Tree In Head A.Leibovitz

[Pieter12]

There are no rules, there is no truth, only assertions and assumptions.

 

[Hassasin]

It is impossible to make a bad photograph of Cindy, jeans or not . She could have been all naked and still look good on any backdrop. Focus on what you’re there to see not what matters not.

 

[Cholentpot]

No, you really can't. You can make a claim but you have no way to back it up. If all you know is the photo in front of you, not credited in any way, there is nothing you can say about what went into making it that's necessarily true. I'm not talking about stating an opinion that turns out to be correct. I'm talking about something that is necessarily true, just based on the viewing of the photo.

View attachment 377216

Selfie? Portrait? You probably know that's Dennis Stock - he's the guy that took the James Dean photo (walking down the street, famous Magnum dodge-and-burn mark-up available for purchase). You probably know Andreas Feininger took this photo. But what if you didn't? How many people were standing around when the photo was taken? What was the process of choosing this shot and not another one? Why has anyone seen this photo at all? None of these questions can be answered by just looking at the photo.

Who cares, it's a great photo. I happen to be reading Total Picture Control at the moment, I was gifted it. Andreas Feininger seems to be an interesting feller.

 

[Pieter12]

No, you really can't. You can make a claim but you have no way to back it up. If all you know is the photo in front of you, not credited in any way, there is nothing you can say about what went into making it that's necessarily true. I'm not talking about stating an opinion that turns out to be correct. I'm talking about something that is necessarily true, just based on the viewing of the photo.

View attachment 377216

Selfie? Portrait? You probably know that's Dennis Stock - he's the guy that took the James Dean photo (walking down the street, famous Magnum dodge-and-burn mark-up available for purchase). You probably know Andreas Feininger took this photo. But what if you didn't? How many people were standing around when the photo was taken? What was the process of choosing this shot and not another one? Why has anyone seen this photo at all? None of these questions can be answered by just looking at the photo.

In the book LIFE Photographers What They Saw, Andreas Feininger tells the story of this photo:
"That was an assignment. He [Dennis Stock] had won the first prize in Life's 1951 contest for young photographers. Frankly, I didn't quite know what to do. We played around with lights, and he said, "Why don't you try just a spotlight?" So I got a spotlight. I focused it on him and immediately saw the power of this picture. He came up with his camera."Bingo," I said. "Hold it Hold it!" There it was. In a way we worked together on getting this picture.
It should have made a cover, Some people at Life thought it would be the best cover ever, and others said, "It's gruesome! We can't have it." As usual, the wrong people won."

 

[eli griggs]

Acceptance and rejection.

There are no rules, there is no truth, only assertions and assumptions.

 

[Pieter12]

Acceptance and rejection.

Those are assertions.

 

[Don_ih]

there is no truth, only assertions and assumptions

Truth is a value of your assertions and assumptions, not a thing in itself. You know, an assertion can be silly, funny, poignant, serious, false, obnoxious, arrogant, sweet, fascile, true, etc. Is anyone going to say "There is no arrogance, only assertions and assumptions?" No - that assertion would be stupid.

 

[snusmumriken]

I dunno. If you read the image from left to right, your eye follows the curve of the woman’s body to her face, then the man’s then catches the dark curtain which takes you right out of the frame.

I agree with @cliveh (although it has little bearing on the Leibovitz photo). It’s a characteristically instinctive composition. No matter where I start in HCB’s photo, my eye ends up in that lovers’ knot of arms and heads.

 

[snusmumriken]

Regarding the Leibovitz photo, I think the point is that she and the editor of Vogue felt the photo had merit, irrespective of any quibbles one might have with the composition or anything else. Don’t we all select our sharing photos on that basis?

 

[Pieter12]

Truth is a value of your assertions and assumptions, not a thing in itself. You know, an assertion can be silly, funny, poignant, serious, false, obnoxious, arrogant, sweet, fascile, true, etc. Is anyone going to say "There is no arrogance, only assertions and assumptions?" No - that assertion would be stupid.

We’re talking photographic compositions here.

 

[eli griggs]

Those are assertions.

But in the end, actionable, no?

 

[Pieter12]

But in the end, actionable, no?

And so?

 

[eli griggs]

And so?

Are really the only factors behind ever piece of art/photograph made or taken, passed over or lacking merit enough to approach and since we can not critique a non-entity or everything never created, we are only left with what was done, like it or not; what it is being all there is.

IMO.

 

[Don_ih]

We’re talking photographic compositions here.

Truth has nothing to do with composition. And there are rules if you choose to follow rules when composing. There are also rules if you choose to reference rules when judging a composition. There are plenty of rules - it's your choice to follow or ignore them.

You know, like the rule around here "40 km/hr in a school zone". You can follow that rule or you can ignore it. But whereas you might run over a bunch of kid ignoring that rule, the worst that happens if you ignore "rules of composition" is some people don't think your photo looks good. Doesn't exactly matter, does it?

