BS13 (A study of place)

A

Andrew J

Messages
10
Edit My Images
No




So this is a photograph taken from a series of images I took for a short University project.

For the brief we were sent out with different postcodes and told to go to the areas and try and describe (photographically) the place(s) that we found. Looking at the people, the topography, and perhaps the issues of the area.

This is currently un edited and I'm aware of various slight technical and compositional errors but for now I'm more interested in what feelings/ideas it does or does not instil in people's minds.
 
I'm struggling to see what you're trying to accomplish with this photograph. To me, in all honesty it looks like a snapshot taken without any thought atall. Sorry it's just not doing much for me. Perhaps if the bush wasn't taking up the bottom third,it might look better, as it's out of focus it distracts the eye. (y)
 
Last edited:
im unsure what the story is in this picture.
is it that the place is full of appartments and people hang the washing out almost in public?

the bush detracts from this... maybe if you could see more of the built up area with the washing?
 
For me this photo comunicates the horrors of urbanised areas, and is a reminde for me of why I like landscapes of natural settings.

As for the hedge I feel it gives a sense of looking into this strange world.

I'd like to point out that this photo, aesthetical, is rather unpleasent. Which is what makes it for me.

I'd also never hang it on one of my walls. However it might work well in some exibitions.
 
Ok, So I was interested in the contrast between different elements within the frame and the way they reflected the area; predominately the tension between the abrupt almost industrial windows on the left and the soft, domestic washing on the right.

I got the impression the area had quite a degree of social tension. A lot of the people I spoke to there complained about '' imigrants ' moving in and spoiling the area' and people living off benefit and not contributing (blah blah blah) The usual Daily Mail stuff. All in all It felt quite fractured.

With those feelings in mind I liked the idea of adding a mish mash of layers within the image to try and add a bit of tension but with the aim of being more implicit rather than explicit with the tension I was trying to show by using the urban landscape as a subject rather than the people I spoke to

The ideas I've talked about are massively clear in this image by itself but it does sit within a series of photos with repetition and themes to help bring the ideas out.
 
I think that, in the context of the brief, strangely this works but it shouldn't.

The OOF hedge, dominant in the foreground, should be a huge no no, but somehow it gives a sense of an outsider furtively peering over it for a glimpse of this strange community and thus draws the viewer into the picture. Rather than a barrier it actually works better than a leading line.

The light, too, helps. It's flat and boring, matching the mood of the picture exactly. It shouldn't work, but.....

Then there's the composition, it doesn't really tell us much about the location at all. But it does contain enough to hint at an estate of small appartments and tightly packed budget housing with apparently little going on except the mundane everyday chores such as washing. In fact, framed by parts of two buildings the washing becomes the main focus of attention, helped by needing to overcome another visual barrier to it, the wall. It's almost as if that mundane, uninteresting line of washing gains some inexplicable allure by the viewer being denied more than a distant glimpse, and certainly no physical access to it.

Which leads on to the "issues of the area" part of the brief. Older members who are also prog rock fans might remember this Pink Floyd lyric:-

Arnold Layne had a strange hobby
Collecting clothes
Moonshine washing line
They suit him fine

On the wall hung a tall mirror
Distorted view, see through baby blue
He dug it
Oh, Arnold Layne
It's not the same, takes two to know
Two to know, two to know, two to know
Why can't you see?

Arnold Layne, Arnold Layne, Arnold Layne, Arnold Layne

Now he's caught - a nasty sort of person.
They gave him time
Doors bang - chain gang - he hates it

Oh, Arnold Layne
It's not the same, takes two to know
two to know, two to know, two to know,
Why can't you see?

Arnold Layne, Arnold Layne, Arnold Layne, Arnold Layne
Don't do it again.


So now we can guess who might be peering furtively over the hedge at that oh so lovely line of washing, so tempting, so near and yet so far!

