One of the very few pictures in this competition that demonstrates the artist's thoughtful work with the composition of color and tonal masses. The remaining 99 percent are absolute garbage, pure child's play. From all this competition treasure, I scraped together just one that I could honestly give a 7 out of (this is not the picture I'm talking about).
One of the very few pictures in this competition that shows any meaningful work by the author with the composition of color and tonal masses. The other 99 percent are absolute garbage, pure child's play. From all this competition loot, I scraped together just one, which I honestly gave a 7 (not this picture).
Andrew Kud,
The color scheme is harmonious, but a bit oversaturated for my taste. However, the distribution of tonal masses is poor, again in my opinion. Dark at the top, light at the bottom, all the visually heavier objects (the dark furrow, the branch on the right) – not the best compositional solution.
Reflex, This is what I meant. The vast majority of local viewers in their pictures for this competition adopted the most banal—I would say, "kindergarten"—approach: they went looking for NATURAL views with the traditional colors of autumn. Colorful and garish (like in Crimea in October) or lyrically calm (like in the central part of Russia). Therefore, the competition between them boiled down to a simple matter—who would be more fortunate to find "beauty" in NATURE? The author of this picture did something different. He took the most banal natural view, but introduced nuances that are completely unique by visual standards. In other words, he demonstrated his skill not as an observer, but as a composer. And that's a whole new level.
Reflex, This is what I meant. The vast majority of local viewers in their pictures for this competition adopted the most banal—I would say, "kindergarten"—approach: they went looking for NATURAL views with the traditional colors of autumn. Colorful and garish (like in Crimea in October) or lyrically calm (like in the central part of Russia). Therefore, the competition between them boiled down to a simple aspect—who would be more fortunate to find "beauty" in NATURE. The author of this picture did something different. He took the most banal natural view, but introduced nuances that are completely unique by visual standards. In other words, he demonstrated his skill not as an observer, but as a composer. And that's a whole new level.
What's bothering you? What's the question, exactly?
Andrew Kud, A photograph is a reflection of the world. What pleases you in this picture is its interpretation of the world, which is the prerogative of painting. Moreover, this isn't the kind of playful, humorous interpretation where the artist plays and interferes with the image without hiding his involvement. Here, the artist enhances and enhances—precisely for the purpose of artistic expression—that is, he doesn't reflect the world, but interprets it.
Bliki Na Vode, 1. Even what you see with your own eyes, observing the scene unfolding before you in the space you can see, is by no means a "reflection" of existence, but represents ONLY YOUR INDIVIDUAL idea of what exactly you see. How can a two-dimensional, distorted image of existential objects, torn from the general context of existence by the picture frame, claim to be something great – a means of "reflecting the world." 2. A photograph is not even a "reflection of an insignificant part of the world," but always a REPRESENTATION. That is, a thing never free from the SUBJECTIVITY of the author. *** These are truisms, the debates around which in the cultural space of European culture had already concluded by the 1960s and 1970s.
Bliki Na Vode, 1. Even what you see with your own eyes, observing the scene unfolding before you in the space you can see, is by no means a "reflection" of existence, but represents ONLY YOUR INDIVIDUAL idea of what exactly you see. How can a two-dimensional, distorted image of existential objects, torn from the general context of existence by the picture frame, claim to be something great – a means of "reflecting the world." 2. A photograph is not even a "reflection of an insignificant part of the world," but always a REPRESENTATION. That is, a thing never free from the SUBJECTIVITY of the author. *** These are truisms, the debates around which in the cultural space of European culture had already concluded by the 1960s and 1970s. #12 11/28/2017 7:20 PM
Andrew Kud, I agree with every word you say - but what does this have to do with "improving" the landscape - that's what I don't understand.
Reflex, I disagree. It's an interesting and unique solution. And the color scheme—yes, it's a bit heavy. I liked the work.
