• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Reading the reading

M

Mark Hampton

New member
Bill McCarthy said:
Ok Mark,
I’m not ready to leave the grain yet, so I tried your sensor burn idea. Processed the burn, worked on the color and levels, changed to grey scale, etc, and I liked what I got (not what I expected but ok).

webblackshotafterlaststump.jpg

Then I opened the last photo shot before the burn and layered a gray scale version with the burn. Manipulated a second burn level to remove grain from stump and reduce grain size to some of the foreground.

webBWstumpgrain.jpg

Next, here is the take in color with the grain.

webcolorstumpgrain.jpg

I think I would want to be looking for the grain before I snapped the shutter, as I tend to want to previsualize what I am doing. So I had a good time but am now thinking about how I might work this into future efforts. The grain (for me) adds a surface that begins to come forward giving a flattened look. I like that. But I think I like the grain image alone almost as much as I like the original subject. It’s too early to tell.
Click to expand...

Bill,

just back from rome (i will post some images on anther thread) - I had a look on my phone at the burn - it is on its own very enigmatic. your rendition of it is much clearer than my almost black frame.

I had not tried using layers... I used the iso to break the image in camera - this is a cracking idea - when the light too bright i cant break the image (i guess a ND filter would work but that 80quid) as 2.8 and 8000 @ 25600 doesn't work all the time !

I like the motif of the tree/root imbedded in the rock - your grasp of light works with and makes the image - have you tried - working the oposite way round - use the burn as background layer and the image as an overlay - just emerging from the grain/noise/gain.



I have found the sensor on my camera phone to have beautiful qualities - rated @ 800 iso it burns -



20110921_064849-HDRsmalll.jpg



First.Light.Thirst 3 - M Hampton​


I was lucky enough to fly from Edinburgh to rome @ dawn - it seemed fitting to make a piece - about burn / background noise / and the horizon.

Asher,

I can only tell you where we are when I reach the end - and that I hope wont be for a long time. Everyone who posts is a contributor - on this thread and all the others that I read. I am not authority on anything - and everything I post should be challenged - as I challenge it myself.

cheers
 
Last edited by a moderator:
B

Bill McCarthy

Member
Asher,

I was drawn to the theme of this forum subject, “reading the reading”, and certainly I brought my own interpretation to the keyboard. I took a grand leap when the subject turned from eye gaze and foveated imaging to grain and burn. Just off the “Red eye” flight from Los Angeles to Boston, I was excited by the idea of sensor burn, and wondered (out loud) if by any chance the sensor was reacting like our eyes do when we over saturate the rods and cones. Hoping to find any evidence in the sensor burn, of the last image taken, I shot a black shot at high ISO and processed the image to see the grain (burn). Not to my surprise, but to my disappointment, the “after image” of my last shot taken, was not there. What was left was a beautiful surface grain reminiscent of paintings that I had done in the late 60’s and early 70’s. For me, I was reminded of my search for “non composition” within an object, and the freedom that the viewer might experience in the solitude of none direction. It didn’t work for everyone, my grandmother visited my studio once and asked why I had so many dirty blackboard on the walls, and my father (on hearing of my inclusion in a significant show) said “does nothing for me”. I was influenced by many artists, but in particular the ideas and work of the “minimalist” Donald Judd.
Quoting from the Guggenheim website, “In his 1965 essay “Specific Objects,” Judd championed recent work that was neither painting nor sculpture by a diverse range of artists such as Lee Bontecou, Mark di Suvero, Claes Oldenburg, and Frank Stella. His endorsement of “the thing as a whole” rather than a composition of parts stemmed from what he saw as the strength and clarity asserted by singular forms, the unitary character of which resulted from the conflation of color, image, shape, and surface. Judd’s earliest freestanding sculptures were singular, boxlike forms constructed of wood or metal. The simple shape of Untitled (1968), with its slightly recessed upper surface, is readily intelligible as a whole and thus avoids the compositional effects that for Judd diluted a work’s power. As the artist’s exploration of three-dimensional space became more complex, his aversion to such effects was manifested in a number of strategies designed to subordinate a work’s individual components to the whole.”
While still looking back at the serenity of many of my early non compositional creations, I have continued to take “pictures” and marvel at how I am separating personal compositions out from a non compositional world.
Now with the ability to create photographic objects of a scale that seems appropriate, I’ve begun an attempt to capture visuals into an object (photograph) and try to do just what Judd is talking about, subordinate a work’s individual components to the whole.
So, I am back and forth on the success of my goals, but I find myself moved by what I see, and challenged to create what I would call “the whole”. The image that I worked with here, struck me in the natural world, but contains many elements or components that separate themselves from the whole. I only chose this image at this time, because it was the last image taken before I looked for the sensor burn (remember that I had some dazed hope that I would catch a glimpse of it in the burn). For me it is a very difficult image and one that will need lots more work if it is ever to bring it’s components into oneness with the whole. But since I had this wonderful grain/burn image, I began to attempt to layer into areas so that they would flatten visually yet support the target (stump) near the middle. Since I like the un-grained object as much as the altered ones, I did not accomplish my overall goal. I will return to it (not necessarily the burn), as I am drawn like a moth to a flame.
As for Mark’s images, I am struck with how the visual elements seem to rise out of the grain, giving them (for me) a unique wholeness of the object.
While I am addicted to looking, it’s through my eyes that I am seeing.
This probably is not answering your questions, as it always seems a struggle for me to talk about any of this.
Should we go back to just looking?

