Olga Dan 444, really? ) But in my opinion, it's truly beautiful, truly interesting, and truly harmonious. You continue to look at photography as a shot of an object.
But real photography is something completely different.
Real photography, on the contrary, is the dissolution of the object; it becomes unimportant. Or rather, it doesn't matter what it was before the shot, and it doesn't matter whether it was beautiful. What's important is the new image created within the frame, which, in a good photograph, is not a copy of the object at all.
Olga Dan 444, I don't know what N_g will say, but I would post many of this author's photos, including this one. In my opinion, Monoklon is one of the site's strongest authors today. Keep an open mind and just take a moment to look at his work. A good eye is important. Don't jump to conclusions.
Olga Dan 444, really? ) But in my opinion, it's truly beautiful, truly interesting, and truly harmonious. You continue to look at photography as if it were a photograph of an object. But real photography is something completely different. Real photography, on the contrary, is the dissolution of the object; it becomes unimportant, or rather, it doesn't matter what it was before the photo was taken, and it doesn't matter whether it was beautiful. What's important is the new image created within the frame, which in a good photograph is not a copy of the subject at all.
Marina Glebova, That's exactly it, Marina, I look at a photograph primarily for aesthetic pleasure, and then, if it interests me, I begin to examine it further... Sometimes I return to form my final impression of what I saw or to reflect, and it doesn't matter at all whether the subject was beautiful. The important thing is that it "hooks" me! Nothing caught my attention here... Maybe with time my views and worldview will change... for now, I just want to leave and forget. And go to my favorite seaside...)
Olga Dan 444, Olya, I've already asked you under other images, but you haven't responded yet. Maybe this will work? You don't like these kinds of images, but you visit them and regularly tell the authors how bad they are. Are you somehow offended by them—that you can't just ignore them?
In my opinion, Monoklon is one of the strongest authors on the site today.
Marina Glebova, the main thing is that there's variety here (I'm talking about the site), I agree with your words. This is especially noticeable in the pile of "Monoklon-style" works.
Olga Dan 444, I don't know what N_g will say, but I would post many of this author's photos, including this one. In my opinion, Monoklon is one of the strongest contributors to the site today. Keep an open mind and spend some time simply looking at his work. Being well-read is important. Don't jump to conclusions.
Marina Glebova, Thank you, Marina! I'll try...) I completely agree with you that looking and learning with your eyes is sooo important. And I'm not denying this type of photography, I'm just trying to understand...
Olga Dan 444, Olya, I've already asked you under other images, but you haven't responded yet. Maybe this will work? You don't like these kinds of images, but you visit them and regularly tell the authors how bad they are. Are you somehow offended by them—so much so that you can't just ignore them?
N_g, We're all on a photo site, and looking at other authors' work and expressing our opinions is normal and right! I thought you already understood this, and I'd do what I decided myself! I didn't insult the author, I just expressed my opinion! If you don't like it, just ignore it...)
N_g, We're all on a photo site, and looking at other authors' work and expressing our opinions is normal and right! I thought you already understood this, and I would do what I decided myself!) I didn't offend the author, I just expressed my opinion! If you don't like it, just pass by...)
Olga Dan 444, That's what I do - I don't visit your work.
This is especially noticeable in the plethora of "Monoclon-style" works.
Alexander Zelensky, you're mistaken. If you see people simply photographing bits of the city, it's not "Monoclon-style" at all. It means they've already passed their "sunset beauty" milestone; it's become uninteresting to them, and they're simply looking for a beautiful shot in an ordinary setting, trying to create a beautiful or interesting photo "out of nothing."
Olga Dan 444, Olya, don't even doubt that Monoclone has long since followed your path, shooting and still shooting landscapes, portraits, and much more. But it only shows images on its photo site that aren't truly direct representations of the subject. Consider my words.
Olga Dan 444, Olya, what's your general attitude toward abstraction? Abstraction in painting? Abstraction in drawing?
