Cloud

Jerome,

this one made me smile and one of my first thoughts was 'Cloud photography meets Gursky a the Rhine river'.

There are uncounted variations possible varying the height of the horizon and the postition of the cloud, but why not this way?!

Thanks for showing.

Best regards,
Michael

Michael Nagel said:

Jerome,

this one made me smile and one of my first thoughts was 'Cloud photography meets Gursky a the Rhine river'.

Click to expand...

I'm amazed how much folk would pay for his work. That went for $4.2 million, here. Can anyone explain; did it open up a new way of looking at things? Well here's a quote from that article:

"Gursky has called Rhein II - one of an edition of six photographs - his favourite image, saying it was an "allegorical picture about the meaning of life and how things are", The Guardian reported, quoting a previous interview. The artist removed all features in the photograph, including a building, dog walkers and cyclists, the newspaper said.

Culture journalist Florence Waters wrote in London's Daily Telegraph that Gursky's photograph represented the growth in the late 1980s of the photograph as art. "The scale, attention to colour and form of his photography can be read as a deliberate challenge to painting's status as a higher art form," she said. "On top of that, Gursky's images are extraordinary technical accomplishments, which take months to set up in advance, and require a lot of digital doctoring to get just right." For McFarlane, Gursky's work represents the austerity of 21st-century German art. The artist took the Rhine, the lifeblood of German industry, and portrayed it in the most minimalist way possible, he said.

"This picture in its simplicity is really quite contemplative and oddly calming. In an odd sort of way, you could live with this picture. "But I personally hunger for more lyricism ... I think [Gursky's works] are a completely valid statement. But they don't touch the heart. They touch the head. The heart gets left behind."​

Michael Nagel said:

but why not this way?!

Click to expand...

Michael,

Now that you've made this startling, powerful and convincing comparison, it's hard to undo it and clear it from our minds.

Asher

Asher,

I could not help it - there are element that are just there.


Jerome,

I hope you don't mind, but I have to widen the interpretation a little.

The low angle has something of Eggleston, so it can be seen as an Eggleston - Gursky Cloud picture, but it was your choice, so maybe it is just my interpretation describing something that escapes me.

Best regards,
Michael

Are you mocking me, Michael?

Jerome,

Blame it on my narrow vision. The price of the Gursky picture shocked me. The series you presented using Egglestons point of view was quite impressive. The angle of view and the simplicity of the composition are there and I do not have other comparisons handy.

When I wrote the above, I was under the impression that the way of expressing critique could be different, but this was not intended as you seem to have seen it.

Please accept my excuses and don't hold back when I post a picture in the same section.

Sorry.

Best regards,
Michael

Guys,

I'm delighted by both of you. I'm grateful to have this level of photography and discussion here. When we make pictures that seem to be in the architecture of other artists, it doesn't imply that there's a direct connection. Rather, it must be recognized that you Jerome, Mursky and Eggleston all live in the modern word which still has grass and flowers with the straight edges of an industrial planned landscape. In addition, we're all impressed by roughly the same stochastic influences of photographic masters and painters.


@Michael

What of William Eggleston evoked you making that connection here with Jerome's picture. Was it Eggleston's insertion of flowers in what would be so much akin to Mursky's pristine surgically cleaned landscapes as in this picture? Are some angle you notice?


@Jerome,

Did these connections come to mind and do you think they are apt?

Asher

Jerome Marot said:

​

Click to expand...

Jerome,

I've been looking at your picture on many occasions and thinking about my response. The picture immediately stopped me in my tracks. I was transfixed by the unusual formation and absence of obviousness. But I was not bored, not in the least! On the contrary, I was asked to linger and I did. This is a piece that allows for musing, clearing one's mind and flexing one's imagination to fill the void.

I like the transverse blocks of sky and grass. The scattered flowers, (or highlights seeming to represent flowers), add some sentiment to what would otherwise risk being an unemotional and unfeeling architectural composition. But then I didn't know for certain what I was looking at. I even studied the skyline and stopped for a while at a spot 3 cm in from the left where I thought maybe there was a building in the far, far distance, even a windmill. Likely it's just another clump of glass, by happenstance a little bolder than the rest. Still, this one odd speck is a stopping point as my eyes wander over the picture and I have to re-interrogate the image to know what it is. The uncertainly is by no means a distraction, rather a gift to us.

