Alexander, it's a good work in the sense that the artist maintains a high standard. But, in my humble opinion, this portrait is a bit "smooth," straightforward... Without any of the artist's quirks. I'm not bothered by the repetition, on the contrary, but in every portrait you expect the artist to have a unique insight.
Jakov Trembovolsky (Jak Trum), hmm... then everything is fine here, in your opinion :-))) This is about consistency in evaluation and the life of the photo club... :-)))
Jakov Trembovolsky (Jak Trum), but the finds... sometimes they're unnecessary, especially since Lucy is exactly like this now... and that's very important to me. Who knows what she'll be like in a year, so we'll take a picture then... She got a blue dog, and she often walks it now, calls it Esteban...
On the other hand, maybe you're right, oddities are needed to make people take a closer look and stop in their tracks, or maybe give a link to a photo taken a year ago, the same one with headphones...
Yeah, a good reference, I get it... I always look at your (I don't remember if we're on first-name terms or not))) works by the "Hamburg score," since they're on a completely different level.
And I evaluate them not in the context of the photo club's work, but more in the context of your own work.
Perhaps it would be better to provide links to the series' works, i.e., to Lucy's other portraits.
That's an important point for you. Such a paradigmatic series of one character.
I also noticed this style – photographing sad, pitiful, hurt, depressed faces. I feel sorry for the girl, so young, and already resentful of the world. And her friend, a toy Esteban, is just as pathetic, and all around her are bad boys and girls.
Igor Kozlov (adam_k), hmm... maybe... Igor, do you think a person in everyday life is more likely to smile or be calm? Lucy was just looking into the camera, and it so happened that in the photo she's already looking at you (and that's important to me), and you see her state (and, of course, partly mine, there's no escaping that)...
The question is, where is the real person?
Three photos of a person from the last three days... Probably the real Boy with "Alenka"...
Despondency and depression, it's common to read this under photographs, but I would still call it "calmness" or "inner monologue"...
Jakov Trembovolsky (Jak Trum), we are most likely on first-name terms, but when they call me Alexander, I think they are on first-name terms :-))) It's just that this approach leads to an assessment of photographs that is not entirely clear to new people...
Igor, you have to keep up the standard too. ))) Everything you wrote is banter, quite internet-appropriate. Are you suggesting the author shoot optimistic, happy faces in the spirit of the official Soviet Union or or Germany in the 1930s?? He has different faces and different characters. I find them quite interesting.
Ava_Veled, Sasha, you (let's be informal) and Katarina Smuraga both have a tendency to depict portraits of depressed people or depressed faces. I'm not saying it's good or bad. But there is a tendency. Although there are, and quite a few, portraits that are different from this series of "lonely, bored-sad faces," and I like many of them. It seems like you live in a city of unhappy and sad people or ask the model to make a sad, tearful face for the photo shoot.
Probably the most genuine Boy with "Alenka"...
Perhaps he's the only one who's almost genuine, genuine in his childishness, and the apparent staging is already a minus for the author.
But I would still call it "calmness" or "internal monologue"...
If there were one or two such portraits, then yes, but there are many of them and they are almost "identical" in their monologue of sad despondency. They repeat each other, like children of the same sad country.
it's my habit; I'm a nasty person even in everyday life. Although I agree that I write harshly and abruptly. I confess, but it's hard to change. A smart person will understand me, but the unsmart will get offended. Of course, these portraits, thanks to their complex emotions, are deeper than other portraits. But when there are so many of them, almost identical, you start to wonder if they're really that deep. When someone cries next to you, it touches you and leaves you unmoved. When it happens often, I get used to it and don't believe the crying.
They repeat each other, like children of the same sad country.
Igor Kozlov (adam_k),
This is your figurative, normal style. I find the word "depressive" very inaccurate. Look at Sasha's work – medium-format portraits of men and women. Sad, calm, intelligent, strange, subtle, and, in their own way, happy. )))
But what's absolutely valuable is that all the author's subjects are recognizable. His circle. He finds them, photographs them, and I immediately see whose work it is.