On the face of it a rather poor image but when you think a bit deeper maybe a very clever one? It got me thinking and if a photograph can do that, it's successful. Not every photograph is intended to be beautiful enough to hang on a wall.
 
Last edited:
I thought this photo might provoke a bit more of a response than this, as it's a bit avant-garde compared with what we usualy get on this board. Does any else have an opinion about this image?
 
not wanting to really attempt your ideology
but what was your impression that this photograph conveyed
technicality aside it appears to me to be a bit of washing in a residential area
and i would assume the impression was...domesticity
 
Hadley said:
For me this photo comunicates the horrors of urbanised areas, and is a reminde for me of why I like landscapes of natural settings.
Click to expand...

What horrors? How does it communicate it? :thinking:

I honestly can't see anything in it. I have read what the OP was trying to capture but for me this picture says nothing. Sorry, just my opinion. :shrug:
 
Andrew J said:
For the brief we were sent out with different postcodes and told to go to the areas and try and describe (photographically) the place(s) that we found. Looking at the people, the topography, and perhaps the issues of the area.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the actual photographic aspects of the image, I really don't think that it conveys anything about BS13. Nobody from the area would ever know that it was supposed to represent BS13, when I think about the photographic representations that are available to you in that area, I am surprised at your choice.
 
tatty said:
What horrors? How does it communicate it? :thinking:

I honestly can't see anything in it. I have read what the OP was trying to capture but for me this picture says nothing. Sorry, just my opinion. :shrug:
Click to expand...

The photo is unattractive in it's composition (for me), and in the context of a biult up area together it comunicated a dislike for the urban environment through associating the two things together.
 
this pic makes me feel slightly uncomfortable as it feels a bit intrusive, even maybe a bit of a peeping tom sort of feel
If thats what you are trying to convey that you are an outsider looking in, it has worked...
 
Andrew J said:
Ok, So I was interested in the contrast between different elements within the frame and the way they reflected the area; predominately the tension between the abrupt almost industrial windows on the left and the soft, domestic washing on the right.

I got the impression the area had quite a degree of social tension. A lot of the people I spoke to there complained about '' imigrants ' moving in and spoiling the area' and people living off benefit and not contributing (blah blah blah) The usual Daily Mail stuff. All in all It felt quite fractured.

With those feelings in mind I liked the idea of adding a mish mash of layers within the image to try and add a bit of tension but with the aim of being more implicit rather than explicit with the tension I was trying to show by using the urban landscape as a subject rather than the people I spoke to

The ideas I've talked about are massively clear in this image by itself but it does sit within a series of photos with repetition and themes to help bring the ideas out.
Click to expand...

I am sure your lecturers will appreciate your thoughts but to be frank it is a pretty poor image to meet your brief.

Massively clear how?

I hope you are at art school as that will fit in with the usual drivel they extoll.
 
To Mr Crow: The main idea I wanted to try and push with this image was a feel of subtle tension. i really liked the little clash between the imposing windows and brick walls with the Washing. With regards to the foreground hedge that has sparked some compositional revolution. I decided to keep it in because It jarred and clashed, hopefully adding to this idea of jarring layers.

Obviously post structuralist theories teach us that meaning is never fixed and is less to do with what the photographer gives in signs and the structure of those signs within an image and more about what the viewer brings. In terms of their cultural exposure, their personal experiences.

For example I've focused on a few details here in BS13 but they may well mean very different things to different people. If that was your washing you might just be thinking about how it rained that day and messed up your linen. I don't know,

Which is precisely the point:

Meaning is never fixed and incredibly hard to force in an image by itself. Which is why it's important to contextualise work by using captions, explanations of projects and in the placement of an image for display. Shown here in low res is very different so back projected in the Tate or Screen printed onto cardboard you found in a skip. The way work is contextualised is really important in communicating your ideas.
I'm only in my second year though and am not perfectly proficient at this.
 
From the O.P

"For the brief we were sent out with different postcodes and told to go to the areas and try and describe (photographically) the place(s) that we found. Looking at the people, the topography, and perhaps the issues of the area."

