This is one of those very
rare pictures that cause one
to look a
second time. And then a
third, and then a
fourth . . .
Although we like Lasse's
entire portfolio, we feel a
half dozen
of the images are
extroadinary, including this
one. The color is surreal,
the subject matter very
imaginative, the artistic
treatment exceptional, and
most of all, it has emotional
content. It takes a great
deal of photographic
skill and knowledge, along
with great artistic talent,
to produce such an
image.
Sincere congratulations, Lasse. This is just superb. Incredibly smart concept, and really executed with the highest degree of precision. I think this your best ever. You made my day. A picture that Photo.net would seriously need to consider as POW, and the best picture I've seen on this site in this category of work. Simply brilliant. You have gone a long way since I saw your very first pieces...:-) Kind regards.
...and all of you, I am really flattered by the nice comments, what can I say. It was just a fun idea, why not remake a picture just like film and music are being remade all the time :=)
Stunningly well done except for one minor thing-the head is too detailed.It would be perfect if more 'anonymous'.Not sure of the words,i hope you get what i mean.
Beautiful DaVinci image! But again, personally I cannot classify this type of imaging as photography. I'm not gonna low-rate because it's an excellent piece of art, but for me photo-art is more about capturing a special moment in reality, than creating a special moment in cyberspace or whatever. But it's an old discussion... My compliments though, its beautiful! Regards
..and a discussion that are not easy to end! I can tell you that I really had doubts to put this stuff up here, but after seeing a lot of other manipulations I thought I would give it a go! Everything I do is taken with my old Nikon F3 , but everything is done in the computer, as every picture here has gone through one, when does a picture stop becomming a manipulation?
If I had the funds to this in real life I would do it that way instead, but I can't....right now.
..I am currently in the process of getting thought, essays est. about the future of analog photography vs. digital for a possible book, so every thoughts or comments about that subject is very welcome :=).
Moderator comment: Feel free to "e-mail" Lasse with your opinions on the subject as opposed to expressing them in endless futile debate on this page. Thank you.
Remember when music synthesisers started to get good, maybe in the late 80's? People were running about predicting the death of the orchestra.
Well it didn't happen. Musical shows might now use synthetic strings, but there are still things that a virtuoso can do with a violin that can't be done with a keyboard (of either type). I suspect it will be the same for photography: the borders will stretch back towards painting, advertising will make enormous use of it, but there will still be a use for straight photography. Just as there will continue to be real actors in movies rather than animations.
As to whether the photos are captured on film or via ccd... how many records are made with analogue tape now? I can't see that it matters.
Conceptually, its a brilliant piece of work. But to me ,from a purely aesthetic perspective, the background is a bit too bright and cluttered, detracting from the impact and symbolism of the merged human figures within the gear ring.
It's the result that counts... not if the manipulation is done manually or digitally. All photographers manipulate there picture ...with lens filters ...while developing ...with their choice of photo paper... or with image editing software. The internet is an electronical medium ...so this is definately the right place to show your manipulated photographs! Keep up the good work!
First of all, congrats on this picture of the week, Lasse. You already know how much I like this image.
Secondly, congratulations as this week's work is extremely original and has a real conceptual depth besides the obvious and expected high aesthetical quality.
Whether to PS or not to PS will hopefully not be the only thing we will discuss this week...
Let me be the first to congratulate you Lasse. You've managed to take a seminal Renaissance artwork and, with the application of little imagination, a naked full-frontal female form, a few criss-crsossed lines, some wash effects and a huge dollop of bubble-gum flavoured non sequiter, to produce a piece of artschool-level kitsch.
I know that you know it's kitsch Lasse (your title gives that away): derivative, overdone and a propos of nothing in particular, but where the real genius comes in is in seeming to fool most of the people, most of the time, especially the elf who picked this.
Emotion? There's about as much emotion here as a Desiderata postcard churned out by a Marin County screen printer.
The "technical details" in mentioning Nikon and focal lengths kinda miss the point that this is a manufactured image, based on a 700-odd year old masterpiece that really shouldn't be interfered with if you don't know what you're doing.
No problems about digital manipulation, the technique may also be very good, but the overall
result...is just ugly. Good as a proof of technique, but the comparison with Leonardo sounds
hilarious... I don't feel comfortable with most of other Lassie's work, but at least is original.
I'd just like say that this image is a good example of how to use Photoshop *transparently* to create photographic art.
I've seen such horrendous, obvious overuse of "Twirl", "Watercolor", "Spherize", "Liquify", etc. that I want to let a rabid rally monkey loose in my pants.
I don't think this is well done, interesting or original. I find this disapointing as POW. This leaves me wondering, why the high ratings and content of the comments? I'll be watching the postings all week to maybe understand what I'm missing on this one.
