Okay, I woke up early and have some time this morning... I operate a small home-based business that I started over two years ago. I am getting into it more and more. It's sort of part-time, but even though it is, it does mean that I am somewhat a "working stiff" and my time is limited because of it. If I have to choose between it and the PDML, PDML will always come in last. And I have also unsubscribed a great deal over the last three years, because I find sometimes I end up spending my mornings reading/writing to PDML, shot my morning, in other words. So I unsubscribe to not be tempted to shoot my morning, and get some work done when it has piled up.
That's number one. Number two is, I no longer get into heavy discussions on the Net. When I first got on line I stupidly thought that if someone misunderstood me I was obligated somehow to clear up the misunderstanding. Or if someone wanted to "debate" me, somehow I was obligated to get involved. That was many long years ago, but over time I have changed a great deal in my attitude. I have never liked debate, I tend to see it as very much a male thing. He presents his side, I present my side, who ever has presented their side the best, "wins." Nope. I will never present my side the best because of my dyslexia. Someone else can always talk (write) rings around me. And does it make ME change my mind?, nope, not usually. So what's the point? The point really is, the debate is for others, not me, to prove to others that I was a big stupid idiot (i.e. the one proving is the other one in the debate). Discussion, yes, it can be different than debate. But there is another factor. To think things through in a very linear manner and write them as clearly as possible takes me time. Sometimes a great deal more time than a more verbally fluent person would realize. So sometimes someone that can dash off a very, very clear and brief reply say in five minutes, would have no idea that to do the same probably would take me half an hour to forty-five minutes or more. This, for instance, I am writing very fast, but I am not trying to be superclear and superbrief. To be brief, I have to edit and edit and edit. So, overall, writing brief and clear, clear, clear is very mentally draining for me -- it takes a lot of time and energy and thought. This is something a non-dyslexic cannot really understand. And it is why I now tend to avoid long Net discussions now. I definitely avoid all debates now. Debates are lose-win situations with absolutely no appeal. That's number two. I will be long when I write fast, and that's the way it is. I guess there is an appendum to the above, the more I disclose the longer I write, if someone wants to debate, the more handle it gives someone. IE the more words there are to react to, the more someone can "pounce" on things I have written, find holes, etc., etc. Those that really love to debate, that is. So I tend not to write long anymore in newsgroups, mailing lists, etc., either. I don't like giving argumentative people even more to work with. So you may well have wanted a discussion, not a debate, but for the above reasons, nope, I rarely do that anymore either. Discuss with others, not me. :-) Since when I write fast, I write long, not brief, I write fast and long mainly now only in private email. Okey, dokey, now onto the critique. I am a very visual person. Maybe the dyslexia is a factor, shrug, who knows. (Note that I am also an extremely fast reader.) I test out like a man in being high in spatial skills. I started life doing art work and by my twenties thought of myself as an artist. I used to oil paint. But I never did a lot because I also found out by my late twenties that only .001 percentage of fine artists made a living at it. NOT good odds. I changed my college major to computer science. I have done some art work over the intervening years, but not much. I now want to combine photography and art, and moving more and more in that direction. But it will always be a sideline, not something I can do all the time. So I react to things visual in a visual and visceral way. Sometimes I have reactions that I cannot put fully into words, or that I cannot put immediately into words. Also when I look at photographs I tend to come from the artist side of things. The composition, etc. I am still learning photography and because of that and because I still get f/stops confused, I will rarely comment in a technical manner. Like Peter recently showed a beach pic that I thought the clouds looked blown out. But I will hesitate to say that because I am not sure. Not totally positive. http://www.mindspring.com/~morephotos/PESO_--_connzenvi.html Later, someone else did say it. I will tend to say if something looks too dark to me, or oversharpened, but that is about it on the technical side. Mainly I make comments on composition, or if the photo "grabbed me" in some way. I leave technical comments to others who know what the fuck they are talking about. :-) That's number three. When I looked at your gallery, I did not care for it, NOT because you said you were shooting like someone else, but because I did not care for it. Because, however, you said you were shooting like someone else, I decided that was the reason that it seemed below your previous minimalist work. Not quite up to snuff. That's number four. So I will comment on the pics with no reference to you shooting like someone else. Let's just leave that out. I think that part is that got you going, though, right? Well that was not a big factor to me. See the above. There are questions involved, though, that deal with other things. What makes something satisfyingly minimalist? Don't know. When is there NOT enough information to make the photo engaging? Not sure. When is there just