You seem to be missing a huge part of the brief Andrew. You have told us more about the area than this photo has done. :shrug:
 
The idea of the brief wasn't necessarily to describe the area as a whole, rather than to look at details. Nevertheless this just one from a series of images and in terms of 'describing' the area I think they work better as a whole.

But yeah, you are right. This image by itself doesn't do a particularly good job of matching the brief.

I think when it's contextualised with the other images and quotes from the people in the area I think it works better to 'describe BS13'
 
Andrew J said:
Meaning is never fixed and incredibly hard to force in an image by itself. Which is why it's important to contextualise work by using captions, explanations of projects and in the placement of an image for display.
Click to expand...

WRONG! If a photograph cannot speak for itself and convey to the viewer what the photographer wants them to see, without the use of captions or explanations, then it has failed. Stills photography is one of the most powerful mediums of communication. With that attitude you will never make a successful photographer.
 
A quick look at BS13 in Google Maps...there's allotments, an industrial estate (complete with yellow cranes), and domestic housing...

I'd suggest there's many more juxtapositions that could be used, and make a better picture; to me it looks as though you've stood on your back step and said "what can I see..."
 
Andrew J, long-crowned the enfant terrible of the art world, has, through his latest ontological BS13, transformed our so-called familiar landscape of Talk Photography into something self-referential, stochastic, and yet at the same time mundane. One recalls the Dadaists and the soup cans of Andy Warhol, and one reflects on the normative paradigmatic shift of our hermeneutical age. There are those who will view BS13 as a didactic polemic, little more than a bete noire, still others who will see it as replete with a fertile esthetic, and others will want to burn themselves into a fiery crisp on national television, imitating (perhaps) the Buddhist monks of yesteryear, whose saffron-colored robes BS13 echo, in all their evanescent autarky.

The question remains:

BS13: a simple recherche into the lost carts de jeunesse, a Dumbo's feather that lets the viewer soar back to the lost folly of youth? Or a sine qua non of postmodern folly?

If we know anything, we know this: Art is neither object nor subject, but the phenomenological intertwining of both so that 'appreciation' (in all its varied and multi- meanings) is born from the simple realization of perception. This recognition allows for art that is neither here nor there, but everywhere. And nowhere.

Andrew J's animism is at the heart of his challenge to the verity of truth, insofar as it rectifies the humanism of our spatial modality. 'BS13' purports to effect a nouveau realisme in which the actual is unrealised into a cathartic emanence of the whole.

The dialectic of Andrew J's "BS13" is a reflection of the post-Marcel zeitgeist, absent the schadenfreude qua nervousness that has gripped the Talk Photography populace in this world of "now-more-than-ever." The semiotics of the saffron (en)robes serves an ontological function in re-animating and re-introducing the humanity of Talk Photography to their perceptions of the orange joy of being - the being you felt as a child, vis a vis a pinata. The Gestalt bespeaks a Foucauldian Weltschmerz, a sumptuous feast of post-Derridian brio-cum-angst. It's in this context that "BS13" covers, even metastasises, over Talk Photography like a vast dollop of neo-maternalistic, neo-Marxian mayonnaise.




Is that enough critique?

:D
 
Hacker said:
Andrew J, long-crowned the enfant terrible of the art world, has, through his latest ontological BS13, transformed our so-called familiar landscape of Talk Photography into something self-referential, stochastic, and yet at the same time mundane. One recalls the Dadaists and the soup cans of Andy Warhol, and one reflects on the normative paradigmatic shift of our hermeneutical age. There are those who will view BS13 as a didactic polemic, little more than a bete noire, still others who will see it as replete with a fertile esthetic, and others will want to burn themselves into a fiery crisp on national television, imitating (perhaps) the Buddhist monks of yesteryear, whose saffron-colored robes BS13 echo, in all their evanescent autarky.