Marina Glebova, I adore abstraction!) And I have several works that I "created" from my photos—maybe I'll post something later... But abstraction is something completely different!!! It's a fairytale world of fantasy and color!) By the way, according to the latest information from three online magazines, abstraction is in great demand and fashion this year, and there's a trend toward color returning from black and white.
Olga Dan 444, That's what I do – I don't visit your works.
N_g, That's your personal business!) You could also enable the button that separates photos into smart and stupid...) which the admins came up with...)
Olga Dan 444, well, abstraction can be black and white too.
Question: By what criteria do you evaluate abstraction? For example, here are two abstract paintings by different artists. You like one of them, and you don't like the other. When do you like one, and when don't you? How do you evaluate it? What are your criteria?
Olga Dan 444, Olya, don't even doubt that Monoclone has long since followed your path, shooting and still shooting landscapes, portraits, and much more. But it only shows things on its photo site that aren't truly direct representations of the subject. Think about what I'm saying.
Marina Glebova, Thank you, Marina, for the polite conversation. I'll think about what you said...yes, I'm already thinking about it!
Marina Glebova, I see pieces of the city, and I see a copy of this author. Two very different things, in my opinion. And these "fakes" spoil the overall impression for the casual observer. Although I can say the same about the "fakes" of Andrey Altants' works. I put "fakes" in quotation marks because I don't think they are actually fakes, but I hope you get the point.
Olga Dan 444, Well, abstraction can be black and white too.
Question: By what criteria do you evaluate abstraction? For example, here are two abstract paintings by artists. You like one of them, and you don't like the other. When do you like one and when don't you? How do you evaluate it? What are your criteria?
Marina Glebova, The criteria are always the same: 1. The first reaction is whether I like it or not. 2. If I like it, I continue to look at it and try to understand what the artist was trying to depict. 3. If I return to the work again, it means it's interesting and I add it to my album. And, of course, the emotions the work evokes are very important, and they're not necessarily positive, quite the opposite... it can be pity, regret, or fear for someone's fate (reportage). And such works always evoke admiration for the author!) P.S. Regarding black and white, I was speaking generally about the trend. Of course, abstraction can also be black and white.
Alexander Zelensky, no, there's no copying. You're simply so far removed from such photos that they all look the same to you. I'm currently watching a Swedish detective series, and to me, all the Swedish women look the same; I can barely tell them apart. But that's not true; they're all different, and they're not "copies" of each other.
The criteria are always the same: 1. The first reaction is whether I like it or not. 2. If I like it, I continue to look at it and try to understand what the artist was trying to depict. 3. If I return to the work again, it means it's interesting and I add it to my album.
Olga Dan 444, Olya, that's not serious at all. Those aren't even criteria. Read more literature about fine art. Criteria exist, they are specific. Moreover, they are the same for all fine art.
Olga Dan 444, Olya, that's not serious at all. Those aren't even criteria. Read more literature on fine art. Criteria exist, and they're specific. Moreover, they are common to all of fine art.
Marina Glebova, Marina, I thought you would understand... Why should I quote truisms and copy entire passages from Wikipedia and other smart books, as many do here? I was talking about my personal ones—everyone has their own, and that's what makes them interesting. You can't even imagine how many books on fine art and various catalogs and monographs of artists from different eras are in our family library. We have a young sculptor in our large family, and conversations about art are commonplace for us... (as are visiting various museums, galleries, and exhibitions...) But you're right—everyone must find their own path!) And I'm following it...) A small request to you, or to the author of this work—give me a link where I can see other works by Monoclone that you mentioned—landscapes, portraits, etc.
Olga Dan 444, Olya, I asked you to name your personal criteria. But "like" isn't a criterion at all. For example, you have two abstractions in front of you: you like one, you don't. Why? This is where I'm interested in your criteria. Not just whether you like it or not, but why. How do you rate it?
The author certainly has a sense of harmony, but his visual thinking (as a designer) is still quite limited. Look how much of this "art" has already been churned out: https://yandex.ru/images/search?cbir_id=89cL13CI3AI0cnpZ7EVzJg&rpt=imagelike Pictures with such sensual content quickly become banal, alas...
