Discuss a Minor White Photograph

[Artur Zeidler]

I find it boring. There is nothing to anchor the image, and there is nothing about the barns themselves to catch and hold my attention.

Is this not what they call ADD photography? The curse of the modern world (and the domain of digital)

 

[catem]

The first thing I thought was that the shadow of the telegraph pole and the sky gives quite an apocalyptic feel to the scene. The barns seem vulnerable.

The possible religious connection is interesting -

So, did he "clone out" his own shadow?

Cate

 

[Will S]

What's wrong with IR film?

Is obvious that is IR film, you don't have to think to much about it. The small sprouts of whatever is growing in the field are that white because the great reflection of IR light, and the sky is that dark for the same opposite reason, I mean, the lack of IR light. That may be the explanation for the missing utility lines.

This picture is featured in the Infrared Photography Handbook by Laurie White which is a great infrared resource.

It seems obviously infrared to me, but that is the first place I ever saw it.

Best,

Will

 

[Gerald Koch]

The shadow of the telegraph pole has a vague threatening aspect and this is what prevents this photo being boring. We are waiting for what is to happen next. The shadow also contributes a 3D look.

 

[Schlapp]

A nice picture. One that bears a second or third look. For all it's simplicity, it seems a complex structure. It has some depth [for me - I can only speak for me].
It may have been a 'snap' but that snap has been well captured which makes me wonder.....

 

[df cardwell]

Beautiful.

There's that moment - that you found on farms, when we had farms, and that can still be found on the prairie - when the sun is about to go - and rakes across the land. You stop and LISTEN. You never see the place like that, the unrealism of it is jarring.

I don't have a facile judgement: it's a wonderful photograph and I'd love to be able to look at it every day. A second or third look ? Faint praise. It's a landscape that rewards you every time you walk around inside it.

d

 

[arigram]

Looks like digital to me

 

[roteague]

I find it boring. There is nothing to anchor the image, and there is nothing about the barns themselves to catch and hold my attention.

Is this not what they call ADD photography? The curse of the modern world (and the domain of digital)

No, it is called the viewpoint of a landscape photographer who finds the composition lacking. FWIW, I might like this image more, if it was in color.

 

[lee]

who would have thought Robert would like it better if in color. Bigot!

lee\c

 

[blansky]

Elitists.

We black and white types just can't win.



Michael

 

[catem]

No, it is called the viewpoint of a landscape photographer who finds the composition lacking. FWIW, I might like this image more, if it was in color.

This landscape is all about line and form, and in my view very suited to black-and-white. Colour would give it a whole different dimension, and I think would distract from the purpose. It might be very pleasing, to be sure, but it would be a different picture altogether.

Cate

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Photographs like this don't 'entertain', meaning they don't lay it all out on a silver platter for us to go, "Oh, how lovely...look Martha...it's as purdy as a postcard". Minor's taken this with a story in mind and it's up to us to figure it out, or create our own.

I think the shadow represents Time, like the hand of a clock, and it's pointed directly at the smaller, bright, new little barn with the gray roof. The sky looms over the little barn despite the sunshine, and we know in time it'll be as dark and weathered as the older barn beside it.

Then again, Minor may have thought, "Cool! That's a kick-ass grouping of compositional elements...think I'll nab that one". While it's fun to double guess the meaning of this image, I wouldn't want to have it on my wall...there's no accounting for taste

Murray

 

[tim atherton]

No, it is called the viewpoint of a landscape photographer who finds the composition lacking. FWIW, I might like this image more, if it was in color.

From the things you say, you appear to have a fairly narrow set of criteria (based on certain elements of composition, visual impact and so on) for judging whether a photograph is successful or not - whether it "works"?

While the above are entirely valid, they can perhaps be limiting. There are other ways of viewing and understanding a picture. Other ways of viewing and understanding its structure and whether or not it "works" but that perhaps require a different set of tools, a different book of grammar to understand.

A different medium I know, but still a simple two dimensional rendering, but I wonder, how would you characterise the following as a picture? How well it "works"

(it is about 18" top to bottom)

 

[lee]

ok maybe Bigot is a little harsh but I was joking. I agree with Tim. Robert has what appears from what he has posted a very narrow set of criteria for what he thinks is a successful image.

lee\c

 

[naturephoto1]

I stand by my comments on the first page of this thread regarding this image. As Stargazer says this image is a study in line and form. Add to this the interesting/powerful clouds and the lighting, I feel this is a very successful image. In this instance, I do no agree with Robert.

Rich

 

[Donald Miller]

A different medium I know, but still a simple two dimensional rendering, but I wonder, how would you characterise the following as a picture? How well it "works"

(it is about 18" top to bottom)

Incredibly engaging.