Bill
 
M

Mark Hampton

New member
Bill McCarthy said:
Asher,

I was drawn to the theme of this forum subject, “reading the reading”, and certainly I brought my own interpretation to the keyboard. I took a grand leap when the subject turned from eye gaze and foveated imaging to grain and burn. Just off the “Red eye” flight from Los Angeles to Boston, I was excited by the idea of sensor burn, and wondered (out loud) if by any chance the sensor was reacting like our eyes do when we over saturate the rods and cones. Hoping to find any evidence in the sensor burn, of the last image taken, I shot a black shot at high ISO and processed the image to see the grain (burn). Not to my surprise, but to my disappointment, the “after image” of my last shot taken, was not there. What was left was a beautiful surface grain reminiscent of paintings that I had done in the late 60’s and early 70’s. For me, I was reminded of my search for “non composition” within an object, and the freedom that the viewer might experience in the solitude of none direction. It didn’t work for everyone, my grandmother visited my studio once and asked why I had so many dirty blackboard on the walls, and my father (on hearing of my inclusion in a significant show) said “does nothing for me”. I was influenced by many artists, but in particular the ideas and work of the “minimalist” Donald Judd.
Quoting from the Guggenheim website, “In his 1965 essay “Specific Objects,” Judd championed recent work that was neither painting nor sculpture by a diverse range of artists such as Lee Bontecou, Mark di Suvero, Claes Oldenburg, and Frank Stella. His endorsement of “the thing as a whole” rather than a composition of parts stemmed from what he saw as the strength and clarity asserted by singular forms, the unitary character of which resulted from the conflation of color, image, shape, and surface. Judd’s earliest freestanding sculptures were singular, boxlike forms constructed of wood or metal. The simple shape of Untitled (1968), with its slightly recessed upper surface, is readily intelligible as a whole and thus avoids the compositional effects that for Judd diluted a work’s power. As the artist’s exploration of three-dimensional space became more complex, his aversion to such effects was manifested in a number of strategies designed to subordinate a work’s individual components to the whole.”
While still looking back at the serenity of many of my early non compositional creations, I have continued to take “pictures” and marvel at how I am separating personal compositions out from a non compositional world.
Now with the ability to create photographic objects of a scale that seems appropriate, I’ve begun an attempt to capture visuals into an object (photograph) and try to do just what Judd is talking about, subordinate a work’s individual components to the whole.
So, I am back and forth on the success of my goals, but I find myself moved by what I see, and challenged to create what I would call “the whole”. The image that I worked with here, struck me in the natural world, but contains many elements or components that separate themselves from the whole. I only chose this image at this time, because it was the last image taken before I looked for the sensor burn (remember that I had some dazed hope that I would catch a glimpse of it in the burn). For me it is a very difficult image and one that will need lots more work if it is ever to bring it’s components into oneness with the whole. But since I had this wonderful grain/burn image, I began to attempt to layer into areas so that they would flatten visually yet support the target (stump) near the middle. Since I like the un-grained object as much as the altered ones, I did not accomplish my overall goal. I will return to it (not necessarily the burn), as I am drawn like a moth to a flame.
As for Mark’s images, I am struck with how the visual elements seem to rise out of the grain, giving them (for me) a unique wholeness of the object.
While I am addicted to looking, it’s through my eyes that I am seeing.
This probably is not answering your questions, as it always seems a struggle for me to talk about any of this.
Should we go back to just looking?

Bill
Click to expand...