I agree with Yakov about the different levels of evaluation for different authors. If an author is a beginner, trying their hand at photography, then the recommendations on this photo resource are an incentive and a small reward aimed at future work. If an author is established, like you, Katerina Smuraga, Yakov, and even Igor (even though he hasn't posted his work for a long time), then the requirements for their work are different. If you have a Lada "six," one or two scratches won't even bother you, but if you suddenly own a Maybach, even a scratch is a problem. I also agree with Igor that I wouldn't want to live in the world of your gloomy, depressive characters. But from a photography perspective, from the perspective of your artistic style, I always look at your photos with interest.
digitalbond (Evgeny Sushchevich), Igor Kozlov (adam_k), there is such an example in the history of photography "In the American West", Americans at first were not very happy with how they looked in the photographs of Richard Avedon...
digitalbond (Evgeny Sushchevich), Igor Kozlov (adam_k), there's an example in the history of photography called "In the American West." At first, Americans weren't very happy with how they looked in Richard Avedon's photographs... then they somehow got used to it... I know Richard has many joyful portraits of famous people, but most often it was the person himself who inspired them, yet for some reason he chooses a portrait of Marilyn Monroe with tired eyes and without a Hollywood smile.... I watch Sally Mann and the aesthetic is different, for me it's calm (not at all depressing) and wild.
And I never ask for a sad, tearful face when shooting...
Regarding the scratches, that's probably not entirely accurate; it's a matter of aesthetics and attitude, not technique. I'm not prone to excessive displays of joy; I'm all for quiet happiness... But for some reason, those who take positive, happy portraits have never been criticized for being too "positive" :-)))
On the other hand, emotions are interesting, but when they're real, they can change quickly, and on the other hand, I don't really need that...
And again, I don't feel "depressed" by my photographs... and I wouldn't call them gloomy... we're not playing at being sad with them...
digitalbond (Evgeny Sushchevich), Igor Kozlov (adam_k), there is such an example in the history of photography "In the American West", Americans at first were not very happy with how they looked in the photographs of Richard Avedon...
I know this isn't entirely necessary and is almost irrelevant, but perhaps someone will find it interesting...
"Laughter is a facial convulsion, and in a convulsion, a person is no longer in control of themselves; they are controlled by something that is neither will nor reason. And this is the reason why the ancient sculptor never depicted laughter. A person who is not in control of themselves (a person without reason, without will) could not be considered beautiful.
If, however, our era, contrary to the spirit of the great painters, has made laughter the privileged expression of the human face, then the absence of will and reason has become the ideal human condition. One could argue that the convulsion shown in photographic portraits is feigned and, therefore, caused by reason and will: Kennedy, laughing before the lens, is not reacting to the comical situation, but very consciously opening his mouth and baring his teeth. But this only proves that the spasm of laughter (a state beyond reason and beyond will) was elevated by contemporaries to an ideal image, behind which they decided to hide. Laughter is the most democratic facial expression; in our motionless features we differ from one another, but in a spasm we are all the same. A bust of a laughing Julius Caesar is unthinkable. But American presidents pass into eternity, hiding behind the democratic spasm of laughter. Milan Kundera, "Immortality"
Ava_Veled, Portraits of famous, public figures in unusual, unfamiliar moods and emotions are a bit different. Monroe, for example, is always radiant, sparkling, and smiling in public, a symbol of carefree and happy life. Of course, her portrait is more interesting and profound when she's not wearing a mask of carefree gaiety, when she's an ordinary person with sad eyes. I also love solitude, I love being sad, I love watching the rain, I love quiet music, I love walking alone in the forest... but...
Kundera is a subtle writer and spontaneous philosopher.
The passage is poignant, but one-sided. The phenomenology of laughter is as multifaceted and profound as, say, the phenomenology of silence. It would be nice not to "fall into sectarianism" here. )) The list of names of those who have written and thought profoundly about laughter is quite remarkable. I can list them, but that's not the point, is it? Laughter and a smile are not a spasm: they are pure metaphors with a physiologic twist. (smiling))).
Jakov Trembovolsky (Jak Trum), it would be interesting to see, but still, a smile in a photograph is a very strong object and it distracts from the person, a smile is fleeting, it’s a moment... I’m interested in time (which consists of moments)...