The question remains:

BS13: a simple recherche into the lost carts de jeunesse, a Dumbo's feather that lets the viewer soar back to the lost folly of youth? Or a sine qua non of postmodern folly?

If we know anything, we know this: Art is neither object nor subject, but the phenomenological intertwining of both so that 'appreciation' (in all its varied and multi- meanings) is born from the simple realization of perception. This recognition allows for art that is neither here nor there, but everywhere. And nowhere.

Andrew J's animism is at the heart of his challenge to the verity of truth, insofar as it rectifies the humanism of our spatial modality. 'BS13' purports to effect a nouveau realisme in which the actual is unrealised into a cathartic emanence of the whole.

The dialectic of Andrew J's "BS13" is a reflection of the post-Marcel zeitgeist, absent the schadenfreude qua nervousness that has gripped the Talk Photography populace in this world of "now-more-than-ever." The semiotics of the saffron (en)robes serves an ontological function in re-animating and re-introducing the humanity of Talk Photography to their perceptions of the orange joy of being - the being you felt as a child, vis a vis a pinata. The Gestalt bespeaks a Foucauldian Weltschmerz, a sumptuous feast of post-Derridian brio-cum-angst. It's in this context that "BS13" covers, even metastasises, over Talk Photography like a vast dollop of neo-maternalistic, neo-Marxian mayonnaise.
Click to expand...

Took the words right out of my mouth!

...uncanny.

:D
 
I'm glad I didn't go to university. You can over analyse it and probally say "the walls show the barriers dividing social class" or I can look at it and not enjoy it, photographs are for the visual rather than the analytical appeal. Sorry it's a out of focus snap shot with blown out highlights and poor composition.
 
Last edited:
Hacker said:
Andrew J, long-crowned the enfant terrible of the art world, has, through his latest ontological BS13, transformed our so-called familiar landscape of Talk Photography into something self-referential, stochastic, and yet at the same time mundane. One recalls the Dadaists and the soup cans of Andy Warhol, and one reflects on the normative paradigmatic shift of our hermeneutical age. There are those who will view BS13 as a didactic polemic, little more than a bete noire, still others who will see it as replete with a fertile esthetic, and others will want to burn themselves into a fiery crisp on national television, imitating (perhaps) the Buddhist monks of yesteryear, whose saffron-colored robes BS13 echo, in all their evanescent autarky.

The question remains:

BS13: a simple recherche into the lost carts de jeunesse, a Dumbo's feather that lets the viewer soar back to the lost folly of youth? Or a sine qua non of postmodern folly?

If we know anything, we know this: Art is neither object nor subject, but the phenomenological intertwining of both so that 'appreciation' (in all its varied and multi- meanings) is born from the simple realization of perception. This recognition allows for art that is neither here nor there, but everywhere. And nowhere.

Andrew J's animism is at the heart of his challenge to the verity of truth, insofar as it rectifies the humanism of our spatial modality. 'BS13' purports to effect a nouveau realisme in which the actual is unrealised into a cathartic emanence of the whole.

The dialectic of Andrew J's "BS13" is a reflection of the post-Marcel zeitgeist, absent the schadenfreude qua nervousness that has gripped the Talk Photography populace in this world of "now-more-than-ever." The semiotics of the saffron (en)robes serves an ontological function in re-animating and re-introducing the humanity of Talk Photography to their perceptions of the orange joy of being - the being you felt as a child, vis a vis a pinata. The Gestalt bespeaks a Foucauldian Weltschmerz, a sumptuous feast of post-Derridian brio-cum-angst. It's in this context that "BS13" covers, even metastasises, over Talk Photography like a vast dollop of neo-maternalistic, neo-Marxian mayonnaise.




Is that enough critique?

:D
Click to expand...

Blimey Hacker I only understood about 5 words outa' that lot Brilliant :D
 
Personally, I think that one image on its own cannot meet the requirement of the brief and as such, it looks like a very "uneducated/unthought out shot. If it had been of a derelict street or an area over run with graffiti and burn out cars etc one image may have been able to capture it.

