I'm Stumped On the Composition of This Collage

[Rachel Foster]

I like the idea of this a lot...."Sunset in Michigan," but it just isn't working. I have put it in a frame with three separate openings and that is much better. I was trying to reproduce it as one image. Any ideas or is it destined for the scrap heap?

 

[Nill Toulme]

I like the two silhouetted figures but the central image does nothing for me.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Rachel Foster]

That could be the problem. The two silhouettes cannot stand alone, though. Next step seems to be finding an appropriate sunset image then.

 

[Nill Toulme]

And I dunno, this is pretty well outside of my bailiwick... but maybe the black background is too stark for the overall effect?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hint, Rachel!

Light is coming from where? A work of art must look like a "unit" if you want it to seem finished. A "unit" gets to have it's own identity. Going against the laws of physics and the workings of the human mind is O.K. as long as you still end up with some coherent "glue" that somehow makes one "thing".

You have ignored physics and the human brains expectations yet you want some harmony in this collage! Unless you have some overriding hidden surrealist agenda, don't do it! Let nature and your brain's expectations of the world work for you.

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Ah, good point. I'll think on this.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Yes, I think this is a tosser (not UK speak; tosser as in it needs to be tossed as a collage).

I'm branching out and taking more risks. The problem is that I'm not sure of the effects sometimes, especially when it's not the typical. For example, I have a shot of rain on a wooden bridge. I look at it and think "interesting." The next time I look at it, my reaction is "What was I thinking????!!"

I suppose it's all part of the learning process. The problem with "art" (I don't consider my work art, at least not now) is that it's very, very subjective. That's also the beauty (no pun intended) of art.

 

[Ray West]

Hi Rachel,

If it is something you want to do that pleases you, then you need to work on it. If it is something to please others, you need to work on it. Get yourself a sheet of black card, black is your colour, (I think you have a printer of some sort), print off a few copies of each of the three images, to different sizes, move them around on the card. Why rectangles all neatly lined up? why the same size? Why all of the power line image, say? Get some old books on 'composition', google away, the M$ national gallery cd, if still around. I think you know more or less what you are trying to achieve, but do not have the technical editing skills to get there. Edit it manually, then photograph that, then maybe folk can show you how to get from here to there.

If it was easy, everybody would be doing it.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Rachel Foster]

"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it."

True!

I think I need to reconceptualize it.

 

[The Unguru]

Rachel,

The idea of combining two silhouetted figures with shadows and a sunset has potential. Even if this is a brilliant idea, so what if it remains locked in your head? Great ideas are very common and easy to come by. Having to ability to get this beyond imagination is the challenge.

Rays' approach is very tactile, fast, versatile and makes sense. Get a 24" x 36" piece of foam core board (white on one side, black on the other) and move around cutouts of a pile of prints you have prepared on 8x10 paper.

When you get an idea you like, photograph it and then keep working with either the black or white b.g. until you feel it has to be a certain way. This process takes you away from the limitations of the computer screen and allows you to look at things in a very free way. Don't hesitate to print some figures larger or smaller and cut into anything if that might be better.

Use a black magic marker to blur edges if you like that effect.

When the work is done you'll have a picture for your wall. Now you can make it from scratch with your image files on the computer.
Rachel,

The idea of combining two silhouetted figures with shadows and a sunset has potential. Even if this is a brilliant idea, so what if it remains locked in your head? Great ideas are very common and easy to come by. Having to ability to get this beyond imagination is the challenge.

Rays' approach is very tactile, fast, versatile and makes sense. Get a 24" x 36" piece of foam core board (white on one side, black on the other) and move around cutouts of a pile of prints you have prepared on 8x10 paper.

When you get an idea you like, photograph it and then keep working with either the black or white b.g. until you feel it has to be a certain way. This process takes you away from the limitations of the computer screen and allows you to look at things in a very free way. Don't hesitate to print some figures larger or smaller and cut into anything if that might be better.

Use a black magic marker to blur edges if you like that effect.

When the work is done you'll have a picture for your wall. Now you can make it from scratch with your image files on the computer.