My immediate feeling was admiration for the stark simplicity. Yes, I was very troubled by the cloud. At first, I wondered whether, (being humorous), you photographed your OOF cat against the background of a cloud, but that didn't stand up to scrutiny. Then I thought this could be a combination of two pictures, a cat and then the grass and cloud. Finally I wondered whether this really was a cloud and not the beginnings of a twister!

All this was well before any commit from Michael. I never made his critical connections, LOL! I guess I was too lost in reading the image itself to consider, realize or recognize how your unusual picture might fit into to the grander scheme of art history. Now, I'm even more impressed!

Thanks for sharing!

Asher

The clean lines and the color reminded me immediately of Gursky's expensive picture and my words were aiming some aspects of the art business. The low position reminded me of Eggleston.

It is like lying on a grassy slope looking uphill, seeing a cloud and wondering where it may come from while the grass is tickling your chin.

Best regards,
Michael

Michael Nagel said:

Blame it on my narrow vision. The price of the Gursky picture shocked me. The series you presented using Egglestons point of view was quite impressive. The angle of view and the simplicity of the composition are there and I do not have other comparisons handy.

When I wrote the above, I was under the impression that the way of expressing critique could be different, but this was not intended as you seem to have seen it.

Please accept my excuses and don't hold back when I post a picture in the same section.

Click to expand...

There is nothing to excuse. I was just wondering. I am asking for critique, not praise or flattery. I don't see my pictures compared to the most expensive picture in the world very often.

Asher Kelman said:

@Michael

What of William Eggleston evoked you making that connection here with Jerome's picture. Was it Eggleston's insertion of flowers in what would be so much akin to Mursky's pristine surgically cleaned landscapes as in this picture? Are some angle you notice?


@Jerome,

Did these connections come to mind and do you think they are apt?

Click to expand...

I don't see the connection with Eggleston (except the low viewpoint, but that is rare in Eggleston's work). The connection with Gursky is apt, since the two pictures have similar colors and horizontal construction of the grass. But I claim ignorance or both the Eggleston picture cited above (which I did not know about prior to this discussion) and of Gursky's picture. I learned about "Rhein II" in that thread and that was about a month after I took that picture.

Asher Kelman said:

Jerome,

I've been looking at your picture on many occasions and thinking about my response. The picture immediately stopped me in my tracks. I was transfixed by the unusual formation and absence of obviousness. But I was not bored, not in the least! On the contrary, I was asked to linger and I did. This is a piece that allows for musing, clearing one's mind and flexing one's imagination to fill the void.

I like the transverse blocks of sky and grass. The scattered flowers, (or highlights seeming to represent flowers), add some sentiment to what would otherwise risk being an unemotional and unfeeling architectural composition. But then I didn't know for certain what I was looking at. I even studied the skyline and stopped for a while at a spot 3 cm in from the left where I thought maybe there was a building in the far, far distance, even a windmill. Likely it's just another clump of glass, by happenstance a little bolder than the rest. Still, this one odd speck is a stopping point as my eyes wander over the picture and I have to re-interrogate the image to know what it is. The uncertainly is by no means a distraction, rather a gift to us.

My immediate feeling was admiration for the stark simplicity. Yes, I was very troubled by the cloud. At first, I wondered whether, (being humorous), you photographed your OOF cat against the background of a cloud, but that didn't stand up to scrutiny. Then I thought this could be a combination of two pictures, a cat and then the grass and cloud. Finally I wondered whether this really was a cloud and not the beginnings of a twister!

All this was well before any commit from Michael. I never made his critical connections, LOL! I guess I was too lost in reading the image itself to consider, realize or recognize how your unusual picture might fit into to the grander scheme of art history. Now, I'm even more impressed!

Click to expand...

Thank you for the critique. The spot on the left is indeed a stem of grass (I have the picture in a much higher resolution). There are more details to be seen in the full resolution picture, notably insects flying (and sensor dust...). The little black spot hovering over the right is a bumblebee. Maybe I should add a few more insects if I print this image big, that would be very "Gursky-like".

As to the cloud, I still have no idea what it was. It was most probably created by human activity (smoke or condensation) but it was not possible to walk and see where it came from. The picture is very much how the situation appeared to the viewer, the viewpoint is not particularly low, this is the side of a small hill. I came out of the cover of a forest, there was this green slope with a cloud above it. I took the picture, then tried to climb the hill to see the other side and found an impassable fence and trees blocking the view.

I don't think the cloud of smoke adds much value.