I believe that you will need a series of shots to give greater depth in what you are trying to achieve. This one image, is it a common sight in BS13, or is it something that doesn't sit in with local context ? Is the area high rise, low rise, or general housing ? Or in fact, is it a mainly commercial area ?

You cannot answer those questions with this one shot, you need others to convey the context in which it exists.

Steve
 
Hacker said:
Andrew J, long-crowned the enfant terrible of the art world, has, through his latest ontological BS13, transformed our so-called familiar landscape of Talk Photography into something self-referential, stochastic, and yet at the same time mundane. One recalls the Dadaists and the soup cans of Andy Warhol, and one reflects on the normative paradigmatic shift of our hermeneutical age. There are those who will view BS13 as a didactic polemic, little more than a bete noire, still others who will see it as replete with a fertile esthetic, and others will want to burn themselves into a fiery crisp on national television, imitating (perhaps) the Buddhist monks of yesteryear, whose saffron-colored robes BS13 echo, in all their evanescent autarky.

The question remains:

BS13: a simple recherche into the lost carts de jeunesse, a Dumbo's feather that lets the viewer soar back to the lost folly of youth? Or a sine qua non of postmodern folly?

If we know anything, we know this: Art is neither object nor subject, but the phenomenological intertwining of both so that 'appreciation' (in all its varied and multi- meanings) is born from the simple realization of perception. This recognition allows for art that is neither here nor there, but everywhere. And nowhere.

Andrew J's animism is at the heart of his challenge to the verity of truth, insofar as it rectifies the humanism of our spatial modality. 'BS13' purports to effect a nouveau realisme in which the actual is unrealised into a cathartic emanence of the whole.

The dialectic of Andrew J's "BS13" is a reflection of the post-Marcel zeitgeist, absent the schadenfreude qua nervousness that has gripped the Talk Photography populace in this world of "now-more-than-ever." The semiotics of the saffron (en)robes serves an ontological function in re-animating and re-introducing the humanity of Talk Photography to their perceptions of the orange joy of being - the being you felt as a child, vis a vis a pinata. The Gestalt bespeaks a Foucauldian Weltschmerz, a sumptuous feast of post-Derridian brio-cum-angst. It's in this context that "BS13" covers, even metastasises, over Talk Photography like a vast dollop of neo-maternalistic, neo-Marxian mayonnaise.




Is that enough critique?

:D
Click to expand...
So it's in the running for a Turner prize, then? :D
 
Toonie said:
Blimey Hacker I only understood about 5 words outa' that lot Brilliant :D
Click to expand...

I think it's mainly Greek, French and German, with a smattering of English - probobly the five words you understood! :D
 
Reminds me of the famous 'wordsmith' Stanley Unwin ... "Hi ho and a jolly welcode to all you surfwide'n interwebber lopers. Here beholdy manifold things Stanley Unwinmost - all deep joy and thorkus for great laugh'n tittery. O yes."!
 
goldenlight said:
WRONG! If a photograph cannot speak for itself and convey to the viewer what the photographer wants them to see, without the use of captions or explanations, then it has failed. Stills photography is one of the most powerful mediums of communication. With that attitude you will never make a successful photographer.
Click to expand...

You are partly right, photographs need to be powerful and effective inclusively but it is absolute NONSENSE (thought I'd match the caps) to disregard the use of text with images. Sometimes even one word can work wonderfully to complement an image, to spark off an idea or to jarr with the content to bring about new interpretations.

I would strongly recommend you try and have a look at a series of work by a collective of practitioners called 'Jan Family'. They produced a book called 'Plans for other days' where they show suggestions on how to engage with everyday life (represented through the medium of photography)

if you follow this link there are images on the top of the page
( http://www.booth-clibborn.com/books/janfamily-plans-for-other-days/ )


The far right image is titled ''how to grow attached''
I hope you can see how just a simple caption like this really complements the image.