Monoklon, Good, solid work. You shouldn't have skipped it... I wanted to find art in photography. It's all empty. Opinion.
Alexander Zeonoff, what can you do? For me, the photos in the link were "empty." And, other than "good," there's really nothing else to say about them...
Alexander Zeonoff, what can you do? For me, the photos in the link were just "empty." And, other than "good," there's really nothing to say about them...
Monoklon, Sorry. But that's your choice, or shall I say...searching.
(Monoklon)Dmitry, let's think about this... you're currently trying (not unsuccessfully) to convey three-dimensional sound using two-dimensional (flat) means... so your attraction to three-dimensional (natural) things is still alive. Now think about it and ask yourself - wouldn't it be easier to immediately capture three-dimensional sound in order to convey a more complex (4-5-dimensional) sound?
No, there's no copying. You're simply so removed from such photos that they all look the same to you.
Marina Glebova, I don't argue that I'm removed, but then how can I explain the fact that some of these photos "catch" me, while in others (which are the majority) I see only "fake"?
How can I explain the fact that some of these photographs "grab" me, while in others...
Alexander Zelensky, there are simply successful, less successful, and simply unsuccessful photographs. The unsuccessful ones aren't fakes or imitations; the photographers are simply trying their hand at different things. Even the most skilled photographers can't all produce successful photos.
By the way, I would divide even successful photos from what could be conventionally called "yard-and-wall" ones into those that fall under street photography, smart photography, illusionistic photography, and photo-poetry. Sometimes they can be classified into two of these groups at once. But this is my personal classification, just for myself. For me, the most valuable group is the last one listed.
Marina Glebova, and I dream of seeing photo-poetry! And not just in "yard-and-wall" photography, but everywhere and always.) But that doesn't happen, I understand.
Olga Dan 444, Olya, I asked you to name your personal criteria. But "like" isn't a criterion at all. For example, here are two abstract paintings: I like one, and I don't like the other. Why? This is where I'm interested in your criteria. Not just "like" or "dislike," but "why." How do you rate them?
Marina Glebova, First of all, based on the feeling, mood, and emotion evoked by the photograph or painting, but that's the same as "like" or "dislike." Here's a professional evaluation of a photograph. I don't like copying other people's articles, but maybe someone else will find it interesting to read. Let's try to evaluate a photograph the way most people do: by the feeling it evokes. A photographer friend of mine aptly called this method of evaluation "the Yoka method." So, when you look at a photograph and your heart skips a beat, it's a good shot! This method of evaluation seems familiar and reliable, but the problem is that different viewers experience different moments of heart skipping. It's no secret that there are "visual super-stimuli" to which our senses respond unconditionally. For example, a man's feelings are likely to respond to an image of a woman (especially a nude one, regardless of the artistry!), a woman's feelings to any image of children and flowers, and a child's feelings to a photo of a dog or cat. Judging "by feeling" does a disservice when the viewer's senses are underdeveloped and their taste is untrained. There's another consideration when it comes to evaluating one's own photography: the author is often too emotionally attached to their work. They can't abstract themselves from their memories, because the memory of the subject as they actually saw it is still fresh in their minds. The author long cherishes the unique colors of the sunset, the scent of the flowers they photographed, not to mention the beautiful model, whose charm they may still be under to this day. The viewer, however, evaluates only what's before their eyes—the photograph itself. So the first thing the author should do is try to look at the photograph through the eyes of an outsider. The "detachment effect" will help avoid overly subjective and personal assessments.
Now let's try evaluating the photograph using the second method—"from the mind." This means evaluating the overall quality of the work, its visual literacy, and its compliance with certain requirements. Professional evaluation criteria are also included here, such as the novelty and originality of the idea, light, composition, dynamics, color and tonal unity, and semantic component. This approach seems to be the right one, and can indeed tell us a great deal about the work. If not for one thing: it often happens that a work, undoubtedly competent and impeccable in terms of the canons of composition, somehow inexplicably fails to resonate with the viewer! Wasn't this the case the French thinker Blaise Pascal spoke of: "The mind is always the fool of the heart"?