Ava_Veled, Sasha (may I also be informal), from the same Kundera. The Book of Laughter and Forgetting: "When the angel first heard the devil's laughter, he froze. ...The angel was perfectly aware that this laughter was directed against God and the dignity of His creation. He understood that he had to respond quickly, but he felt defenseless and weak. Unable to come up with anything of his own, he copied his opponent... but gave it the opposite meaning: while the devil's laughter pointed to the meaninglessness of things, the angel, on the contrary, wanted to express joy at how everything in the world is clearly ordered, intelligently conceived, beautiful, good, and meaningful. And so they stood, devil and angel, facing each other, opening their mouths and making roughly the same sound, but each expressing something completely opposite... Yet the angels had succeeded. They fooled us all, resorting to semantic deception. Their fake laughter and genuine (devilish) laughter are called by the same word. People today no longer realize that the same external manifestation conceals two completely opposing internal positions. There are two types of laughter, and we have no word to distinguish them.
So, in my opinion, laughter—like a facial spasm—is still a devilish, false laughter. And a child's laughter, for example, although fleeting, as you write above, is quite natural and characteristic enough to be captured in a photograph. "Wings of Desire" Wim Wenders: "When the child was a child, he had no judgments or habits. He would often sit cross-legged. And then he would break away and run. He had thick curls. And he would make faces when his photograph was taken."
digitalbond (Evgeny Sushchevich), yes, Evgeny... I agree with you, I'm talking more about "Stereotypical consumer characters, curated by stylists, creep from the pages of glossy magazines into advertising leaflets and roadside billboards. A photograph should be positive, a family on vacation should smile, and on a birthday everyone should say... "Che-ese!"" Vladimir Neskromny (FOTO-VIDEO)...
In both quotes, you're still talking about a fake laugh, not quite real...
We're just arguing almost pointlessly. For now, my idea of "real" (for me) photography is associated with words like calm, time, duration, and fleetingness, which gradually emerges, but is typical of street photography (which I haven't shown online yet, and you can see them when the project is fully completed).
Jakov Trembovolsky (Jak Trum), one of them is Dima and Ira (at the amusement park)... just like before, I meet someone on the spot, I already know someone...
Even if the style of the works is the same in some sense, the people are basically different. Even if they are sad (or any kind), they are unique...the people themselves are unique.
But, in my humble opinion, this portrait is a bit "smooth," straightforward... Without any of the artist's quirks.
I'm not bothered by the repetition, on the contrary, but in every portrait you expect the artist to have a unique insight.
Sometimes you don't find it.
and the life of the photo club... :-)))
On the other hand, maybe you're right, oddities are needed to make people take a closer look and stop in their tracks, or maybe give a link to a photo taken a year ago, the same one with headphones...
Yeah, a good reference, I get it...
I always look at your (I don't remember if we're on first-name terms or not))) works by the "Hamburg score,"
since they're on a completely different level.
And I evaluate them not in the context of the photo club's work, but more in the context of your own work.
Perhaps it would be better to provide links to the series' works, i.e., to Lucy's other portraits.
That's an important point for you. Such a paradigmatic series of one character.
The question is, where is the real person?
Three photos of a person from the last three days... Probably the real Boy with "Alenka"...
Despondency and depression, it's common to read this under photographs, but I would still call it "calmness" or "inner monologue"...
Igor, you have to keep up the standard too. )))
Everything you wrote is banter,
quite internet-appropriate. Are you suggesting the author shoot
optimistic, happy faces in the spirit of the official Soviet Union or
or Germany in the 1930s?? He has different faces and different characters. I find them quite interesting.
Sasha, I understand. )))
Perhaps he's the only one who's almost genuine, genuine in his childishness, and the apparent staging is already a minus for the author.
If there were one or two such portraits, then yes, but there are many of them and they are almost "identical" in their monologue of sad despondency. They repeat each other, like children of the same sad country.
Although I agree that I write harshly and abruptly. I confess, but it's hard to change. A smart person will understand me, but the unsmart will get offended.
Of course, these portraits, thanks to their complex emotions, are deeper than other portraits. But when there are so many of them, almost identical, you start to wonder if they're really that deep.
When someone cries next to you, it touches you and leaves you unmoved. When it happens often, I get used to it and don't believe the crying.
This is your figurative, normal style.
I find the word "depressive" very inaccurate. Look at Sasha's work – medium-format portraits of men and women.
