Tree In Head A.Leibovitz

[Pieter12]

It has a catch light so it's not dead.

Your rule. Lack of a catch light does not mean a photo or subject is dead. If anything, it can be an overused gimmick.

 

[MattKing]

Some art is timeless. A number of ancient Greek statues come to mind off the top of my head. Regardless of norms, many quite beautiful pieces have been created since man started to make art.

There are large swaths of time and circumstances where Art that was or is considered beautiful is now or in other contexts considered obscene and/or ugly.
As we are both of the same time and come (I think) from similar parts of the world, there is a reasonable chance that you and I will agree that many things are beautiful.
But that would not necessarily be the case if our shared experiences differed greatly.

 

[Pieter12]

There are large swaths of time and circumstances where Art that was or is considered beautiful is now or in other contexts considered obscene and/or ugly.
As we are both of the same time and come (I think) from similar parts of the world, there is a reasonable chance that you and I will agree that many things are beautiful.
But that would not necessarily be the case if our shared experiences differed greatly.

I appreciate the beauty of art from a multitude of different cultures and eras. Plus, art does not necessarily have to be beautiful to be appreciated, though. Sometimes its purpose is to educate, celebrate, document or induce fear or revulsion or any of a plethora of emotions.

Beyond that, there is art of my immediate time and culture that I do not appreciate at all.

 

[Don_ih]

Complex and contentious, but not dull. It’s a fact of life.

No. It's actually dull. The first thing to realize is that everything you can say about something in context can also be said about everything that constitutes the context.

Not contentious. Dull.

 

[BrianShaw]

Sigh...

 

[Pieter12]

No. It's actually dull. The first thing to realize is that everything you can say about something in context can also be said about everything that constitutes the context.

Not contentious. Dull.

Dull in what context?

 

[Don_ih]

Dull in what context?

This context.

 

[Pieter12]

This context.

It may seem dull to you, but context is pertinent.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

How does that jibe with verticals and square compositions?

I've never shot square. But if it's like switching to my other formats, the eyes and brain adjust and you compose with similar criteria. The ratio boundaries don't matter.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You are looking for rules—or let's call them photographic norms—after the fact, in order to make sense of the photo, based on your expectations about what makes a photo make sense. You don't actually know Friedlander was following rules, because you don't know what he thinks about rules. To "follow rules" means Intentionally, consciously follow rules. You have to have the intent of following the rule. It can't just happen by chance. But what we do know about Friedlander is that he sees photography as a very instinctive reaction, one in which rules don't play (or don't seem to play) any part at all—neither intentionally following nor intentionally not following.

Not saying Friedlander doesn't have personal strategies. Use of a wide-angle lens is one. Use of mirrors is another. But these aren't rules.

I agree Alex. The word rule is a terrible selection of what comes naturally. No one says there's a rule for focus. We look at the image and focus the subject sharply because that's what our brain wants to do to make itself happy. Afterward, someone mentions, "Oh look. He focused the eye sharp. That's good. He must have followed a rule."

 

[Don_ih]

It may seem dull to you, but context is pertinent.

The concept of "context" is not interesting in this thread. Whatever context you're referring to may be, but the concept of it is dull. As in, the concept of context is a single thing, but context is a set of things (things being ideas, objects, people, events. etc.).

 

[Pieter12]

The concept of "context" is not interesting in this thread. Whatever context you're referring to may be, but the concept of it is dull. As in, the concept of context is a single thing, but context is a set of things (things being ideas, objects, people, events. etc.).

That doesn't necessarily make the concept of context dull. Say I shoot you with a gun. In self-defense or with malice? Dull.

 

[Don_ih]

That doesn't necessarily make the concept of context dull. Say I shoot you with a gun. In self-defense or with malice? Dull.

You seemingly don't understand the concept.

 

[Pieter12]

You seemingly don't understand the concept.

Please explain.

 

[BrianShaw]

This seems to be going nowhere…

 

[Pieter12]

This seems to be going nowhere…

Is it supposed to?

 

[MattKing]

May we respectively suggest that you two investigate the concept of considering the context of your very own Private Conversation respecting same.
Also known as: "Get a (rhetorical) room!". I would suggest someplace between Magrathean and La-la-land.
Implored from a moderator's perspective, but not with any moderator's "hammer".

 

[BrianShaw]

Minor but important point regarding context. That would be "somewhere between Magrathea and La-la-land". Magrethea is the place; Magretheans are the inhabitants. Nonetheless, there is surely somewhere peaceful and beautiful between the two places.

 

[MattKing]

Actually, I don't think that is a correction of context. It may be a correction of syntax though.
Is a place between Magrathea and La-la-land anything like being a place between a rock and a hard place.
Somehow, that seems appropriate if it is.

 

[Don_ih]

This seems to be going nowhere…

I said it was dull, didn't I?

 

[koraks]

This seems to be going nowhere…

Indeed, it doesn't. Let's call it a day for now, concluding that whatever sensible could be said on the topic, indeed has been said by now.