In Da Vinci's drawing the square is contained within the circle, not outside. This represents the squaring of the circle or the power of transformation and more importantly self transformation. The human form traces both the circle and the square in the two bodily positions, indicating divine proportions and the divine possibilities within us. The above image destroys the symbolism and becomes merely decorative, i.e. wallpaper. Turning the circle into a cog of a machine, further distorts the message, but in an interesting way reflects how art without spirituality becomes devoid of meaning.
First of all, I absolutely respect your opinion, obviously, as nobody is forced to like the same thing as his neighbour.
Tony, I am sure you know by now how much I respect your photography, but today, I do disagree with you and others who posted here. I disagree RESPECTFULLY, and I may be wrong, but let me just try to explain what I personally find great in this image... I may be back in a few hours with a detailed post, but for now, may I just say that this mecanical wheel is the key element in this composition. May I suggest that people also start wondering why Lasse didn't centralize this wheel in this square, given Da Vinci's theory illustrated here...
May I just say that this image, to me, is an insight into the evolution of the world from Da Vinci till today... Lasse did not imo show an absence of originality here, by using a known symbol. All the contrary. He re-used an old symbol in a very novel way to basically show us what happened to our world since this icon was created.
Let's just be fair to the person who created this, and assume for a minute that his work may make sense. Then let's analyze it methodically rather than voicing an anger. I see no reason to be angry. Eventhough this would be a bad POW selection, how serious would that really be ? We will still (hopefully!) wake up under a blue sky tomorrow morning, and we should be here, imo, to try to share our differences of views, rather than making them an obstacle to thoughtful communication. Best regards. More later.
With all due respect, you are here telling Lasse something he certainly knows as well as you do.
<p>
"The above image destroys the symbolism and becomes merely decorative, i.e. wallpaper."
<p>
Lasse IS NOT DISTROYING anything. He's TRANSFORMING something into something else. Using one symbolism as a base to SYMBOLIZE SOMETHING ELSE. Till you find out what else and whether you like it or not, I do not see how you can judge this image.
<p>
Please, a little more respect for somebody's effort to communicate something to you. Just try to hear it. Lasse surely didn't mean to give to his image the same exact meaning as Da Vinci. He's not dumb enough to do that. He knows what Da Vinci did, thought about it and had something to say about it. Let's just see whether what he had to say was interesting or not, and whether he said it well or not - visually, and conceptually. That's how to go about this category of work. I see no reason to trash a picture before even understanding the photographer's intent. Let's be a bit more constructive than that, and try to UNDERSTAND FIRST, then only critique (and rate with the little black digits in the little boxes...) Not the other way around. Cheers.
There's been plenty of debate and discussion (much of it very useful) on Photo.net about appropriating other people's art, regardless of media. DaVinci needs to be more than a reference for this image -- DaVinci's work in fact provides all the "meaning" to this image, as nearly everyone recognizes its origin, even with the superimposed woman who is posed exactly as the original.
A clever use of PS, yes, and well executed. But it seems to be getting a free ride on the back of a famous work of art. Can DaVinci be considered public domain?
I think Tony has it right this time, though he's a bit of a Pharissee about it. It's kitsch, it doesn't say much at all, even if it's well-executed.
Where I part company with Tony is in rejecting it for not being meaningful. This isn't photojournalism.net or sociallyresponsiblephotos.net. It's photo.net. Emotionally shallow commercial photography has its place here. Fashion shoots have a place here, and sterile, hypersaturated studio stock-photo pieces have a place here. So, I'd think, would the pre-digital avant-garde photography of the first half of the 20th century: the darkroom stunts with overlaid negatives and razor-blade cuts, the abstractions and psychedelic pieces made with starburst and bug-eye lenses.
An image like this may not be a call to social action and may not be a historical document, but it can still be an exemplary photo.
But in this case, and to my eye, it's clever and shows real talent, but it's not 100% there. The central section of the image seems too bright and undifferentiated. The leafy and fabric-y elements that wend their way through the composition feel more arbitrary than they should be. As a stock image, it could use more background on the top so that art directors have more cropping options available to them. The gear looks too rendered and flat, like something created quickly in Illustrator and painted with a "corroded metal" pattern, rather than looking corroded. The navel and the head seem to be defined extremely sharply, while the rest of the body isn't defined sharply enough.
It's a decent postcard or dorm-room poster, and a damned fine framed image for the reception area of a law office specializing in workers'-rights cases.
It's good, certainly, and Lasse deserves the attention, but even leaving the silly digital/antidigital nonsense aside, I don't think the massive layering here left enough pure photo behind to critique as such. All I can say for sure is that the model's face and calves were adequately lit and kept in focus. Other than that, the photographic elements are overwhelmed by the artifice. Unlike some other recent collage POWs, particularly the frog-on-the-window one, I don't know if there's enough here to discuss, good or bad.. and that to me is the value in a POW: the discussion of what worked and what didn't and why.