Sad, calm, intelligent, strange, subtle, and, in their own way, happy. )))
But what's absolutely valuable is that all the author's subjects are recognizable. His circle. He finds them, photographs them, and I immediately see whose work it is.
I also agree with Igor that I wouldn't want to live in the world of your gloomy, depressive characters. But from a photography perspective, from the perspective of your artistic style, I always look at your photos with interest.
And I never ask for a sad, tearful face when shooting...
Regarding the scratches, that's probably not entirely accurate; it's a matter of aesthetics and attitude, not technique. I'm not prone to excessive displays of joy; I'm all for quiet happiness... But for some reason, those who take positive, happy portraits have never been criticized for being too "positive" :-)))
On the other hand, emotions are interesting, but when they're real, they can change quickly, and on the other hand, I don't really need that...
And again, I don't feel "depressed" by my photographs... and I wouldn't call them gloomy... we're not playing at being sad with them...
"Laughter is a facial convulsion, and in a convulsion, a person is no longer in control of themselves; they are controlled by something that is neither will nor reason. And this is the reason why the ancient sculptor never depicted laughter. A person who is not in control of themselves (a person without reason, without will) could not be considered beautiful.
If, however, our era, contrary to the spirit of the great painters, has made laughter the privileged expression of the human face, then the absence of will and reason has become the ideal human condition. One could argue that the convulsion shown in photographic portraits is feigned and, therefore, caused by reason and will: Kennedy, laughing before the lens, is not reacting to the comical situation, but very consciously opening his mouth and baring his teeth. But this only proves that the spasm of laughter (a state beyond reason and beyond will) was elevated by contemporaries to an ideal image, behind which they decided to hide.
Laughter is the most democratic facial expression; in our motionless features we differ from one another, but in a spasm we are all the same.
A bust of a laughing Julius Caesar is unthinkable. But American presidents pass into eternity, hiding behind the democratic spasm of laughter. Milan Kundera, "Immortality"
I also love solitude, I love being sad, I love watching the rain, I love quiet music, I love walking alone in the forest... but...
Sasha,
Kundera is a subtle writer and spontaneous philosopher.
The passage is poignant, but one-sided. The phenomenology of laughter is as multifaceted and profound
as, say, the phenomenology of silence. It would be nice not to "fall into sectarianism" here. ))
The list of names of those who have written and thought profoundly about laughter is quite remarkable. I can list them, but that's not the point, is it?
Laughter and a smile are not a spasm: they are pure metaphors with a physiologic twist.
"When the angel first heard the devil's laughter, he froze. ...The angel was perfectly aware that this laughter was directed against God and the dignity of His creation. He understood that he had to respond quickly, but he felt defenseless and weak. Unable to come up with anything of his own, he copied his opponent... but gave it the opposite meaning: while the devil's laughter pointed to the meaninglessness of things, the angel, on the contrary, wanted to express joy at how everything in the world is clearly ordered, intelligently conceived, beautiful, good, and meaningful.
And so they stood, devil and angel, facing each other, opening their mouths and making roughly the same sound, but each expressing something completely opposite...
Yet the angels had succeeded. They fooled us all, resorting to semantic deception. Their fake laughter and genuine (devilish) laughter are called by the same word. People today no longer realize that the same external manifestation conceals two completely opposing internal positions. There are two types of laughter, and we have no word to distinguish them.
So, in my opinion, laughter—like a facial spasm—is still a devilish, false laughter.
And a child's laughter, for example, although fleeting, as you write above, is quite natural and characteristic enough to be captured in a photograph.
"Wings of Desire" Wim Wenders:
"When the child was a child,
he had no judgments or habits.
He would often sit cross-legged.
And then he would break away and run.
He had thick curls.
And he would make faces when his photograph was taken."
In both quotes, you're still talking about a fake laugh, not quite real...
We're just arguing almost pointlessly. For now, my idea of "real" (for me) photography is associated with words like calm, time, duration, and fleetingness, which gradually emerges, but is typical of street photography (which I haven't shown online yet, and you can see them when the project is fully completed).
Sasha, post one or two street photos, maybe right now. ??
I'm really curious to see how you're doing.
Yeah, so it's a series of portraits, but outdoors. With an element of spontaneity: here and now. ??