So, to sum it up, it can be said that it is IMPOSSIBLE to evaluate a photograph separately, either "by feeling" or "by reason." Both of these methods of evaluation are seriously flawed when used separately. What's the solution? Perhaps it lies in wisely combining these two methods of evaluation: controlling your feelings with your mind and testing your reason with your feelings. Somewhere at the intersection of these two methods lies "objective" evaluation. "Art is X, undiscovered, sought after," wrote the poet Viktor Sosnora. Perhaps the secret to evaluating a photograph lies in searching for this X? And reflect.
Olga Dan 444, Olya, you're generally correct. But that's not what I was asking. My question: you have two abstractions in front of you. You like one, you don't like the other. How do you evaluate them? Your criteria?
Monoklon, Thanks, Dmitry, for the link. I think you quit early, never having had time to understand the taste of photographing landscapes. But it's never too late to come back. About the album "Landscapes". I won't beat around the bush. I only liked a few works where some phenomenon is happening in nature. It's all a bit monotonous. It seems like everything was shot in one place - somewhere not far from the house there is an old park with a pond and everything was shot there. And landscape photographers are, first of all, hard workers. Early They get up, go to bed late, drive and fly hundreds of kilometers to shoot what they want, and mostly to see THIS!) There are risks when you climb mountains, and get wet in the rain and snow, and falls on slippery paths (I have an injured knee) and much more...) Look at Vlad Sokolovsky - how much effort, money and time he spends on his beautiful landscapes...) I say this because maybe you will still shoot real landscapes, and we will admire them!) But for now I am interested in shooting EVERYTHING!) And who knows what I will shoot tomorrow...)
Olga Dan 444, Olya, you're generally correct. But that's not what I was asking. My question is, you have two abstractions in front of you. I like one, I don't like the other. How do you evaluate them? What are your criteria?
Marina Glebova, Exactly—by the feelings they evoke in me—the "fuck"—it's like when you say love—your heart skips a beat, and that's it! One made me skip a beat, the other didn't! I feel like I'm a student taking a serious art history exam in front of a really, really strict teacher!!!)))
I feel like I'm a student taking a serious art history exam in front of a really, really strict teacher!!!)))
Olga Dan 444, no, what are you saying ))) I was just thinking about building the conversation further on this, depending on your criteria for evaluating abstraction. Well, if it's just "fuck," then that's not enough for a conversation about abstraction, so the conversation has moved on, but that's okay, it's okay. :-)
It's harder to remain silent than to speak well. (c) Or is this saying no longer true!?
Too clever a saying. It's true for the theater and slackers. But try to get by without commands at the training ground. Or remain silent in court. I'll see the verdict on the author of this saying! They've truly taken up design!
Marina Glebova, Marina, what is a "smart photo"? Can you give an example?
Irinny, there are two types of smart photos: photos "with intelligence" and photos "from the heart." )) It's a joke, but there's a grain of truth in every joke.
Examples... I don't think I want to give them, simply because it would take a lot of time to find the right photos to do justice to my words. ))
This is just my personal classification, just for myself.
Alexander Zelensky, I won't even try it; writing isn't my thing.
Marina Glebova, maybe there's no need to write much? Photo illustrations and an attempt at systematization will suffice. Marina, please, at least try. I'm very interested in your perspective on the issue.
Marina Glebova, I just misunderstood what you mean by "smart." More like thoughtful. That's more accurate, in my opinion. And smart, to me, is when there's meaning along with form. That photo isn't a snapshot. It's a well-thought-out shot.
And smart, in my opinion, is when form and meaning are present.
Vlad (ytrewq), Vlad, take a closer look at my first comment on this topic. My classification was about yard-and-wall photos. What's the meaning? They can't have meaning by default.
It was impossible to imagine that a person wearing such a uniform would pass by.
Marina Glebova, this is a coffin. It's reusable. You can tell by the blood stain. And apparently this person wasn't the only one carrying such a coffin there. So, I'm sure the author was waiting for this particular person with this particular uniform in this place.