"Masterpieces are better left alone", said Morven. Why so ? Because they are masterpieces ? Is it a profonation to rethink based on what not Leonardo by the way, but an architect by the name of Vitruvius, first created ? This Vitruvius and Leonardo after him did not mean that this drawing would be anything else than a symbol, and symbols belong to Humanity as a whole, not to a few people.
<p>
This being said, what does this drawing symbolize actually ? It was firstly an effort to rationalize things by an architect who was looking for clear rules as for how to build his constructions in an harmonious way. Leonardo then used it in a slightly different way, intending to symbolize firstly that art and nature were both obeying to the rules of reason. Then, it was used (mostly later) to demonstrate that there would have been a God to put reason in all things, and it become a symbol of harmony of the forms.
<p>
But originally, what comes with these drawings, and that's imo a key element to understand this POW, is a kind of really complicated calculation involving all sorts of measurement of human body parts, which basically makes Man a mathematical entity more than anything else.
<p>
This symbol isn't a cute drawing at the origine, and it doesn't just mean harmony, but HARMONY WITHIN A MATHEMATICAL WORLD, where reason reigns, as reason was placed in all things.
<p>
A few centuries after this, and many more centuries after the invention of the wheel, comes industrial revolution. From the mecanical age to Galileo and Copernicus, we end up in the 19th century with technological applications of the rationalizations by mecanists over the centuries. This Mecanical circle here is basically showing the arrival point of the History of Human Kind from mathematics to mecanism to technology.
<p>
I take it as a great humoristic statement when I see man ending up framed in a piece of technology that used to be the glorification of Human harmony in form and a glorification of reason above all.
<p>
Another pretty noticeable difference between Lasse's "Wheel of misfortune" (pardon the pun !) and Leonardo's original, is then that we aren't looking at Man anymore, but at a woman. Question: why did Lasse change Leonardo's Man into a women ? I smiled when I saw this change, but it took me a while to come to the conclusion that there were 2 possible interpretations here: I'm hoping here that the second is the correct one, but both are anyway seriously ironical anyway...
<p>
1st possibility - and that's if we assume that the 2 legs at the back are not this women's legs but a man's legs -, there could be here an evocation of a sexual act. I zoomed in in PS to find out whether these were a man's legs or not, and I couldn't tell for sure due to the pixelization that occured of course at 500%. What I can tell is that the legs COULD be a man's legs, as they are quite muscular - but then, so are this woman's legs as well... ? ...?
<p>
2nd possibility - equally sarcastic - is that this woman is actually doing some aerobic here...:-) Which would be quite a subsidiary statement as for what human beings have managed to do as well with the harmony of their bodies.
<p>
Maybe a third possibility would be an opposition between feminine grace and a hard material world where mathematics and technology have sacrified grace on their path dedicated to progress.
<p>
Finally, why is the wheel moving up within the frame ? Here is my interpretation... A square is a perfectly logical and symetrical form that well represent the harmony within the principles of reason that Leonardo was pointing to. A square also perfectly contains a circle, and as such again seems to represent logic and order. The wheel touching the top of this square but not its bottom is therefore, quite obviously I think, a way to say that something isn't going to well in the world logical order. Destabilized is the word that comes to my mind... That's the photographer's opinion about the world's fate as it is portrayed here - see above.
<p>
Is this an objective or a subjective interpretation ? (I can hear the people telling me I'm a navel-gazer again :-) It is at the moment MY subjective interpretation, but I believe it is somehow a POSSIBLE, as in LOGICAL interpretation of what's in the frame. It might not be LASSE'S interpretation, and I'm actually VERY curious to know about that at the end of this week... but it is a message as it was RECEIVED by someone who tried to understand. At this point, that's all it is. If Lasse meant something similar to what I wrote here, then his communication can be considered as WORKING. Meaning that no noise came between him creating this piece and myself looking at it. If Lasse meant something entirely different, then there would have been what I would call " a communication failure". Everyone would have his own view about what that exactly means, but to me, communication failure doesn't even mean that the picture was useless is some people were able to make sense of it. No matter what, this is how one person could make sense of this image, and if he enjoyed it, what's so wrong with that ? Best regards.
To research is to make use of known things to
produce something new... This applies to music
and to science, to literature and to... photography... ! So why being upset if somebody makes use of a well known icon to produce something new?? Do I have to recall that this is
what is happening since the very beginning...?