Andrew
 
Looks like another book of pretentious rubbish that I won't buy.

I have a pile of old bricks in the back gardem, they allude to the fact that they were once in a wall I knocked down and couldn't be arsed to move them. Must photograph them as there must be a deeper hidden meaning to someone.
 
Andrew, I appreciate what you're trying to do here, so the response must be a bit dispiriting. I think you'll understand that this is not really the right outlet for images like these. Personally the out of focus hedge grabs the eye, and turns me off this picture. But it is a very valid project to document the less salubrious parts of the world that we inhabit.

As you have mentioned, it would be very difficult to do what you have been asked to do in just one picture. A series of images could do this very well.

At least you haven't been asked to look at issues of identity in BS13.....:puke:
 
Andrew J said:
You are partly right, photographs need to be powerful and effective inclusively but it is absolute NONSENSE (thought I'd match the caps) to disregard the use of text with images. Sometimes even one word can work wonderfully to complement an image, to spark off an idea or to jarr with the content to bring about new interpretations.

I would strongly recommend you try and have a look at a series of work by a collective of practitioners called 'Jan Family'. They produced a book called 'Plans for other days' where they show suggestions on how to engage with everyday life (represented through the medium of photography)

if you follow this link there are images on the top of the page
( http://www.booth-clibborn.com/books/janfamily-plans-for-other-days/ )


The far right image is titled ''how to grow attached''
I hope you can see how just a simple caption like this really complements the image.



Andrew
Click to expand...

Hi Andrew,

You certainly matched the caps, but you didn't match the bold!

I've followed the link you gave and must admit the picture you refer to is very clever and well executed, as far as I can see at such a small size. However, I guess the point of the picture is the way the hair of the girl mimics the shape of the pillow, creating a humourous and slightly unsettling image. If I am right in this supposition, then no caption was needed, the photograph spoke for itself. If I am wrong and it means something else, then I'm afraid I have missed it and the caption has failed to work anyway.

I was intrigued and googled "Jan Family." The few images I found were humourous and very creative. One involved two girls with different colour long hair, photographed from behind as they looked at what appears to be a pair of semi detcahed houses. Their hair is platted together, making them semi detached themselves.

In another, a row of people seem to be sharing each other's clothes, each person wearing half of the tops and trousers of the person either side of them. Again, hilarious and, if I'm not missing the point, the picture speaks for itself without the need for a caption.

I would like to explore the "Plans for other days" book further, but at $477 (that's not a typo) from Amazon I don't think I would enjoy it that much! :eek:

So thankyou for introducing me to another style of work but I'm afraid you've failed to convince me that a photograph needn't be strong enough to stand on it's own without a supporting caption to deliver it's meaning.

That's not to say I don't believe that text and photographs cannot complement each other to form a cohesive body of work. I've had many articles published in the past where I've used my own photographs to illustrate my text, but I would hope that my pictures are also self explanitory in their own right.

You are obviously following an advanced and intensive course where you look at the deeper meaning of photography as a means of communication and expression, but don't overlook the importance of a strong and powerful image amongst all the theory. Clever intent and conceptualism will never compensate for a poor or vague photograph, whether it is well captioned or not.

Good luck with your course. :)
 
Last edited:
Andrew J said:




So this is a photograph taken from a series of images I took for a short University project.

For the brief we were sent out with different postcodes and told to go to the areas and try and describe (photographically) the place(s) that we found. Looking at the people, the topography, and perhaps the issues of the area.

This is currently un edited and I'm aware of various slight technical and compositional errors but for now I'm more interested in what feelings/ideas it does or does not instil in people's minds.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're trying to do, although there just enough information conveyed through the shot to tell me about this postcode.

I can remember my degree course and the ambiguity of what lecturers intentionally put in place to make you think about not only the photograph, but what the viewer gets from it.

When you're trying to satisfy a very 'arty' goal (as opposed to taking a photograph of something like a bird, that is more a record of something you saw in beauty terms) you really do out on a limb to satisfy both your own and other people's views on a much higher level than the bird shot would.