I just misunderstood what you meant by "smart." More like thoughtful. That's more accurate, in my opinion.
Vlad (ytrewq), No, I disagree with the term "thoughtful." Because all the photos I used as examples were thoughtful. The author consciously clicked the button in all three cases. I specifically used photos by the same author, not different ones. I just knew I couldn't explain my classification in words, and I shouldn't have started.
As for the meaning in the photos, you've probably known my position for a long time.
Vlad (ytrewq), this is just a classification "for personal use." To explain it to others, I need more words and more examples. As for myself, I can agree with mental images.
Vlad (ytrewq), it's just a classification "for personal use." To present it to others, more words and more examples are needed. And I can communicate with myself using mental images. )
Marina Glebova, I understood that from the very beginning. But I wanted to delve a little into your personal space.
Monoklon, I love noble men who are indulgent to women's whims!) We girls can be so naughty sometimes...))) Forgive me on Forgiveness Sunday!)
Olga Dan 444, God be with you, have you really done anything wrong that I should forgive you? There is no resentment in my heart, don't worry unnecessarily, and be happy!
But in my opinion, it's truly beautiful, truly interesting, and truly harmonious.
You continue to look at photography as a shot of an object.
But real photography is something completely different.
Real photography, on the contrary, is the dissolution of the object; it becomes unimportant. Or rather, it doesn't matter what it was before the shot, and it doesn't matter whether it was beautiful. What's important is the new image created within the frame, which, in a good photograph, is not a copy of the object at all.
Abstraction in painting? Abstraction in drawing?
If you see people simply photographing bits of the city, it's not "Monoclon-style" at all. It means they've already passed their "sunset beauty" milestone; it's become uninteresting to them, and they're simply looking for a beautiful shot in an ordinary setting, trying to create a beautiful or interesting photo "out of nothing."
Consider my words.
Question: By what criteria do you evaluate abstraction?
For example, here are two abstract paintings by different artists.
You like one of them, and you don't like the other.
When do you like one, and when don't you? How do you evaluate it? What are your criteria?
2. If I like it, I continue to look at it and try to understand what the artist was trying to depict.
3. If I return to the work again, it means it's interesting and I add it to my album. And, of course, the emotions the work evokes are very important, and they're not necessarily positive, quite the opposite... it can be pity, regret, or fear for someone's fate (reportage). And such works always evoke admiration for the author!)
P.S. Regarding black and white, I was speaking generally about the trend. Of course, abstraction can also be black and white.
But you're right—everyone must find their own path!) And I'm following it...) A small request to you, or to the author of this work—give me a link where I can see other works by Monoclone that you mentioned—landscapes, portraits, etc.
But "like" isn't a criterion at all.
For example, you have two abstractions in front of you: you like one, you don't.
Why? This is where I'm interested in your criteria.
Not just whether you like it or not, but why. How do you rate it?
Pictures with such sensual content quickly become banal, alas...
Good, solid work. You shouldn't have skipped it... I wanted to find art in photography. It's all just empty. Opinion.
[img]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/3naI2MVyztvGJt2q0Dl4Kh-XjK-KfGgfGwAIm_c_QeKzkeB8KRmbdevBnhJ9ieA2GbHf=w1600-h1200-rw-no[/img]
Sorry. But that's your choice, or shall I say...searching.
By the way, I would divide even successful photos from what could be conventionally called "yard-and-wall" ones into those that fall under street photography, smart photography, illusionistic photography, and photo-poetry. Sometimes they can be classified into two of these groups at once. But this is my personal classification, just for myself. For me, the most valuable group is the last one listed.