Bill,

thanks for providing me with a reason to back and look @ Judds work .. and I know get what you were trying to do with the burn - that is a truly mental red eyedea !

there once was a guy who claimed he made work with his mind - he would place the camera on his forehead and think - when the negatives were developed there were images - even if this is not true in a literal sense it's what we do...

the whole then is the thing you make from the reflected light meditated through your setup (camera) - made as a obetject - i guess it will only become "whole" when it is viewed - and then only to some people..

like the cat in the box !



20110921_065324-HDR.jpg



First.Light.Thirst 3 - M Hampton
​


i think there are 40 odd ov these !

thanks for adding to the thread
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Bill McCarthy said:
Since I like the un-grained object as much as the altered ones, I did not accomplish my overall goal. I will return to it (not necessarily the burn), as I am drawn like a moth to a flame.
Click to expand...

This iterative struggle comes from trying to export something from the brain that is not yet formed in the mind and has to be searched for with what is materialized by your experiments. When your art is formed, it will tell you that itself and then, you must greet it and let it live independent of you.

Bill McCarthy said:
As for Mark’s images, I am struck with how the visual elements seem to rise out of the grain, giving them (for me) a unique wholeness of the object.
Click to expand...
I'm still always catching up and often have to restart at the top of the thread. Likely because Marks ideas evolve too for the reason I gave above.

Bill McCarthy said:
While I am addicted to looking, it’s through my eyes that I am seeing.
This probably is not answering your questions, as it always seems a struggle for me to talk about any of this.

Should we go back to just looking?
Click to expand...

Bill,

Looking is just an intent to see what's there. However there's a lot more work for us to do. That ability to take advantage of all the ramifications of what we see depends on education and ability to imagine.

Really appreciating what one sees brings in your past experiences and values and that happens by recruiting the higher centers. This gives first identifications, interpretations of patterns of movements and significance to you and then a succession of overlapping related connections cascades into your consciousness. From that you perceive the pictures fully.

So to answer your question, "Should we go back to just [my emphasis] looking?", I'd respond, not if you wish to have moral, esthetic or culturally significant appreciation of what's before you.

Asher
 
B

Bill McCarthy

Member
the whole then is the thing you make from the reflected light meditated through your setup (camera) - made as a obetject - i guess it will only become "whole" when it is viewed - and then only to some people..

Mark and Jerome,

Not so fast, that's the point with objects, the whole is always the whole; if a rock is buried beneath the ground where nobody has ever seen it, it still is real and whole. I think that this is the "if the tree falls in the forest and no one sees or hears it, did it really fall?". You are right though, for some people the tree could fall next to them and they might not know it. However, all of this is perhaps off of the theme of this thread.

On a different note, I did follow your process Mark, more closely, just so that I would better understand, and also because I like a lot of what is happening in your images. I set my camera and focused outside my window and after processing, here is what I got.

webgrainphoto.jpg


I am reminded of the days when we would select the film for a specific "look and feel". Something shot on Panatomic X was very different than if it was shot on Tri X. I almost feel that I can manipulate this granular effect in a way that would be more like choosing film.

Also, it looks like some of the images that I use to get with a home made pin hole camera. always liked that too.
 
E

Edward Bussa

Member
I would write something pithy here, but I don't feel like it. I'd rather just hit the "Like" button to let everyone know that I was here, and that I don't necessarily have anything to add... right now at least. Laterz!
 
M

Mark Hampton

New member
Bill McCarthy said:
On a different note, I did follow your process Mark, more closely, just so that I would better understand, and also because I like a lot of what is happening in your images. I set my camera and focused outside my window and after processing, here is what I got.

webgrainphoto.jpg


I am reminded of the days when we would select the film for a specific "look and feel". Something shot on Panatomic X was very different than if it was shot on Tri X. I almost feel that I can manipulate this granular effect in a way that would be more like choosing film.

Also, it looks like some of the images that I use to get with a home made pin hole camera. always liked that too.
Click to expand...

Bill,

that is some burn.. sombre ... heavy but with touches of light on the inside.. the outside redacted by the blinds and also by the intense light .. just a enough imagined detail in the tree.. as Edward says - if there was a like a button it would have been pressed.

I agree about the use look and feel - mostly in digital this is not considered - it just Sharpe / less grain - when i was learning film we built from the film - to print - each choice was a choice to support what we wanted to convey (the subject) or make.

anyway better get back to work before its noticed !
 