 

[Ray West]

Hi Rachel,

I can't find the actual words, but you can. Your approach may need to be more like Majnun ,and your art like Leyli. Something like this -

Majnun is sifting through the dust, tears flowing. Some others asked, 'What are you doing?' He replied 'I'm seeking for Layli'. They cried, 'but Layli is of pure spirit, and you are seeking her in the dust' . He said ' I seek her everywhere, perchance somewhere I shall find her'

Written many centuries before digital photography, but I think it is apt.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Rachel Foster]

Thank you, Ray, Asher, and SuperAsher.

I realized that I was hasty in my creative enthusiasm. I posted prematurely. I also like the idea of the silhouettes on either side of the sunset, but I also realized (after reading something Ray wrote, but I'm not sure what) that I've not taken the time to work through Asher's Arc. While impulse and whimsy has a valuable place in the creative process, it cannot proceed willy nilly without thought and analysis. (Seems like someone said that to me once.....ha!) I need tothink on this first.

If I don't allow the idea to sit while the image I'm after emerges, I will wind up slapping this half-baked treatment atop that half-baked treatment. I will wind up adding so much cognitive junk that the potential will not be realized. I'm going to let my unconscious work on this for a bit. Then, when that's happened, I will approach it directly and analytically. Early on I was convinced that would subvert creativity. I've since realized it's not analysis that short circuits creativity, it's proceeding at the wrong level of analysis. As long as I stay sufficiently macro (not the same usage as with a lens, but meaning more molar) and don't get to micro (molecular) creativity has a chance. Maybe.

An observation: I think photographers/artists at different levels of skill need different approaches. I suspect the very new needs to just get out there and shoot, shoot, shoot and take care to not over-think it. Once a certain level of experience and one's "style" begins to emerge, the analytical process becomes more useful. And I suspect --- tell me if I'm wrong--- that expertise and analysis are positively correlated. But it's a progression.

And, as Asher pointed out, I need a theme, something giving the images coherence, connection.

 

[The Unguru]

"Don't "think"; try!"


99.999% of your brainpower, with its magnificent library of inherited and learned preferences, bias and relevance is always working for you. The conscious part of you is the final steering for new events.

So just get to it and don't analyze so fricken much!

Don't imprison yourself in too much rationality. This is about externalizing your ideas not building a space ship. Trust "The Force", which is you.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Unguru.....you DO make me laugh. LOL!

Now what about the arc of intent, mon ami?

 

[Michael_Stones]

Some thoughts, Rachel. The light in the window comes from the left. The light on the left figure also comes from the left but there is no shown source. The figure is wrongly positioned (unless you show a leftside light source) and should be on the rightside of the window to be consistent with the window light's direction. You also have a color match problem - the window light is white but the figure's light yellow - that could stand correction.
The rightside figure has light from behind on the right, as shown by the shadow. Again there is no source displayed. This figure should be on the left of the window (to pick up window light to the right of her head) with the shadow and frontal illumination removed or horizontally flipped and adjusted for direction of the shadow. The latter alternative is not so good as the former because you would have two rightside figures (if you bring the leftside figure to the window's right) creating imbalance and a need to integration.
If you're going to play with this image further, I'd recommend that you add a background layer of solid black, switch the figure images to opposite sides of the window, have the figures overlap a little with the window to enhance impressions of unity (e.g., by means of masking), correct to obtain color consistency, and fade the figures to black in an away from the window direction (using quick mask, gradient tool, and clear from the edit menu or a darken procedure).
Playing with montages is fun and sure helps you learn Photoshop.
Cheers, Mike.

 

[The Unguru]

Unguru.....you DO make me laugh. LOL!

Now what about the arc of intent, mon ami?

Something stimulates your thoughts. It get's worked on in the Cathedral of the mind in a sort of performance as different clothes, postures and makeup are tried out. Then it becomes so important that you need to express it. So that is "Intent".

Intent may come from seeing a beautiful deer or imagining one or finding a picture of a deer. This then becomes a full blown intent which drives you to action: make the image my way!

Now you may not totally know yet exactly how to do it straight off, like a commercial professional photographer such as Nicolas Claris might do with photographing boats or a reporter recording news.

You may have to fiddle, scrap an attempt to get formed what satisfies you.

Now you are not necessarily aware of all the rulers used by your own brain in judging what should be done next or which accidents fit in with what your mind wants. Nevertheless, you continue to labor, past blocks of befuddlement incessantly reworking until the form says to you "I'm it", "I exist"and it thus satisfies you.