 

[MTGseattle]

In the 2 main examples in this thread, The backdrop seam doesn't bother me at all. The long section of easel wouldn't have bothered me if I had encountered the image outside of this thread as I can tell there was a reasonably wide focal length used and the re-frame with that same focal length to get top of frame down just above the subject's head would be really strange. If I had encountered this image in a book or gallery without all of this discourse, I may not have given a thought to the focal length either. It is simply an effective portrait. Additionally, Imo the artists hand in his pocket doesn't bother me either since there was a careful enough exposure to retain detail in the apron so one can clearly tell he has pocketed said hand.

I think the basic "rule" sighted has some merit as things projecting up from subjects heads can be distracting. Like all "rules" applied to the visual arts, it is good to have knowledge of them so that one can eschew them when/where appropriate. The Rule of thirds (golden rectangle or Fibonacci sequence) doesn't automatically make a striking composition.

I see that I have basically echoed what Don_ih said above regarding the rules.

 

[Pieter12]

Truth has nothing to do with composition. And there are rules if you choose to follow rules when composing. There are also rules if you choose to reference rules when judging a composition. There are plenty of rules - it's your choice to follow or ignore them.

You know, like the rule around here "40 km/hr in a school zone". You can follow that rule or you can ignore it. But whereas you might run over a bunch of kid ignoring that rule, the worst that happens if you ignore "rules of composition" is some people don't think your photo looks good. Doesn't exactly matter, does it?

Like I said, there is no truth, no rules. [in composition, the subject being discussed]

 

[Don_ih]

Like I said, there is no truth, no rules. [in composition, the subject being discussed]

And you're wrong. There is truth, but it has nothing to do with composition but with whatever someone claims the photo to be, and the rules are there whether they're your rules or not - other people viewing your print may or may not think in terms of rules, and no amount of blithe disclaimer from you will change that.

 

[Pieter12]

And you're wrong. There is truth, but it has nothing to do with composition but with whatever someone claims the photo to be, and the rules are there whether they're your rules or not - other people viewing your print may or may not think in terms of rules, and no amount of blithe disclaimer from you will change that.

Not to start a pissing match, but rules in composition are arbitrary, useful for someone who may not have an "eye." And truth is relative. Your truth may not be mine.

 

[Don_ih]

And truth is relative. Your truth may not be mine.

That is a gross misconception. I'll leave it at that.

Arbitrary rules, by the way, are still rules. I already said you can ignore them if you wish - but it doesn't prevent other people from fully adopting them.

You can go ahead and be solipsistic if you want, though. I really don't why solipsists insist on trying to convince other people they should be solipsists, too, though. Seems a bit self-contradictory.

 

[Pieter12]

That is a gross misconception. I'll leave it at that.

Arbitrary rules, by the way, are still rules. I already said you can ignore them if you wish - but it doesn't prevent other people from fully adopting them.

You can go ahead and be solipsistic if you want, though. I really don't why solipsists insist on trying to convince other people they should be solipsists, too, though. Seems a bit self-contradictory.

I would think that my statements are quite the opposite of solipsistic.

 

[Don_ih]

And truth is relative. Your truth may not be mine.

is the equivalent of saying you live in your own reality, all by yourself.

 

[MattKing]

As a moderator, I find it fascinating that a thread about Annie Leibovitz has descended into a near argument about philosophy!

 

[Pieter12]

is the equivalent of saying you live in your own reality, all by yourself.

I'll let you know once I get this tree out of my head.

 

[eli griggs]

As a moderator, I find it fascinating that a thread about Annie Leibovitz has descended into a near argument about philosophy!

This is, as ever been, different 'camps' being Recognized, Declared, just as "Wild Beasts" vs, Northern Expressionist vs 1950's American New York Abstractionists, vs. 1960's Mininismists, vs, Pop Art, etc, or Photo Realism, vs, Photo Abstractionism, vs Photo Minimalist, vs, Photo Documentarist, etc, etc, etc..

Whatever Umbrella ('s) You, We, They, shelter our 'Philosophy'(s) Beneath, Intentionally or Unawares Of, that/those Umbrella (s) allow Us or Others more Easily to place, Correctly or Wrongly, both Ourselves, our Work, and Others into an Human 3-Dimensional Universe, which, in Totality, is Growing as we move into the New, Resurrected, Suspected, Unimagined and as of yet, Unrealized.

In other Words, 'The Same Old, Same Old!

IMO.

 

[chuckroast]

Is it a more or less a mandate to avoid verticals sticking up from heads (Baldessari’s aside)?There’s this portrait image of a set of our lovelies by Leibovitz which leaves the backdrop starkly through C.Turlington’s head hewn near equilaterally. Why is this deliberate composition fine (would students be excoriated for it)? Why not shift it? Is there an aesthetic meaning?

IMO Leibovitz is an overrated hack who became the darling of the New York Is Everything crowd by documenting the stoned degeneracy of a generation. I find almost none of her work all that interesting. It's is the visual equivalent to Sontag's gawd awful drooling prose on photography. It is provocative for the sake of provocation, self important, and dull as dirt.

This becomes especially clear when you look at the work of great portraitists like Avedon, Karsh, and even Newton. She recedes into complete irrelevance by comparison. Even Weegee told better picture stories.