B

Bill McCarthy

Member
Mark Hampton said:
Bill,

that is some burn.. sombre ... heavy but with touches of light on the inside.. the outside redacted by the blinds and also by the intense light .. just a enough imagined detail in the tree.. as Edward says - if there was a like a button it would have been pressed.

I agree about the use look and feel - mostly in digital this is not considered - it just Sharpe / less grain - when i was learning film we built from the film - to print - each choice was a choice to support what we wanted to convey (the subject) or make.

anyway better get back to work before its noticed !
Click to expand...

Edward and Mark,

Thanks for your comments, and the good idea to add a "like button". I wonder if anyone would say anything if that was the case. I appreciate, Edward, when you said “I would write something pithy here, but I don't feel like it.” A lot of the time, just checking in is a real affirmation. I want to try and do more of that, since my interest in lurking (a lot like looking) through the posts often leaves me with little time for remarks.
And Mark, I liked what you had to say. Usually I am very tight about how I work to capture an image, but in this case I was just running an experiment out my window, which in my mind turned out to be very informative and enjoyable. I too was taken by the somber nature of the view, and the overall moodiness emitting through a seemingly protective grid. This process has led me to thinking, and if I can ever free myself from current projects, I want it to inspire and inform some new work.

Bill
 
M

Mark Hampton

New member
Bill McCarthy said:
Mark, I liked what you had to say. Usually I am very tight about how I work to capture an image, but in this case I was just running an experiment out my window, which in my mind turned out to be very informative and enjoyable. I too was taken by the somber nature of the view, and the overall moodiness emitting through a seemingly protective grid. This process has led me to thinking, and if I can ever free myself from current projects, I want it to inspire and inform some new work.

Bill
Click to expand...

Bill,

take the blue pill !

when you can..

you owe it to yourself..

well I was wondering where this thread goes next - and i came up with another idea - one that moves from the grain - and the 1st burn and takes the elements that are again digital only - although I am sure the same could be done in film -

JPG compression - breaks the image when its mixed with a HRD image - shrunk and then enlarged... images made in this way have a beautiful tendency to be sharp when viewed from a distance and destroyed when viewed at close quarters...

this idea again is not mine - painters use this idea to give a sense of depth to their works - my question is what could it mean - like all ways of making work - including cross processing / stitching / sharp all over images - how does the process inform the work. If the process does not then there is no work only a shadow where the work could have been...

I had a play on another thread with my own self portrait.... the image is deliberately harsh - when viewed from 5 feet sharp - when you move closer say 2 feet - its broken - the light has been averaged ..

the image owes more to painting than photography... here is another...

annasgran.jpg


below is the same size image - this is "real print size"


annasgranss.jpg


the last image should be viewd from a distance to get the idea..

ok scotland got beat by spain so off to bed !
 
M

Mark Hampton

New member
so back on with the work - this i think needs viewed from about 8 feet to come into focus - i think I need an equation so I am not redoing the image with trail and error...




linden_3flatsmall21.jpg



year.on.one. - M Hampton​


any thoughts on how I can accuratly predict the viewing distance in relation to the size of image would be appreciated.

cheers
 
Jerome Marot

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
The human vision acuity is about 0.3 arc-minute and you want the "squares" to be below that value to merge. That means that the viewing distance must be about 10 000 times the size of the "squares". The "squares" are 8x8 pixels for jpeg compression.
 
M

Mark Hampton

New member
Jerome Marot said:
The human vision acuity is about 0.3 arc-minute and you want the "squares" to be below that value to merge. That means that the viewing distance must be about 10 000 times the size of the "squares". The "squares" are 8x8 pixels for jpeg compression.
Click to expand...

Jerome,

thanks for that - it should help me plan the distance and process to get to where I need it to be.

cheers
 
M

Mark Hampton

New member
Mark Hampton said:
Fat finger miss type action lol.
Click to expand...



two12fcsa.jpg




year.on.one. - M Hampton

​


here the image was crunched - halved in size in length/breath and resolution scaled to 72 from 300 - then jpg @ 0 and enlarged back to the original size.

the surface of the image has been smoothed out and the process has changed the deep texture from the processor.... i need to try this with a landscape...


cheers
 
B

Bill McCarthy

Member
Mark,

I’m watching, and waiting, and wondering. It seems to me, and this is an observation, that you are combining content with process with presentation. I love the process that combines with presentation to produce those exacting block like compressions. For myself, I’m not worried about distance to the viewer, as I have an overwhelming passion for grids. I love the magic tiles that become the building blocks of your creation. That being said, content plays a major role in what you are presenting. Yes, I wonder how you might work it into a landscape setting. Using fragments, parts, or all of the elements of the face in your construction, draws us in (like a moth to the flame). Looking straight into someone’s eyes creates a personal and engaging relationship that is very hard to beat.