Here's a professional evaluation of a photograph. I don't like copying other people's articles, but maybe someone else will find it interesting to read. Let's try to evaluate a photograph the way most people do: by the feeling it evokes. A photographer friend of mine aptly called this method of evaluation "the Yoka method." So, when you look at a photograph and your heart skips a beat, it's a good shot! This method of evaluation seems familiar and reliable, but the problem is that different viewers experience different moments of heart skipping. It's no secret that there are "visual super-stimuli" to which our senses respond unconditionally. For example, a man's feelings are likely to respond to an image of a woman (especially a nude one, regardless of the artistry!), a woman's feelings to any image of children and flowers, and a child's feelings to a photo of a dog or cat. Judging "by feeling" does a disservice when the viewer's senses are underdeveloped and their taste is untrained. There's another consideration when it comes to evaluating one's own photography: the author is often too emotionally attached to their work. They can't abstract themselves from their memories, because the memory of the subject as they actually saw it is still fresh in their minds. The author long cherishes the unique colors of the sunset, the scent of the flowers they photographed, not to mention the beautiful model, whose charm they may still be under to this day. The viewer, however, evaluates only what's before their eyes—the photograph itself. So the first thing the author should do is try to look at the photograph through the eyes of an outsider. The "detachment effect" will help avoid overly subjective and personal assessments.
Now let's try evaluating the photograph using the second method—"from the mind." This means evaluating the overall quality of the work, its visual literacy, and its compliance with certain requirements. Professional evaluation criteria are also included here, such as the novelty and originality of the idea, light, composition, dynamics, color and tonal unity, and semantic component. This approach seems to be the right one, and can indeed tell us a great deal about the work. If not for one thing: it often happens that a work, undoubtedly competent and impeccable in terms of the canons of composition, somehow inexplicably fails to resonate with the viewer! Wasn't this the case the French thinker Blaise Pascal spoke of: "The mind is always the fool of the heart"?
So, to sum it up, it can be said that it is IMPOSSIBLE to evaluate a photograph separately, either "by feeling" or "by reason." Both of these methods of evaluation are seriously flawed when used separately. What's the solution? Perhaps it lies in wisely combining these two methods of evaluation: controlling your feelings with your mind and testing your reason with your feelings. Somewhere at the intersection of these two methods lies "objective" evaluation.
"Art is X, undiscovered, sought after," wrote the poet Viktor Sosnora. Perhaps the secret to evaluating a photograph lies in searching for this X? And reflect.
My question: you have two abstractions in front of you. You like one, you don't like the other.
How do you evaluate them? Your criteria?
One made me skip a beat, the other didn't! I feel like I'm a student taking a serious art history exam in front of a really, really strict teacher!!!)))
I was just thinking about building the conversation further on this, depending on your criteria for evaluating abstraction. Well, if it's just "fuck," then that's not enough for a conversation about abstraction, so the conversation has moved on, but that's okay, it's okay. :-)
!
Respect, Kolyada!
Eagles haven't been seen in design yet. Only in eating small game birds, IMHO.
Or is this saying no longer true!?
Too clever a saying. It's true for the theater and slackers.
But try to get by without commands at the training ground. Or remain silent in court. I'll see the verdict on the author of this saying!
They've truly taken up design!
It's a joke, but there's a grain of truth in every joke.
Examples... I don't think I want to give them, simply because it would take a lot of time to find the right photos to do justice to my words. ))
This is just my personal classification, just for myself.
Look!
"It's not as good to have money as it is to be without it." (c) Isn't that right, Valeriy!?
Blogging is so serious, I can't do that ))
By my definition, your example is street photography.
It was impossible to imagine that someone with such a shape would walk by.
And compare it, for example, with this one -
You see, the author planned it himself, combining the lines in such a way that pure forms emerge, delimited by colors and color lines.
I won't judge whether it's successful or not, but it's definitely clever.
Here's another photo, it's both "smart" and "poetry":
Pavel's work is pure poetry:
But Monoclone, NMV, almost always has photo poetry, often combined with illusion, sometimes with street art.
That photo isn't a snapshot. It's a well-thought-out shot.
What's the meaning? They can't have meaning by default.
I just knew I couldn't explain my classification in words, and I shouldn't have started.
As for the meaning in the photos, you've probably known my position for a long time.
To explain it to others, I need more words and more examples.
As for myself, I can agree with mental images.