NataliP, Being outside the rules doesn't mean it's not cliche))). Not cliche doesn't mean it's good! ))) Every exception needs a reason, a justification. Point it out here, and I'll agree with you! )))
Reflex, black top, white bottom—this is no exception, but rather a way to set accents. The light bottom makes the image unstable, visually shifting the center of gravity. The viewer's attention is guaranteed. The PVU and LNU form a diagonal, which holds the image well and adds volume. And it's interesting to see where the person went in the rain in the dark forest.
Reflex, black top, white bottom—that's not an exception, but rather a way to place emphasis. The light bottom makes the image unstable, visually shifting the center of gravity. The viewer's attention is guaranteed. The PVU and LNU form a diagonal; it holds the image well and adds volume. And I wonder where the man went in the rain in the dark forest.
NataliP, Yes, the light bottom and dark top, as well as the dark on the right and light on the left, create instability. You still haven't explained why it's there. Attention is guaranteed in any case—the main object is in the center, on the border between the two zones. Regarding the diagonal—if you flip this photo, for example, the diagonal will remain, it will just change sign, and it will hold the image just as well, the volume will be preserved, the dark tonal masses will move to the left and the light masses to the right, the photo will become more balanced, and the figure will end up in a more suitable place for the main character—close to the right side of the frame. Well, why he went into the dark forest in the rain, and on a bicycle at that, will remain a mystery)))
Reflex, I can't say why I need instability here. I seem to like it. I don't open stable landscape photos. Gather a crowd: white top, black bottom, black top, white bottom, and shoot from above. It will be beautiful.
Reflex, NataliP, All those "lines of force" in pictures, popularized by Lapin and driven like a splinter into the immature brains of those he led by the nose (including himself), have nothing to do with this picture. Why? For the simple reason that diagonals and other things should only be discussed when this diagonal, inscribed in the structure and then emphasized by compositional efforts, has MEANING. That is, it is a SIGN. And imbuing something with the power of a sign should only be done in pictures where you are trying to VERBALIZE the image. This picture, however, does not appeal to verbalization. Here we are talking only about form, as the sole and intrinsic value, behind which there is nothing else. That is why you are confused by questions like "why do you need stability here?" and "Where and why is the cyclist (ka) going?" This picture is one of those where all these questions are simply inappropriate. The visual forms of such pictures are formed solely from the interaction of COLOR and tonal masses in which the author has drawn them. And if you begin to explore these interactions, you will discover nuances that ONLY need to be taken into account. This doesn't mean that the nuances you discover will satisfy your aesthetic demands. Some will like them, others won't. But we need to talk about something completely different from what you're trying to talk about. We need to learn to see COLOR and the interaction that color and tonal masses enter into. I can't say that this picture particularly excited me. But the vast majority of the other pictures in the competition don't even come close to it. That's all I wrote about above. I definitely like the fact that what is commonly called "the cyclist and umbrella figure" They fit into the picture with a powerful punctuation mark. And the overall structure of the picture seems to me like this: And in my (very subjective) opinion, the bottom is far from perfect. I'd cut it off without a second thought.
Reflex, NataliP, All those "lines of force" in pictures, popularized by Lapin and driven like a splinter into the immature minds of those he led by the nose (including himself), have nothing to do with this picture. Why? For the simple reason that diagonals and other such things should only be discussed when that diagonal, inscribed in the structure and then emphasized by compositional efforts, has MEANING. That is, it is a SIGN. And imbuing something with the power of a sign should only be done in pictures where you are trying to VERBALIZE the image. This picture, however, does not appeal to verbalization. Here we are talking only about form, as the sole and intrinsic value of which there is nothing else. That's why you're confused by questions like "why do you need stability here?" and "where is the cyclist going and why?" This picture is one of those where all these questions are simply inappropriate. The visual forms of such pictures are formed solely from the interaction of COLOR and tonal masses in which the author has engaged them. And if you explore these interactions, you will discover nuances that ONLY need to be taken into account. This doesn't mean that the nuances you discover will satisfy your aesthetic demands. Some will like them, others won't. But we need to talk about something completely different than what you're trying to talk about. We need to learn to see COLOR and the interactions that color and tonal masses enter into. I can't say that this picture particularly excited me. But the vast majority of the other pictures in the competition don't even come close to it. That's all I wrote about above. I definitely like how the commonly known "cyclist and umbrella figure" fits into the picture like a powerful punctuation mark. And the overall structure of the picture seems like this to me. [URL=http://www.picshare.ru/view/8370064/]http://www.picshare.ru/uploads/171129/AHTuQ8ohy5.jpg And in my (very subjective) opinion, the bottom is far from perfect. I'd cut it out without a second thought.