When my kids were infants, we cut out a face of a baby from a magazine, pasted it on cardboard and hung it in their crib with them. They loved to look at “their friend”, and it seemed to have a quieting effect on them even as they tried to communicate in their earliest baby babblings. Both Kids have grown up with social skills that greatly surpass mine. I don’t know what I looked at when I was an infant!

I think that your processing is playing a major role in your presentation, and I love each step. In your first posting, the skin quality and my sense of engagement works wonderfully for me, and in your last posting, with the one hard and one soft eye, your tonal qualities and “grained “ surface combine to inform the content in a magical if not haunting way.

You mentioned early on that your first image owed more to painting than to photography and I might agree. But does anyone care? Good is good and bad is bad, and we want to stay out of the in-between. But I did immediately think of a Close encounter at the National Gallery of Art in 2002. I had met my daughter in Washington, and we went museum hopping. Here’s a snapshot of her looking at a Chuck Close “painting.” I don’t know if it was some early attachment from her infancy, but she was very moved by the work.

kateatmuseum.jpg


According to the National Gallery web site, Close worked from a black-and-white photograph of Fanny, his wife’s grandmother. He divided his canvas into a grid, and then, square by square, pressed fingerprints to the canvas to make this portrait of Fanny. Close carefully layered his fingerprints onto the canvas to build up the lines of Fanny’s face and neck.

So if he had used a stick or a brush or torn bits of processed photographic paper or digital pixel compressions, would it have made the image different? Probably not by much, but I agree the fingerprint is a very personal touch. Somehow though, I just want to look and see. I only have to know when I need the process for myself.

Sometimes (but rarely) while I am out in the natural world, I might wonder what it was like as the great glaciers tore the hell out of this planet earth. But mostly I am looking at where I am and what I’ve got. I’m wondering if it’s right or wrong, good or bad. That’s all. Then I have to reach back into myself (my experiences, my past attempts and all of the great ideas that have been tried here and there) to make it a reality.

Forgive my ramblings, I love what you are doing, but like many of my favorite hikes, I’m not sure where we are going, but I am often in hope we never get there.
 
M

Mark Hampton

New member
Bill McCarthy said:
Mark,

I’m watching, and waiting, and wondering. It seems to me, and this is an observation, that you are combining content with process with presentation. I love the process that combines with presentation to produce those exacting block like compressions. For myself, I’m not worried about distance to the viewer, as I have an overwhelming passion for grids. I love the magic tiles that become the building blocks of your creation. That being said, content plays a major role in what you are presenting. Yes, I wonder how you might work it into a landscape setting. Using fragments, parts, or all of the elements of the face in your construction, draws us in (like a moth to the flame). Looking straight into someone’s eyes creates a personal and engaging relationship that is very hard to beat.

When my kids were infants, we cut out a face of a baby from a magazine, pasted it on cardboard and hung it in their crib with them. They loved to look at “their friend”, and it seemed to have a quieting effect on them even as they tried to communicate in their earliest baby babblings. Both Kids have grown up with social skills that greatly surpass mine. I don’t know what I looked at when I was an infant!

I think that your processing is playing a major role in your presentation, and I love each step. In your first posting, the skin quality and my sense of engagement works wonderfully for me, and in your last posting, with the one hard and one soft eye, your tonal qualities and “grained “ surface combine to inform the content in a magical if not haunting way.

You mentioned early on that your first image owed more to painting than to photography and I might agree. But does anyone care? Good is good and bad is bad, and we want to stay out of the in-between. But I did immediately think of a Close encounter at the National Gallery of Art in 2002. I had met my daughter in Washington, and we went museum hopping. Here’s a snapshot of her looking at a Chuck Close “painting.” I don’t know if it was some early attachment from her infancy, but she was very moved by the work.

kateatmuseum.jpg


According to the National Gallery web site, Close worked from a black-and-white photograph of Fanny, his wife’s grandmother. He divided his canvas into a grid, and then, square by square, pressed fingerprints to the canvas to make this portrait of Fanny. Close carefully layered his fingerprints onto the canvas to build up the lines of Fanny’s face and neck.

So if he had used a stick or a brush or torn bits of processed photographic paper or digital pixel compressions, would it have made the image different? Probably not by much, but I agree the fingerprint is a very personal touch. Somehow though, I just want to look and see. I only have to know when I need the process for myself.

