Please share your immediate response to the image before reading the photographer’s intent (obscured text below) or other comments. The photographer seeks a genuinely unbiased first impression.
Questions to guide your feedback
Given the title, what do you make of this image? Is it common? Is there any value in the common?
Other Information
Please leave your feedback before viewing the blurred information below, once you have replied, click to reveal the text and see if your assessment aligns with the photographer. Remember, this if for their benefit to learn what your unbiased reaction is.
Image Description
This is one of those ‘vision’ images. I walked by and peered under a ledge and was moved by what I saw. I can’t say why but I still feel that way. So I’m posting this.
Technical Details
GFX50R, 45-100mm, f/11, focus stacked
Specific Feedback
Do you feel that more space is required on the left?
Critique Template
Use of the template is optional, but it can help spark ideas.
Although the underneath side of the ledge is not completely revealed, I can see your fascination with the scene, Igor. My first thought was “hidden treasures.” Wonderful detail and textures.
I don’t think “the common” should ever be dismissed for being common. I’m not even sure what that means exactly. Can we really separate the sacred from the mundane? That all being said, this image feels to me more like a sketch - that you’re looking for the something that drew your attention but haven’t quite found it. It’s in that sense that this image feels unrealized to me. There are many elements that are interesting, to be sure - the rocks cradled in the limbs, for example. But somehow I don’t feel this image holds together, which is very unusual in my experience of your work over the years.
Oh. I’m sorry you feel that way. It makes me want to dig my heels in deeper, which is not a good thing. I knew this image would be questionable. I suppose that’s why I posted it. To push my boundaries. To make something I find beautiful that many won’t. To play a hunch.
Ah well, Igor, I don’t have to tell you that nothing I or anyone can say about your vision or voice could conceivably be “the truth”. This is not an image that moves me personally but obviously it is very meaningful to you and for that I salute you. Certainly we don’t grow as artists by playing it safe and if this image is, as you say, pushing your boundaries than I can only say more power to you - and I mean that sincerely. I confess, I was reticent about sharing my feelings about this image because it didn’t have much impact on me, and you know what “they” say - “If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all” . I know, for myself, that there is a part of me, when I share an image for critique, that wants to get something like, “It’s brilliant, don’t touch a thing” and sometimes that is nice. But I’ve never learned much from it.
I’m not sure about the validity of the question. “Good” or “bad”… according to whom or compared to what? I don’t think there is a more pointless question that an artist can ask about their work, either to themselves or the world than, “Is this any good?”
But I’m assuming that the conversation you were referring to, placed the emphasis on whether anyone else sees it or not. I used to try and soothe my delicate ego by telling myself that the only thing that really mattered was the creative process and that the “product” was entirely secondary or even irrelevant. I am no longer of that belief. While for me, the creative process is core in the sense that if it weren’t for that level of experience I wouldn’t be making photographs, since there would be no possibility for the kind of personal fulfillment that would motivate me. But there is also the question of being in the world, which is to say, relationship. Through the creative process of photography I am able to cultivate vision. But there is also the issue of “voice” - the expression that I alone can give to my vision, the purpose of which is to engage in and contribute to my relationship with the world. That to me - to be in relationships that extend beyond my self - is of critical importance in the sense that bringing what I have to offer into the world is an invitation to connect. I may never get specific feedback as to where or with whom those connections were made but, nonetheless, it is why it feels important to me to release my work into the world. I think of the American photographer Vivian Maier. It is clear to me at least, that she was no less brilliant an artist because no one saw a single piece of her work in her lifetime. But when I watched the documentary as well a reading about her, her life seemed heartbreakingly vacant and cruelly isolated.
To say “I am a photographer” says little about who I am; who I be. Photography is something I do to which I bring who I am. That I love doing photography is because my experience tells me that there is a meaningful fit in this case, between my being and my doing. But if I believe I have something to say - something of value to offer - then I also have a responsibility to deliver it into the world.
Igor, I sincerely hope what I’ve said here only serves to further muddy the waters
Kerry - I just watched this documentary last week- riveting, heartbreaking, compelling, mystifying, and 1000 other adjectives.
How sad that she was not known in her lifetime, but there were surely many personal reasons she was unable to share her work when alive.
Thanks for mentioning this -
Our talk led to Maier as well. Here I must disagree. I think she was one of the most fortunate people on the planet. She figured out how to make every moment of her life with the camera a revelation of how truly special life is. When she went on her explorations with the camera she lived more fully than just about anyone. It took me a lifetime to figure that out for myself.
I agree that being a ‘photographer’ means little. For me ‘seeing’ is the crux of the matter. Recording it is of much lesser interest. The only value in recording it is experiencing the ‘seeing’ again, with all the accompanying emotions. ‘Seeing’ is, to me. ‘being’. It’s being conscious. Being alive more fully. To ‘see’ well is the best way to squeeze the juice of the fruit of the gift of life. However, we are social animals and what others think of us is an important part of our DNA. Hell, why are we here at NPN if what others think doesn’t matter. So, the value of a painting is related to it’s value to others. But we don’t create for the sake of others. Or I don’t think so.
Well, most would consider this very common. But, did you? I can see the attraction, as Kerry said, with the way the roots gracefully stretch across the frame and cradle the rocks. But, like Kerry, it doesn’t speak to me. For me, the dryness of the scene is off putting - it brings to mind the last hot, dry days of summer. If it were damp or wet, I think it would be more attractive for me.
Is there value in the common? Yes, for some. Most of our lives are spent in common places, not grand landscapes. Your point about seeing is important in light of that - seeing the “wonderful” in the everyday makes life interesting.
I was just saying this to my husband the other day. It’s being out in the world and the noticing and seeing that is the main joy of photography. If someone else appreciates the resulting photo, that is the icing on the cake.
I’ve decided to convert this to black and white and share it with you. One of the things I liked about the original was that it was monochromatic. That reduced it to lines, shapes, and shades. I still like it very much, btw.
Anyway, back to Michael Kenna and Wabi Sabi video.
. I know, for myself, that there is a part of me, when I share an image for critique, that wants to get something like, “It’s brilliant, don’t touch a thing” and sometimes that is nice. But I’ve never learned much from it.