Andrew Kud, I absolutely agree with you about the interaction of color and tonal masses. You've shown with your example what this picture is drawn to. You just haven't said how these masses interact here.
You still haven't said how these masses interact here.
Reflex, They interact exactly the same way sounds interact within a musical phrase. And just as musical phrases interact within a work. At the same time, everyone hears something different, something subjective. There's no point in talking about what I "hear." I am me. You are you. Natalie is Natalie. We are different and see differently. To each their own. Regarding the "punctum," which I "hear" clearly here and which I like, I've already said.
Reflex, They interact exactly the same way sounds interact within a musical phrase. And just as musical phrases interact within a work. At the same time, everyone hears something unique, something subjective. There's no point in talking about what I "hear." I am me. You are you. Natalie is Natalie. We are different and see differently. So, to each their own. Regarding the "punctuation," which I "hear" clearly here and which I like, I've already said.
Andrew Kud, You're talking about something that defies analysis and regularity, something that comes from God, something that distinguishes a brilliant work from a mediocre one. But in all works, including musical ones, there are easily analyzed patterns and rules of construction, including those of musical phrases. And I'm talking specifically about them. It's simply ridiculous to talk about God's! And that's not what I'm talking about. It's simply a matter of liking it. Or not.
Reflex, Do you know of any "rules on the laws of color" other than Itten's color wheel and Goethe's "Theory of Color"? I'm unaware of such "rules." I'd be grateful if you could tell me about something I'm not familiar with. However, I suspect you can't point to anything else.
But did Itten and Goethe really help you in sculpting your pictures? Someone who composes colors has little need of diagrams. They rely solely on their talent. And that is what comes "from God," not from the mind.
For in-depth entertainment All coloristics textbooks are a lengthy explanation of Newton's physics, Goethe's teachings, and Itten's discoveries. None of these textbooks go beyond these fundamentals. Perhaps only in matters of design. But where is design and where is the subject of our conversation.
We should only talk about diagonals and other things when this diagonal, inscribed in the structure and then emphasized by compositional efforts, has MEANING.
If within the framework of what Lapin was talking about, then yes. I don't know to what extent he was immersed in the topic and to what extent he set himself the goal of conveying it to the reader. But it is undeniable that the eye's movement follows spots and contrasts, and the nature of this movement is linked to psychomotor skills. That is, an abstract picture with forms that encourage small, intermittent eye movements is perceived as different from one in which eye movements are smooth and continuous. The same applies to the sign - a Gothic or Baroque form, for example, can already be familiar, since their emergence was a sign of a change in the picture of the world. Therefore, here we need to set clearer boundaries, otherwise it is easy to come to a misunderstanding. In this picture, the urge to cut off the bottom is simply based on the harmonization of form, i.e., a discussion about why these lines are superfluous might also be appropriate. Theoretically, if the bottom formed some successful sign, the form would be secondary.
Therefore, we need to set clearer boundaries here, otherwise it's easy to end up misunderstanding each other.