I like this brief - there's a real variety of routes you could take to fit the brief - but for me this shot misses some key information; the people in the place, how the place sits in the local surroundings and how this place is regarded by both its inhabitants and visitors to the area.

The (urban) brick building works well against the (natural) greenery of the hedge and the washing on the line says this is a home environment as opposed to one of work, but that's as far as I can go. It needs a person or some other element to give it 'life' if you get my drift?

I'd like to see what other pieces you've produced to compare it, because when working as a set you can never just show one image.

The image is obviously straight from camera - that's not a problem for me because once you have the series of shots you can then work on the overall look and feel. I can see why some people see it as a snapshot - in essence it is a snapshot of that area - but at the moment it doesn't convey enough of the brief to be truly successful. :)

Keep working on it and keep us posted if you will :)
 
Andrew J said:




So this is a photograph taken from a series of images I took for a short University project.

For the brief we were sent out with different postcodes and told to go to the areas and try and describe (photographically) the place(s) that we found. Looking at the people, the topography, and perhaps the issues of the area.

This is currently un edited and I'm aware of various slight technical and compositional errors but for now I'm more interested in what feelings/ideas it does or does not instil in people's minds.
Click to expand...

The feeling it instils in me is that University is wasted on some! ..... Are you really serious? Why post an unedited shot .... Sorry, but the photo is less than worthless :thinking: I see no people, topography or issues of the area :shrug:
 
EdBray said:
Looks like another book of pretentious rubbish that I won't buy.

I have a pile of old bricks in the back gardem, they allude to the fact that they were once in a wall I knocked down and couldn't be arsed to move them. Must photograph them as there must be a deeper hidden meaning to someone.
Click to expand...

(y)
 
specialman said:
I understand what you're trying to do, although there just enough information conveyed through the shot to tell me about this postcode.

I can remember my degree course and the ambiguity of what lecturers intentionally put in place to make you think about not only the photograph, but what the viewer gets from it.

When you're trying to satisfy a very 'arty' goal (as opposed to taking a photograph of something like a bird, that is more a record of something you saw in beauty terms) you really do out on a limb to satisfy both your own and other people's views on a much higher level than the bird shot would.

I like this brief - there's a real variety of routes you could take to fit the brief - but for me this shot misses some key information; the people in the place, how the place sits in the local surroundings and how this place is regarded by both its inhabitants and visitors to the area.

The (urban) brick building works well against the (natural) greenery of the hedge and the washing on the line says this is a home environment as opposed to one of work, but that's as far as I can go. It needs a person or some other element to give it 'life' if you get my drift?

I'd like to see what other pieces you've produced to compare it, because when working as a set you can never just show one image.

The image is obviously straight from camera - that's not a problem for me because once you have the series of shots you can then work on the overall look and feel. I can see why some people see it as a snapshot - in essence it is a snapshot of that area - but at the moment it doesn't convey enough of the brief to be truly successful. :)

Keep working on it and keep us posted if you will :)
Click to expand...


:agree: I would also like to see more in the series to put it in context.....

Im also quite shocked at the narrow minded and quite frankly rude responses of some people on this thread... someone asks for some help and you behave like this, shame on you! :nono:
 
missemanuel said:
:agree: I would also like to see more in the series to put it in context.....

Im also quite shocked at the narrow minded and quite frankly rude responses of some people on this thread... someone asks for some help and you behave like this, shame on you! :nono:
Click to expand...

The OP hasn't asked for help ...... :shrug: unless I misread the post :thinking: Please do share :cool:
 
Splog said:
The OP hasn't asked for help ...... :shrug: unless I misread the post :thinking: Please do share :cool:
Click to expand...


Taking the lead from your last comment on here, I shant bother to explain to you, "its worthless".....im sure you can work it out for yourself, even though as you say, it seems university is "wasted" on "some" ;-) nuff said.... nite :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top