Viktor Kirillov, I agree with you, but it's not even a matter of taste, but how to catch the light with this rapeseed...)) Thank you!
galina, What you think about HOW TO "CATCH" is TASTE, an orthodox lupine doesn't even think about such trifles as LIGHT, the main thing is to find the correct aperture for the GRIP in the camera's instructions.
Viktor Kirillov, ...to the "little things" like light..., probably, understanding comes a little later..., when you already see that you can't do without it...)))
Viktor Kirillov, ...for "little things" like light..., probably, understanding comes a little later..., when you already see that you can't do without it...)))
galina, For some, never, although they think they are engaged in PHOTOGRAPHY (LIGHT writing).
Viktor Kirillov, I called this work "mysterious forest" on Facebook, one person asked, where is the forest??, and not only the light, but also the imagination, how a person perceives it, directly or sees something else in this...
Viktor Kirillov, I called this work "Mysterious Forest" on Facebook. One person asked, "Where is the forest?" And not just the light, but also the imagination, how a person perceives it, directly or sees something else in it...
galina, Maybe then there's no need for WORDS at all. Let each viewer see (or not see) the forest for themselves in THEIR OWN imagination. No need to constrain them with an author's title. You've already said EVERYTHING with your photograph.
galina, Maybe then we don't need WORDS at all, let each viewer see (or not see) the forest for themselves in their own imagination, no need to constrain them with the author's title, you've already said EVERYTHING with your photograph.
Viktor Kirillov, exactly! The author's words hinder the viewer's work.
Viktor Kirillov, exactly! The author's words interfere with the viewer's work.
Andrey Samoilov, but sometimes it's necessary to understand what the author wants to say... but not always..)) ...for some reason, at the exhibition, they ask for the titles of their works...
Andrey Samoilov, but sometimes it's necessary to understand what the artist wants to say..., but not always..)) ...for some reason, at exhibitions, they ask for the titles of their works...
galina, If the viewer doesn't speak the language of photography, then what good is the extra information? If exhibition organizers care about titles, then do we really need such exhibitions? Words are a hindrance. They blind the viewer and cut off their perception. I only allow short text next to a photo from the scene. There, words are justified, but not in the exhibition hall.
galina, Maybe then we don't need WORDS at all, let each viewer see (or not see) the forest for themselves in THEIR OWN imagination, no need to constrain them with an author's title, you've already said EVERYTHING with your photo.
Viktor Kirillov, You just need to choose the title wisely. I agree with the author on this issue: "Sometimes it's necessary to understand what the author wants to say..., but not always..." How does the title of a jazz piece, "Stars Fall on Alabama" or "I'm Behaving Well," hinder perception? Or a high-quality street photo with the caption "Samara"? And who will guess "what the author wanted to say" if they are pushing some innovative idea and don't have a host of people closely following their creative growth? Or today the author has "just a landscape," and tomorrow he's offended that no one sees how wonderfully the background in the left corner bulges into the right. It seems to me there's something slightly pretentious about such a categorical attitude toward titles.
Victor Kirillov, You just have to choose the title wisely. I agree with the author on this issue: "Sometimes it's necessary to understand what the author wants to say..., but not always..." How does the title of a jazz piece, "Stars Are Falling on Alabama" or "I'm Behaving Well," interfere with perception? Or a high-quality street photograph with the caption "Samara"? And who will guess "what the author wanted to say" if they are pushing some innovative idea and do not have a host of people who closely follow their creative growth? Or today the author has "just a landscape," and tomorrow he is offended that no one sees how wonderfully the background in the left corner bulges into the right. I think there's something a bit pretentious about such a categorical attitude towards titles.
Oleg Popov, Well, where did you see me being so categorical? I also agree with the idea that "titles should be chosen wisely." If the author had called this photograph "Lonely Lupine," it wouldn't have changed the picture at all, and the title "Mysterious World" wouldn't have changed Okaledin's "Surepka" either, because there's jazz and MUSIC, and then there's Chizhik Pyzhik and missing three notes. In the beginning was the WORD (for an artist, an IDEA), and I agree with this in a philosophical sense, but in photography it should be realized visually, without unnecessary letters.
Oleg Popov, Where did you see me being so categorical?
Viktor Kirillov, I wasn't referring to you, it was just a conversation about the audience's work and the obstacles to it. An audience that understands the author, or tries to understand him, is a rare commodity.
A viewer who understands the author or tries to understand him is a rare commodity. [/quote] Oleg Popov, What a Parnassus you've been brought to! The author himself is sometimes completely indifferent to his own creations, and to expect a casual viewer to deeply understand someone else's soul... there's no time to deal with your own EGOISM, let alone shed tears over someone else's.
A viewer who understands the author or tries to understand them is a rare commodity. Oleg Popov, What a Parnassus you've gotten yourself into! The author is sometimes completely indifferent to his own creations, and to expect a casual viewer to deeply understand someone else's soul...they don't have time to deal with their own EGOISM, let alone shed tears over someone else's.
Viktor Kirillov, Absolutely right. That's why I'm talking specifically about the viewer. I'm generally convinced that the more powerful the author, the less they care about delving deeply into someone else's work. Someone else's work most often serves as a source of inspiration or ideas.
Viktor Kirillov, Absolutely right. That's why I'm talking specifically about the viewer. I'm generally convinced that the more powerful the author, the less they care about delving into someone else's work. Other people's work most often serves as a source of inspiration or ideas.
Oleg Popov, at the initial stage, it's difficult not to slip into outright imitation.
Oleg Popov, at the initial stage, it's difficult not to slip into outright imitation.
Vlad O., I think that's normal. The more you obsess over the exclusiveness of the thoughts that your head is bound to generate, the more absurd they tend to seem. I'm convinced that interesting thoughts are born naturally when monotonous labor and experience in a plowed field are combined with talent through a divine spark. In my opinion, it's much more interesting to look at well-crafted remakes of something already known than at the forced expulsion of individuality.
The author's words hinder the viewer's work.
...for some reason, at the exhibition, they ask for the titles of their works...
If exhibition organizers care about titles, then do we really need such exhibitions?
Words are a hindrance. They blind the viewer and cut off their perception.
I only allow short text next to a photo from the scene. There, words are justified, but not in the exhibition hall.
Oleg Popov, What a Parnassus you've been brought to! The author himself is sometimes completely indifferent to his own creations, and to expect a casual viewer to deeply understand someone else's soul... there's no time to deal with your own EGOISM, let alone shed tears over someone else's.