Called In, About a year and a half or two ago, I wrote so many texts here explaining what a sign is in fine art, what visual connotation is, what the symbolic structure of an image is, and so on, that I could have compiled a textbook from these texts, if I wanted. Anyone who knows my position knows my position well enough. Misunderstandings are not a threat, in my opinion. *** If you remember, about three years ago I wrote to you that I don't know a damn thing about architecture. Nothing has changed since then. Therefore, my request to you to avoid using architectural examples in your dialogues with me still stands. OK?
you could put together a textbook from these texts if you wanted
What's wrong with websites is that a bunch of really good ideas, which someone at some point bothered to write, have vanished into oblivion. Simply because three days after publication, no one will read or even look at them. And sometimes they disappear along with the websites. It's a shame no one compiles them.
Called In, Worse yet. I can't even find these texts here myself, even though they're somewhere in the archive. The problem is that the admins don't understand the value such texts (and I'm not talking about their own, but in general) can have on their resource: they've repeatedly said that no one among them understands anything about photography. Therefore, there's no regard for good texts or their authors here.
Therefore, my request to you to avoid using architectural examples in conversations with me still stands. OK?
Okay, especially since it will be easy, since I myself understand it to a certain extent. I think you misidentified me; judging by everything, you could have had a similar conversation with Orlov from Samara.
Andrew Kud, Good, especially since it will be easy, since I myself understand it only so much. I think you misidentified me; judging by everything, you could have had such a dialogue with the Samara Orlov.
Called In, Alexey, you're right, D. Orlov definitely stated that you're far from architecture—he called you a holy war orator...
The remaining 99 percent are absolute garbage, pure child's play.
From all this competition treasure, I scraped together just one that I could honestly give a 7 out of (this is not the picture I'm talking about).
What's bothering you? What's the question, exactly?
The color scheme is harmonious, but a bit oversaturated for my taste. However, the distribution of tonal masses is poor, again in my opinion. Dark at the top, light at the bottom, all the visually heavier objects (the dark furrow, the branch on the right) – not the best compositional solution.
This is what I meant.
The vast majority of local viewers in their pictures for this competition adopted the most banal—I would say, "kindergarten"—approach: they went looking for NATURAL views with the traditional colors of autumn. Colorful and garish (like in Crimea in October) or lyrically calm (like in the central part of Russia).
Therefore, the competition between them boiled down to a simple matter—who would be more fortunate to find "beauty" in NATURE?
The author of this picture did something different. He took the most banal natural view, but introduced nuances that are completely unique by visual standards. In other words, he demonstrated his skill not as an observer, but as a composer.
And that's a whole new level.
It is.
To put it mildly, this is a profound misconception.
1. Even what you see with your own eyes, observing the scene unfolding before you in the space you can see, is by no means a "reflection" of existence, but represents ONLY YOUR INDIVIDUAL idea of what exactly you see. How can a two-dimensional, distorted image of existential objects, torn from the general context of existence by the picture frame, claim to be something great – a means of "reflecting the world."
2. A photograph is not even a "reflection of an insignificant part of the world," but always a REPRESENTATION. That is, a thing never free from the SUBJECTIVITY of the author.
***
These are truisms, the debates around which in the cultural space of European culture had already concluded by the 1960s and 1970s.
I don't understand what you're asking.
Being outside the rules doesn't mean it's not cliche))). Not cliche doesn't mean it's good! ))) Every exception needs a reason, a justification. Point it out here, and I'll agree with you! )))
Yes, the light bottom and dark top, as well as the dark on the right and light on the left, create instability. You still haven't explained why it's there. Attention is guaranteed in any case—the main object is in the center, on the border between the two zones. Regarding the diagonal—if you flip this photo, for example, the diagonal will remain, it will just change sign, and it will hold the image just as well, the volume will be preserved, the dark tonal masses will move to the left and the light masses to the right, the photo will become more balanced, and the figure will end up in a more suitable place for the main character—close to the right side of the frame. Well, why he went into the dark forest in the rain, and on a bicycle at that, will remain a mystery)))
All those "lines of force" in pictures, popularized by Lapin and driven like a splinter into the immature brains of those he led by the nose (including himself), have nothing to do with this picture.
