Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by mikeskillz, Jul 19, 2009.
I kinda get the idea of what you were trying to do but honestly it's boring.
I don't get the idea. Please explain? haha
I'm guessing it's the contrast between the round ball as the subject, the square shapes of the background and floor.
Problem is, the subject is too small in the image in comparison to its surroundings.
Needs more interesting subject. Go into the mountains or somethin
look, a photo with no subject.
the BALL is the subject
maybe if the ball were closer to the foreground?
I know... y'catching on?
The dog is mimicking the people by placing the eaten ball in front of the refrigerator.
looking through some old notes, here are a few ideas that might be helpful.
as mentioned above, it looks like you're working with two 'subjects' here. the roundness of the ball and the straightness of its context. there might be more to it, but that's what i'm reading at a quick glance. it's a pretty simple juxtaposition, but much too easily identified. there are 6 ways two objects can have a relationship, with increasing degree of 'poetry,' for lack of a better word.
1. adjacency - two objects next to each other have a relationship. easy.
2. touching - if two objects are touching each other, their relationship is greater. again, pretty easy.
3. juxtaposition - what you're doing here is trying to maximize the sense of contrast. (round vs. straight) it's pretty easy to recognize, especially when it's with geometry. there are other ways to achieve this with various other properties like texture, color, cultural significance, nature of being, etc. but geometry is everywhere, and when it's easy to identify the image falls flat of evoking any sense of mystery or emotion.
after juxtaposition, success in the next categories are much much harder to achieve, and with increasing difficulty and power.
4. mutual interpenetration - some quality of one subject is mapped onto another, and vice-versa. the objects have a deeper sense of belonging to one another while maintaining difference.
5. simultaneous coarising - in a simple sense, this is a yin and yang relationship. there is no sense that one precedes another, or that they were brought together by an outside third. they depend on each other to have meaning, or to exist at all. there is mutual interpenetration, but it is not as obvious or as easily perceived as #4.
6. fusion - a third sense. the image hides its parts in order to arouse a sense of intrigue. it's hard to describe this category, but i imagine it to have a similar emotional effect to the sense of discovery without the cause and effect relationship that discovery typically has. i can imagine that after viewing such an image (or any piece of art, really) i would rethink my own relationships with things, people, culture, etc.
a term i continue to find useful is 'functional fixedness.' if something is easily identified, if its function is easy to determine, then it's really not that interesting beyond its function and will not typically resonate in the memory of a viewer.
to collapse all artistic images into 6 categories probably causes a great deal of debate and criticism, but doing so has helped me evaluate my own images and creative work, so i share it with others. there are other systems also, this list is just one tool.
i imagine that this'll probably help my own work as well
I'd love to see an example of each.
where do you learn this stuff? please respond
DAM, that deserves its own thread and a sticky
Your post corresponds with your user name
graduate architecture school. though the professor i learned this from isn't your typical architect.
frank lloyd wright?
but seriously, copied and saved