At that point the "Arc of Intent" is complete for you. The art exists! Still it's "art", personal to you.

Then you put it out to the world. If they react with feelings and thoughts such as "eruptive emotional feelings, impressions that it's unique, impressive, demanding, interesting and/or worthy of repeated attention" or makes the person explore or celebrate their own ideas and emotions, then it's art for them too. According to the quality and power of these reactions, your work is measured as worthy of returning to or not. Of course this evaluation is going to dependent on many factors which are already well discussed in the subject of "Art appreciation".


Here I'm focusing on


"What might be the process of making art that "works"? What that might mean to us and hence it's significance in our lives? Is in fact "Art" more than entertainment?"


So the "Arc of Intent" and the "Arc of Communication" are sketches of what I have come to think happens and I find it useful for my own work and in my visits to Galleries and Museums. I may sound dogmatic, but it's really dogma that has to be refined and tested. However, I believe it's in essence a reasonably effective working metaphor for the process of creating art and enjoying at.


The Arc of intent can be completed by you the artist or anyone else. When ideas or feelings are transmitted it can be also an "Arc of Communication" although always the appreciation is filtered through the colored glasses of the audience.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Yes, you have the light problem nailed. I wanted to step back though and think about what I'm trying to accomplish with this collage. I'm trying to say something but I've not articulated it yet. Perhaps the sunset should not be in the center, for example. The position really should be determined by the underlying idea.

The lighting is what drew me to this. I've not laid it out in such a way as to capitalize that. And the "matchy-match" aspect.....trying for symmetry: That's rote rule-following. And perhaps the images should impinge on each others' space?

I can't really go forward til I pinpoint more what it is that drew me to this idea.

You've nicely pointed out, along with Asher and Ray, that it's unnatural in the positioning and juxtaposition of images. That can work, as long as I have a reason, a coherence. I think the idea has potential, but my arc of intent is not there.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Thank you, Uncle UnG. (The Unguru persona makes me think of a wise uncle gently teaching, sharing his knowledge.)

The image is communicating confusion and haste. That can be a good message, but not the way it is now.

Ohhh...I've an idea.

 

[The Unguru]

Some thoughts, Rachel. The light in the window comes from the left. The light on the left figure also comes from the left but there is no shown source. The figure is wrongly positioned (unless you show a leftside light source) and should be on the rightside of the window to be consistent with the window light's direction. You also have a color match problem - the window light is white but the figure's light yellow - that could stand correction.
The rightside figure has light from behind on the right, as shown by the shadow. Again there is no source displayed. This figure should be on the left of the window (to pick up window light to the right of her head) with the shadow and frontal illumination removed or horizontally flipped and adjusted for direction of the shadow. The latter alternative is not so good as the former because you would have two rightside figures (if you bring the leftside figure to the window's right) creating imbalance and a need to integration. ............

Playing with montages is fun and sure helps you learn Photoshop.
Cheers, Mike.

Exactly!

Mike, glad you are giving input here!

Art must be something that has a wholeness about it unless you are trying to show the opposite or deliver a tension by going against expectations of nature.

 

[Rachel Foster]

I think the original photo is better than a collage. Until I get inspiration, I'm leaning toward the un-collage.

However, I'm also considering something more.... Something less expected.

 

[Michael_Stones]

More on arcs of intent and communication ....

Creativity can be like trying to find a way to the middle of a maze when you're not sure you'd know that it's the middle if you got there. You go this way – dead end – then that – another dead end – then try another path that you think takes you nearer to what? But when you do get there, most times you sense it.

Like me, you're struggling to find a way through the visual imagery maze, Rachel. So let me use an analogy from behavioral science (which you're familiar with) to illustrate some pathways through the creative maze. The exercise will help clarify my own thoughts, too.

The classical way that textbooks discuss is hypothetico-deductive. To use Asher's terminology, you have an idea about whatever it is you want to express and through trial and error come up with a product that resembles that idea. The product makes sense to you, but what about other people? If other people (e.g., journal editors, referees) think your hypothesis and methods are appropriate, you have a refereed publication. Applied to art, the process can be similar resulting in glowing reviews by critics and sales of your picture. But what if the feedback from others is negative? Well maybe take account of the feedback to recreate the product with improved methodology. Or maybe decide the feedback was not helpful – retain confidence in the product as it is – and resubmit the article to a journal with different biases. In photography, the latter translates to a search for critics more sympathetic to your intent.