Sometimes (but rarely) while I am out in the natural world, I might wonder what it was like as the great glaciers tore the hell out of this planet earth. But mostly I am looking at where I am and what I’ve got. I’m wondering if it’s right or wrong, good or bad. That’s all. Then I have to reach back into myself (my experiences, my past attempts and all of the great ideas that have been tried here and there) to make it a reality.

Forgive my ramblings, I love what you are doing, but like many of my favorite hikes, I’m not sure where we are going, but I am often in hope we never get there.
Click to expand...

Bill,

your reading is correct - the work is built from the processes up to inform the reading - the last ingredient is the viewer - they make the work... if the path is well defined and they move in the same direction as I intend it works – but what ever they bring I cannot mitigate for.. the work is theirs to engage with or not...

Viewing distance - I took out a thought experiment - not finished but hey....

I buy a large plot of land in Scotland (or somewhere) - I flatten and level an area and transpose one of my block pictures onto the ground.... If I make the blocks the correct size it should be legible only by a pre determined satellite passing over head...... from the ground it will just be ploughed land (hand ploughed I guess!)... i went further - the moon on a certain day of the year... ahhh the madness of it all...

Thanks for the time you have taken to comment - I also must apologise for the time I have taken to answer - work has been busy and time at a premium...

I have been thinking of the chuck close picture the neck whole always ends me - it reminds me in a different way of the Myra By Marcus Harvey image made with children’s hand prints and also the David Camerons image made up from porno images .....


.....what happens next ..... was going to jump into either tonal range or exposure...

lol

take care ..


oh damb here is a song ! THe Fall - The Man whos head expanded

cheers
 
Cem_Usakligil

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Mark Hampton said:
opps looks like my brain hasn't caught up with where I was going next.

landscape - but focusing at the space inbewteen things.... . it may brighten the thread.....





20111112_5867.jpg



In.between.space 1 - M Hampton




20111112_5868C.jpg



In.between.space 1 - M Hampton​




cheers
Click to expand...
Mark you really should print these two large.
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Cem_Usakligil said:
Hi Mark,


Since you insist (!), I will post a couple especially for you....
Click to expand...




f36393.jpg

​



Hello Cem,

This picture is remarkable in that it seems to fit in so well with Mark's series. Is it made from a reflection in a window or constructed from several images? Now what is the provenance of your photograph? When did you take it and how did the final presentation come about. Was it made independently of Mark's work or is this influenced by his "Reading the Reading" and an homage to this entire series?

It's most rewarding to see work here supported so well and the cross currents of influence that might result from this. Bravo!

Asher
 
Cem_Usakligil

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Hi Asher,

Asher Kelman said:
f36393.jpg

​



Hello Cem,

This picture is remarkable in that it seems to fit in so well with Mark's series. Is it made from a reflection in a window or constructed from several images? Now what is the provenance of your photograph? When did you take it and how did the final presentation come about. Was it made independently of Mark's work or is this influenced by his "Reading the Reading" and an homage to this entire series?

It's most rewarding to see work here supported so well and the cross currents of influence that might result from this. Bravo!

Asher
Click to expand...
Yes indeed, this pictures fits in well; that is why I have posted it after all. It predates my reading of this thread and the development of it to include pictures. Another version of my picture has been presented here (the 3rd picture from the top); to which Mark has responded kindly. So, the picture has not been influenced by Mark's thread but the final presentation has been. Normally, I would not have added the heavy grain like this to my presentation. Other than that, the framing, the selective focusing using extreme tilt of the lens, the subject, the composition etc. represent the ideas I have been playing with myself. But yes, there certainly is a big correlation. Great minds and what have you.... ;)

PS: On a related note, we have had a very good discussion in this thread about the phenomenon of "contemporary artists who employ the concept of incorporating viewers and surrounding environment into their works" (quote by Ken Tanaka). This is an important thread to read, especially in case somebody wonders about the aspects of making art based on existing art, like I did in this picture.
 
Jerome Marot

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Definitely, pictures having an object in front of what appears to be the subject as in "kylie" belong to a thread about how the viewer reads the image. I should say that I hesitated to publish my picture of a beach in this thread. In the end, I decided against, because I am not quite sure I understand what is the exact subject of this thread. It started with the discussion about the viewer reading, but then moved to post-treatment adding noise or subsampling the data (the little squares of jpeg). I am quite confused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top