them, along with play toys, to build constructions. He varies the order of the bowls and the choice of play toy to top his constructions, using balls and a rubber ring. He's quite good at centering the bowls and toys on the vertical axis of his constructions. It makes me wonder what on earth his subjective experience must be like, and he's only a rabbit. Subjectivity on a human scale is daunting.
AuntiPode wrote:
When we make images because them appeal to our feelings and emotions, how can we understand them? How can we address the subjective? Can we find commonality in the subjective experience of others? It's hard to critique idiosyncratic images that are spawned from personal intuition and the subconscious. I imagine they are a bit like a shrink's ink blot test. You bring to them your own individual meanings, emotional associations and very personal projections. I suspect popular artists can bring more universal meanings and emotions to the table which makes their works generally appealing. Perhaps it's like an articulate writer who expresses universal truths in ways that resonate with those who read them vs. someone who writes a letter to grandma. To the writer, and perhaps to grandma, the letter my be more meaningful than a great novel, yet any universal truths may be hard to tease from the content.
Sometimes I have an idea for an image. It's a feeling or maybe a hunch. It can be a moment of recognition when a passing scene strikes my fancy. Or, it can be a scene I imagine which demands I attempt to construct it. If I work longer and harder, can I find a more universal subjective expression? Can I be more articulate? Is it necessary to appeal broadly? Is turning naval gazing into an image enough? I wonder. There's always a question in my mind when I critique an image. What was the photographer trying to capture or express? Is it an idiosyncratic image meaningful only to the photographer? Can it/should it express a more universal or appealing meaning? Can I guess it's intended meaning? Could it be expressed more articulately? Can it be polished to improve the expression? Hard to know how to respond when we must deal with the visually the subjective with only our own experience and intuition to guide us. ...Show more →
Well said Karen - thought provoking and insightful.
By your definitions, almost all my images are idiosyncratic, at least in that they strike much more of a chord with me than with others -- especially photographers.
I believe photography, as does any art, has its own "RGB" scale of (A) personal to the artist, (B) communicative to the audience, or (C) personal to the audience -- each of which can be from 0 to max. What most people call "good" art -- or what is popular -- is something that fulfills (B). But somebody may grasp onto a piece of art for some personal reason that maybe nobody else understands.
Trying to fulfill (A) while expanding my (B) and (C) is where I am trying to grow in my photography.
You ask many thought-provoking questions to which only one may I have an answer. "Is it necessary to appeal broadly?" Only if you're trying to make money and can't charge a very high price for a single piece of work.
And while universal appeal is a myth that some chase as if it were the holy grail of communication (verbal/non-verbal), your image seems to doing quite well in the WA at resonating with folks this week.
Well, the one resonating in the WA is the one from the series I felt would have more general appeal. Same subject, but very different lighting and visual message. I like it, in a more conventional way I judged would have more appeal to others. It's visual message is the one I had in mind when I took the umbrella to the beach and set-up the shoot. It's message was constructed to be about color and form, using the out-of-place juxtaposition of an umbrella on a beach as the visual subject glue to bind the whole. It's the image I set out to make.
For me the appeal of the version at the head of this thread is very different. It was made later in the series when I accidentally gave the scene too much fill to a darker exposure. I liked the effect and experimented with higher ratios of positive/negative space lighting. Illuminated with an LED torch, the image that begins this thread reminds me of the harsh light of direct flash off to one side, fairly common in years past, and yet it's slightly different because of how the torch was used as a moving constant source - a slight light painting effect. It breaks the rules of sophisticated lighting by being harsh and directional, but in a slightly different way. It's a way of seeing I don't associate with a beach or a subject such as an umbrella. The appeal to me of the almost strident miss-match between subject and light is idiosyncratic, I suspect. Hence the thread.
OTOH, I've got a virus and my head feels like it's stuffed with cotton (perhaps padding the rocks), so my confidence I'm not just blithering rubbish is even lower than usual....