Another creative pathway is through methodological sophistication. For example, traditional studies of the relationship between Y and X consider them as as individual difference variables in linear regression. Now you have a statistical packages with mixed linear modelling that enables you to treat X as an individual and a contextual variable in the same analysis. So you can reanalyze the same data using this hierarchical model to create a product that is more elegant than was possible before. In this example, the creativity derives not from a novel idea but from the application of new methodology. Analogies from photography have become commonplace (e.g., HRD images, Photoshop filters) as the technology advances.

A third pathway is inductive. Suppose you have a data base to play with. You explore strengths of relationships and differences between variables and combinations of variables with minimal pre-conceived notions of what they will be. Sometimes nothing exciting emerges, although often enough you glimpase a nugget of gold hidden among the dross. On reaching that stage, you now have a firm idea and a sense that the middle of the maze is close by. To derive a product that satisfies yourself and other people usually requires a switch to a hypothetico-deductive mode of thinking to guide your further efforts.

This third pathway begins with musing and play. It's a time honored process in science. Newton gravitational theory originated from neither hypothetico-deductive thinking nor methodological innovation, according to legend, but from musing about an apple falling on his head. Similarly, Darwinian evolution began with his observation of unexpected relationships rather than preconceived ideas. Maybe it's a less respected pathway in painting, with traditional adherence to a master-apprentice model, or to photographic schools that adhere to methodological proficiency, but neither is it neglected. Who can argue that the innovations of such diverse artistic greats as Picasso and Diane Arbus did not originate from musing and play?

That is what you were doing with your collage, I suspect. You mused over the photograph, glimpsed a very worthwhile idea, and played to derive a product. What most comments in this thread suggest is for you now to switch to hypothetical deductive thinking and take advantage of methodology to bring such an idea to fruition in ways that the these critics can applaud. Playful thinking lies at the heart of creativity; it shows you to sense the centre of the maze. .

 

[Rachel Foster]

Shades of Clark Hull!

Yes, you have it Michael. Now, let's switch to a slightly different neo-behavioral approach, looking at one of Hull's students. Dollard and Miller addressed creativity, specifically in terms of fear. I'm not afraid of failing, so whatever creativity I may be capable of won't be hindered by that. Now as to specifics....google scholar is calling me. Back soon!

 

[Asher Kelman]

More on arcs of intent and communication ....

............Who can argue that the innovations of such diverse artistic greats as Picasso and Diane Arbus did not originate from musing and play?

That is what you were doing with your collage, I suspect. You mused over the photograph, glimpsed a very worthwhile idea, and played to derive a product. What most comments in this thread suggest is for you now to switch to hypothetical deductive thinking and take advantage of methodology to bring such an idea to fruition in ways that the these critics can applaud. Playful thinking lies at the heart of creativity; it shows you to sense the centre of the maze. .

Good points except for the last reference to satisfying others "that the these critics can applaud". To me that comes later or else we never can make art we are just pandering whores!

Rachel,

One needs first and foremost to satisfy in yourself whatever is jumping up and down and doing summersaults in your mind. You can hear there's a performance going on (in the "Cathedral of your mind") but you cannot see the forms clearly! So that's where your experimental playfulness is needed. No if's and buts! Your mind needs this or else you would be able to complete your collage design in 5 minutes flat. (It might take 10 hours to perfect it but that's just work!) So that's why we suggested printing out all the possible images you might use in different sizes and get a scissors and play around.

Since you have scissors, lots of your images and a magic marker to shade things out, you can rapidly try possibilities!

All the time, you are actually talking to the place in your mind where these things are important.

 

[Michael_Stones]

Good points except for the last reference to satisfying others "that the these critics can applaud". To me that comes later or else we never can make art we are just pandering whores!

It depends on what you're aiming for, Asher. When a graduate student, my thesis supervisor told me that any research left unpublished was a waste of time because nobody could ever know about or learn from it. That was science and what we're discussing now is art but the aims - to my mind - are similar; namely, quests for elegance and understanding, and communication of an idea or vision.