enough to make it engaging but still minimalist? Not sure. It does seem to be a fine line to walk though. Let's look at some of your recent photos. (Note that this whole critique also took me at least two to three hours mental prep time, thinking about it over the last two days -- probably closer to two. To take my gut reactions and turn them into possible words). http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/08.htm Tree and Sky -- okay for me, this one did not have ENOUGH information to be as pleasing as it could be. I would have preferred it sans the blurry tree top at the bottom and much, much closer up. Then it could be like a Japanese brush painting. However, others, quite a few, liked it very much. http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/09.htm Clover -- okay I liked this a great deal, and it remains minimalist. What did I like about it? -- the juxtaposition of the clover and the flower, juxtaposition of shapes as well as color. But also the clover has black dots (probably eaten by something). The clover itself has character. I think when it comes to minimalist, I want character. I couldn't say that is the case in all cases. But minimalist reminds me of the "found object" exercise in drawing classes. Go out and find an object then draw it by itself. Get into experiencing it, get into really, really looking at it. For something so simple it must have character to engage me. Something probably more than lines or shadows or whatever, something that makes it unique. It may be representative of its kind, but something that also makes it distinctive. I can't say this is true in all cases, for me, but it seems to be true overall. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pictures/peso/shakers.html One of William shots people went goo-ga over. It's not just character, because I suppose these salt and pepper shakers have character (little bit of grain on top), it's also an instinct for composition. I found this composition totally boring. Centered. Tells me nothing. I suppose it's an adequate graphic, per se, but I found it extremely static. Others raved about it. Well, William doesn't actually take that many good shots, so that's fine. But this is a shot I definitely feel I could take -- with very little thought on my part. There is some texture contrast, the sort of pebbly tablecloth and the shiny shakers, but the composition is boring, boring, boring. Even the angle seems somewhat wrong to me. Higher up or lower down it could have been a LOT more interesting. Wish I could explain better why this particular shot left me cold. Anyway, so I look a lot at composition. And also one of the things I look for in shots from other people is *their* take on something. Something *they* put into it, putting themselves into it somehow. If something looks to me that I could take it with minimal skills, myself, without a lot of thought or work, then I am sort of turned off. I am looking for more than that. That is not to say I am looking for more from everyone, just the better and/or more experienced ones. Novices need all the encouragement they can get. So a pleasing minimalist shot seems to need very good composition. Maybe BETTER composition than a non minimalist shot might have. (Kind of losing my train of thought here, but I will persist. Although I cannot keep going with this much longer.) Back to another shot of yours, bearing in mind the above questions about minimalism. http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/03.htm Conduit and Cable - okay, I sort of liked this. It has something a lot of your minimalist shots have had -- contrast in texture and light and dark. Makes a good graphic. It almost looks too much like a conduit and cable, making us wonder why we are bothering looking at it, and not enough minimalism, not enough, for lack of a better word, abstraction. Paul looked at it and had that reaction. Huh? Conduit and Cable, big deal. I veered more the other way, nice abstraction of shiny and light and dark and rough. But this was definitely a border line shot for me. This may be your most borderline shot to date. At least of the ones I have looked at. It almost has TOO MUCH information rather than TOO LITTLE. It borders somewhere between minimalist enough and not minimalist enough. I do think it is a very fine line to walk. When is there enough to make people be engaged, to hold their interest, to make them take a second look, to make them see something familiar in a new way? And when is there not enough to even engage them, to not make them take a second look? A fine line to walk. And when is there enough to just make a pleasing graphic, eye candy, something pleasing to the eye, if nothing else? (Running out of stem, but still have a bit to go. Onward.) http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/23.htm Two trees against white wall -- This is almost borderline too, but not quite. I liked this one. You can tell you are looking at two trees, the lines are pleasing, there are lines, there is a slight contrast in texture in the white areas, but the trees are the main focus. If the trees hadn't been there it would NOT have been engaging enough. At least to me. I would not have been interested in a second look. It also has something else I have noticed in a lot of your minimalist stuff. Actually, two things. Straight lines offset by curved ones. Sometimes an intersection of the two, sometimes a juxtaposition, sometimes they are just in the same frame. And a combo of nature and manmade. Well, that would be natural, wouldn't it? Most straight lines, not all, but most, really straight lines are manmade. But a combo of textures from manmade and nature. Nature sometimes is the thing that has more texture, as in this photo and sometimes