 

[Charles Webb]

I believe Mr. White saw and knew exactly what he was placing on the film sheet. If he stumbled on to it, good for him. What is wrong with stumbling
on to a photo opp. To me it is very well done in all aspects, and I don't care if he made the image on Kodachrome and transferred it to B&W. I have liked this image for many years, and I haven't heard anything in this thread that is likely to make me change my mind. Bravo Minor White...........

Charlie...........................

 

[catem]

I believe Mr. White saw and knew exactly what he was placing on the film sheet. If he stumbled on to it, good for him. What is wrong with stumbling
on to a photo opp.
Charlie...........................

Luck is often half the game, isn't it? We all need and use a pretty good dollop of it.

That and the ability to grab the chances when they come..

Or is there any evidence he checked this scene out and returned when the conditions were exactly right, as Bill Brandt did?

This makes me want to go and look up more of his work -

Cate

 

[Sparky]

I believe Mr. White saw and knew exactly what he was placing on the film sheet. If he stumbled on to it, good for him. What is wrong with stumbling on to a photo opp.

Well, to me - this is what photography is. You are editing from the world around you, right? So - in one sense - picking one picture on the web amongst millions of others is a 'form' of photography (abeit a very contentious one, I'm sure!). But what if you had a very specific idea what you wanted to capture on a negative in the studio. And then, suddenly, by dint of 'happy accident', let's say a light stand fell over and included itself in the composition. But somehow things suddenly 'gelled'. I don't see anything wrong with THAT scenario - and for sure, it happens all the time with artists and commercial photogs alike. The only thing that's 'missing' or 'wrong' that Blansky has a problem with is that control of the author is suddenly lower on the totem pole, and 'chance' is higher up there.

I'd suggest that all 'vision' comes from looking at existing images, and we try to edit from the world around us to enter into this dialogue (the world of photographic images, if you will) much like trying to fit a new puzzle piece into a pre-existing matrix. So, to my mind, 'artistic vision' as such ain't much to write home about.

Which is not to disparage the image. All that being said - even if it was a dumb accident - and he even loaded IR film in his film holders by mistake, the image remains evocative and transcendent. I really don't have a problem with that. I see no conflict. It's an issue of an image functioning successfully within an established dialectic*




*(sorry for the $5 word, sometimes they're just SOOO useful, esp. when they take the place of something that would take a paragraph to explain!)

 

[roteague]

This landscape is all about line and form, and in my view very suited to black-and-white. Colour would give it a whole different dimension, and I think would distract from the purpose. It might be very pleasing, to be sure, but it would be a different picture altogether.

Cate

Yes and no. IMO, the landscape is about more than just line and form, it is also about moment - in this case, time of day. It is obvious that this image was taken in the late afternoon, and from experience, I know that the sunlight would have a warm tone, which would have been reflected on the tips of the grass as well as the buildings. I would have shot this with an 81B to enhance that feeling of warmth.

 

[roteague]

From the things you say, you appear to have a fairly narrow set of criteria (based on certain elements of composition, visual impact and so on) for judging whether a photograph is successful or not - whether it "works"?

My primary criteria is how a photograph makes me "feel" and whether it makes me "wonder". This image does neither.

 

[roteague]

While the above are entirely valid, they can perhaps be limiting. There are other ways of viewing and understanding a picture. Other ways of viewing and understanding its structure and whether or not it "works" but that perhaps require a different set of tools, a different book of grammar to understand.

The day I let you or someone else define what drives my passion, is the day I will find something else to do. I know what I see, and I know what I feel when I see or look at an image, you don't. If you look, you will notice that those photographers that inspire me, are those that have a similar outlook and viewpoint to me - Jack Dykinga, Joe Cornish, Ken Duncan, John Fielder, Tom Till.

 

[tim atherton]

My primary criteria is how a photograph makes me "feel" and whether it makes me "wonder". This image does neither.

but your dismissal of the picture seemed to be based on a lack of certain formal elements not on emotion and feeling?

 

[roteague]

but your dismissal of the picture seemed to be based on a lack of certain formal elements not on emotion and feeling?

It is easier to quantity compositional elements to others than to quantify feelings. Compositional elements have been known, described and handed down to us from the ancient Greeks as a means of explaining why certain elements seem to trigger emotional responses. Take a look at David Ward's "Landscape Within" for an excellent discussion on the mechanics/feelings of landscape photography.

 

[df cardwell]

The problem that comes from dwelling on a negative judgement
is that it poisons the well: any attempt to talk about the image has to be done
through the judgement. That results in argument, rather than discussion. The conversation is no longer about the object, but about the judge.

Certain forms and protocols are common in every discipline. Contrary to the burlesqued view of art-speak, the biggest challenge is to open the conversation.

One of the few things forbidden is outright judgement ( "I don't like it" )
another is discussing how "I" would have done it.

In an engineering context, it is like hearing a lecture on the laws of thermodynamics, and pissing on the professor's pantleg. It discourages ensuing conversation about thermodynamics.

Art is about transformation, usually the transformation of the artist.
It is also about transformation of the Viewer.



.