Science like art can be a hobby or a profession. Forums like this one are analogous to a university where the 'critics' - in my intended use of the term - are professional photographers and fellow students. The poster invites comment and criticism as part of the learning process, but may accept or reject the feedback offered. I think we all prefer applause to catcalls, but constructive catcalls may more useful to the evolution of skill.

To take any art beyond the level of hobby and into the marketplace can involve compromise that diminishes creativity and evolution as an artist. I bought a painting from a friend some years ago that to my mind is her best work ever. It is an astonishing interpretation of a 'hag dream' - a nightmare - that communicates terror in solitude more powerfully than any other work I've seen. She followed up that dark series with whimsical paintings of mermaids and sea creatures that are no less wonderful. Unfortunately, the market was not ready for such works and she had a mortgage to pay. So she pandered to the market. Now she a successful artist whose sentimental landscape paintings command prices of $5000 or more. Are these landscape paintings art? Most definitely. Are they as creative as her earlier work? Most definitely not.

An advantage that science has over art is the greater funding available for creative pursuit with less need to compromise the latter because of the marketplace. Scientific papers sit in journals forever with their significance not always appreciated until years after publication. But who's ever heard of a starving scientist? New works of art are hung in galleries only for weeks, then pulled if they fail to sell. It's a hard life to survive as a beginning artist without making compromises. Those who do so are admirable but those who do not are simply being practical.

 

[Rachel Foster]

"Starving artists" comes to mind. Thank goodness I have tenure!

I think you both have valid points. I think one must satisfy oneself, but listen to one's "committee." The tricky part is being able to discern which points of criticism and advice are congruent with one's "vision," as it were, and which are not. The critics can only offer from their vision (which is learned, but theirs). The "artist" (and while many here are bona fide artists, the quotations marks apply to me) must learn to interpret that criticism so it applies to her/his work.

Some ideas need percolation time. Others perhaps emulate Athena and emerge fully developed from the creator's head. This one for me is percolating.

It began as this...

Alternate versions, rudely pasted, are

Still needs radical reconceptualization.

 

[The Unguru]

Forget pleasing others.

You are not selling.

You are being expressive.

Unwind. Then think. Then go back and work more. It's iterative.

Finally do it well!

You may end up with rubbish that annoys you or that's fun. That's not art.

Art must have compelling life to you!

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

I agree, first I must please me. But Ung, it is true that others have expertise that can help me find my path. A psychiatrist some years ago wrote a book called "If You Meet the Buddha On the Road, Kill Him." No one can dictate my path to me with success. But I can listen to their questions and ideas. Creativity is not blind obedience. Wisdom is not blind, period.

 

[Rachel Foster]

An aside....while I've gotten a great deal of technical and artistic guidance here, it's precisely this -- this sort of discussion -- that has been most helpful.

What is art?

How does one pursue art?

How does one learn?


How does one teach?

Why?

Technical help and teaching feeds the process. These questions and their answers feed the mind...and the soul. While I'm thinking of it, of course everyone appreciates and is aware of what Asher gives to this site and to the photographic world. I'd just like to quickly recognize Michael and his tremendous contributions also.

 

[Aida BGAgraphix]

I think art is something that we feel. Our feelings and all that we see in our lives is transmited in an image.
If we have a theme, each of us is going to see it differently. I think that is the beauty of art ; it's personal and open. It's personal because we put a piece of soul in it and open because we share it with others.
Learning how to paint, draw, photo, edit etc is very important , so that we can accomplish with technical means what we image/ want from our creations. But the teory is just a part of this. The important thing is what one does with all the info.

Works of art can't be loved by everyone. Is hard to please all. I believe it's impossible and that is not the purpose of art. In my opinion, if it's meant just to please the eyes, then it becomes empthy. It has to have emotions, a main idea. When I see a photo or a painting, I feel a part of what his/her creator felt. That is wonderful !

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

It's a do over

Sometimes we are so close to the project we keep batting our head against a wall but really what we need to do is just have to scrap it because we can't see that it doesn't work. It's like a cake recipe that you just have the wrong ingredients to make a cake when instead you need to be making cookies.