the manmade has more texture as in this photo: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/17.htm So, overall, Godfrey, I like your minimalist stuff. But overall, it also seems to have a juxtaposition of lines, curving and straight; juxtaposition of nature and manmade; and a juxtaposition of textures, smooth to very textured. Sometimes, for me, there is too much information, taking it out of the arena of abstraction and into the realm of why I am bothering to look at a wire? And sometimes there is too little information making one wonder why I am bothering to look at line? There is a fine balance, and sometimes I feel, personally, in my humble opinion, that you hit it right on and sometimes you don't. Which brings me back to the original questions I raised... What makes something satisfyingly minimalist? Don't know. When is there NOT enough information to make the photo engaging? Not sure. When is there just enough to make it engaging but still minimalist? Not sure. It's a fine line to walk. And it must be somewhat subjective too. The only way you know you've hit it with others is when a majority reacts in a positive way. But it will always be partly subjective too. For someone it may hit right on, and for me it may not. For you it may, and for a majority it may not. Subjective. (I am not going to go into symbols here and how most of us will respond, maybe even on a subconscious level, favorably to symbols. Even if we don't fully understand that we are. But symbols can be culturally oriented, and not universal enough. The best symbols are the ones that are most universal. But not going there, that could be a whole another email. :-)) Now the soft light gallery. http://www.gdgphoto.com/softlights/ (I am going to skip over the cupboard, I already said what I didn't like about it. Some others raved. But to go into a more fulsome critique of it would take me too long, and I am now up to an hour writing this. At least an hour, I didn't start timing it, except an for hour ago. I suspect it is actually longer.) I am going to react to the other photos. Okay, overall, I find the compositions, boring. All straight lines, no tension, very static to me. That was a great deal of the basis for my negative reaction. All very square and straight lined. Also, I felt I could shoot them and shoot them as well. I saw little Godfrey in them. (Remember looking for that other in other's work, what of themselves they put into their work.) And the high key, well, it removes a lot of the distinctiveness of each thing. No fingerprints around the doorknob on the door. That sort of thing. I felt it removed the character from a lot of the objects/things. It even removes the texture from the wall, a great deal. So that there is less juxtaposition in textures as well, as there being only straight lines, really. Lack of character and texture, two things I probably look for in minimalist stuff. Not always and not every time, but things I do react positively to in minimalism. I felt they, also, had no soul. I suppose that is the where is Godfrey? reaction that I had. What did Godfrey bring to these? Really I thought they were something I could have shot, had static boring compositions, and had no character or uniqueness. Were "cut and dried." They were (are) not distinctive. Not distinctive of anything in particular, except what appears to be a pretty new (or very new or very well maintained) apartment building or condo complex. Like places I have lived myself. But with no particular character or distinctiveness or "soul" to set up any emotional resonance in me. I hope that is clear. Because I have definitely run out of steam. I may give this one more proof and that will be it. But maybe not. Getting tired and got to get some things done this morning. I guess Godfrey, I just want to add, that when I make comments on PESOs I may be having a whole lot of reactions going on that would take a lot of time and effort to put into words. But it does not mean my reactions are "shallow," there is stuff behind what I say. And I feel there are quite a few others on this list like me, visual people who may not always expound a lot in words, but it doesn't mean they aren't really bringing themselves to viewing other's PESOs. For instance, Dave or Doug or some body who barely seems able to write a coherent complete sentence (although he has improved a lot), but is obviously a very visual person. One cannot make assumptions that people are not bring a lot to their reactions just based on what they say. But I am not trying to be condescending when I say that, I do presume you know that. I am just reminding you. And I hope this doesn't sound condescending either. You are a very intelligent man, both highly visual and highly verbal, you NEVER EVER, in my humble opinion, have to feel that anyone can condescend to you or is being condescending to you. Just remember, though, please, that not everyone is capable of being as highly verbal as yourself. And not everyone wants to bother either, or take the time, if they can be. And please, please never expect another in-depth critique from me. (Not that you expected one this time :-), I am just saying that I am very, very unlikely to do this again. Consider it an honor and then you come close, because I have only done a few times for a few people. LOL. Hehehehe.) And I certainly do not expect you to AGREE with me, but I am giving you my reactions as clearly and honestly as I can. Take Care, Later, Marnie aka Doe ;-) (One more quick proof of the last 1/4th then off. Up to an hour and a half now. -- Very quick proof done, now send it off and hope I don't really annoy the heck out of Godfrey instead of maybe clearing something up.) <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