Why?
For the simple reason that diagonals and other things should only be discussed when this diagonal, inscribed in the structure and then emphasized by compositional efforts, has MEANING. That is, it is a SIGN. And imbuing something with the power of a sign should only be done in pictures where you are trying to VERBALIZE the image.
This picture, however, does not appeal to verbalization. Here we are talking only about form, as the sole and intrinsic value, behind which there is nothing else.
That is why you are confused by questions like "why do you need stability here?" and "Where and why is the cyclist (ka) going?"
This picture is one of those where all these questions are simply inappropriate.
The visual forms of such pictures are formed solely from the interaction of COLOR and tonal masses in which the author has drawn them.
And if you begin to explore these interactions, you will discover nuances that ONLY need to be taken into account.
This doesn't mean that the nuances you discover will satisfy your aesthetic demands. Some will like them, others won't.
But we need to talk about something completely different from what you're trying to talk about. We need to learn to see COLOR and the interaction that color and tonal masses enter into.
I can't say that this picture particularly excited me. But the vast majority of the other pictures in the competition don't even come close to it.
That's all I wrote about above.
I definitely like the fact that what is commonly called "the cyclist and umbrella figure" They fit into the picture with a powerful punctuation mark.
And the overall structure of the picture seems to me like this:
And in my (very subjective) opinion, the bottom is far from perfect. I'd cut it off without a second thought.
And that's correct, in my humble opinion.
I absolutely agree with you about the interaction of color and tonal masses. You've shown with your example what this picture is drawn to. You just haven't said how these masses interact here.
They interact exactly the same way sounds interact within a musical phrase. And just as musical phrases interact within a work.
At the same time, everyone hears something different, something subjective.
There's no point in talking about what I "hear." I am me. You are you. Natalie is Natalie. We are different and see differently. To each their own.
Regarding the "punctum," which I "hear" clearly here and which I like, I've already said.
You're talking about something that defies analysis and regularity, something that comes from God, something that distinguishes a brilliant work from a mediocre one. But in all works, including musical ones, there are easily analyzed patterns and rules of construction, including those of musical phrases. And I'm talking specifically about them. It's simply ridiculous to talk about God's! And that's not what I'm talking about. It's simply a matter of liking it. Or not.
Do you know of any "rules on the laws of color" other than Itten's color wheel and Goethe's "Theory of Color"?
I'm unaware of such "rules."
I'd be grateful if you could tell me about something I'm not familiar with.
However, I suspect you can't point to anything else.
But did Itten and Goethe really help you in sculpting your pictures?
Someone who composes colors has little need of diagrams. They rely solely on their talent. And that is what comes "from God," not from the mind.
All coloristics textbooks are a lengthy explanation of Newton's physics, Goethe's teachings, and Itten's discoveries. None of these textbooks go beyond these fundamentals.
Perhaps only in matters of design. But where is design and where is the subject of our conversation.
About a year and a half or two ago, I wrote so many texts here explaining what a sign is in fine art, what visual connotation is, what the symbolic structure of an image is, and so on, that I could have compiled a textbook from these texts, if I wanted.
Anyone who knows my position knows my position well enough. Misunderstandings are not a threat, in my opinion.
***
If you remember, about three years ago I wrote to you that I don't know a damn thing about architecture. Nothing has changed since then.
Therefore, my request to you to avoid using architectural examples in your dialogues with me still stands. OK?
Worse yet. I can't even find these texts here myself, even though they're somewhere in the archive.
The problem is that the admins don't understand the value such texts (and I'm not talking about their own, but in general) can have on their resource: they've repeatedly said that no one among them understands anything about photography. Therefore, there's no regard for good texts or their authors here.
Thank you.