The relevant question is all simply if the new product is relevant or not. Personally I find
other images produced by Lasse Hoile even more
stimulating than the present one. On the other
hand it is SO obvious that this image tries to suggest us something, so obvious that there is some idea about "life in modern times" the image tries to suggest... I do not think it necessary to give details. As in many examples of surrealistic images, each of us can read something different. One can also decide that a specific image tells him little. On the other hand the effort to tell something is here so obvious that to reduce this pic to an example of a "naked full-frontal female form (always guaranteed to garner a gushing audience of pimply-faced youths)" is really arbitrary.
All this bit about leaving the classics alone... Ever heard of a musical piece called "Rhapsody on a theme by Paganinni"? (might have spelled that wrong...) ... by Rachmananov? (might have spelled that wrong too... damn!) Referencing earlier pieces of work is a strong tradition in the arts.
The photoshop work is nice. The reference combined with changing to a female form and using the gear give the viewer a few things to think about. Certainly illustrative. I don't think Photo of the Week is supposed to be showing modern day classics... If we were producing stuff of that calibre I hardly think we'd bother posting it here...
A beautiful image. Congratz on POW. The moment I saw it I knew that we were in for a lively discussion and I think its important to talk about how photography is changing.
This is every bit as 'photographic' as any B&W 'master print' that has been dodged, burned, toned and spotted to perfection.
Photography has always been a constantly changing technology and it will continue to evolve and change.
Its good to see photographers who are out on the edge exploring what the new tools are capable of. Its every bit as important as photographers who make albumen prints or use vintage equpiment to produce glass negatives.
...Photo Disussion of the Week is what we should call the selects that grace our monitors.
Why should the POW pick always be seen as something to live up to? That's kind of silly considering that photography, art and photographicly attained art is at the very least, subjective.
I have to agree with Marc on the comment of destroying Di Vinci's work. Ummm, arent we allowed to be inspired by our mentors and masters? If this is Lasse's way of expressing his admiration for the legendary figure, then let it ride.
As for the image itself, I think it would be a great album cover if it were the musician in the cog. The darker area in the upper left bothers me a bit as do some of the undefined layers behind the two human forms. You have a style with this that is emerging and will continue to do so if you look for deeper meaning in your art. The monochrome feel is what draws me in to this image. The image seems complex as if there would be a deep and powerful meaning to it, but that's were it ends.
"Remake" in my opinion is work in progress.
Congratulations on image of the week...:-)
It matters BIG time how an image was created and what information as to it's origin is given to the viewer.
db
This image, made with acknowldegement to that famous Italian, is no different than one made with acknowledgements to H.C Bresson, or any other master, whether it's an obviously similar result, as this is, or merely the same style. In that respect, it's an emulation. Has Lasse imprinted his own style on it? He certainly has, and in so doing, has created a piece of work superior to the rest of us who try to shoot like Weston, or Adams, or Cariter-Bresson. It's just easier for us to knock it out of the category of photography than to admit he's more creative than us.
As a very unsophisticated user of Photoshop, I must say this seems skillfully done. Given the artist's goals--which seem to be postmodern revisioning (see Harold Bloom) of Leonardo--this is a fairly well-constructed piece of digital art that does have some fleeting intellectual interest.
Lasse, you seem like a decent fellow and what follows is not directed towards you or your art.
[ mod. edit ]
One last note after that rant of nearly unintelligible rabble: the arguments about the sacred canon of Leonardo show a certain naivete, a certain elemental blindess (see Paul DeMan, BLINDNESS AND INSIGHT)to the history and evolution of art and ideas. All art is derivative, whether it's obvious (as in this piece) or more subtle.
I never meant to imply that a reinterpretation of previous art is wrong. Quite the contrary, art history is a continual reinterpretation. However, there's a big difference between creativity and imitating.
For "traditional" photography, it's silly for me or anyone to try and imitate Adams' style; what we should be doing is reacting to that style and creating our own new vision, however that occurs.
Would it not seem absolutely absurd for someone to scan an Adams' print, then proceed to modify it digitally (Let's put a McDonald's in Hernandez!), then present that image as your own work of art?
Lasse said he was having some fun with the image, implying that he did not intend to send a message. I stand by my earlier position that this is aesthetically interesting, but devoid of meaning. Had he understood the intent of Leonardo, actually believed in what Leonardo was saying about who we are, he would not have toyed with the image. Art should shed insight into our greatness or move us to go deeper within ourselves(to at least question existence). So much of art seems to be saying how meaningless our existence is and that is all it says. It does not encourage us to go deeper, but to just wallow in self pity. Respectfully submitted.
I never meant to imply that a reinterpretation of previous art is wrong. Quite the contrary, art history is a continual reinterpretation. However, there's a big difference between creativity and imitating.
This is not imitating, Lasse has brouht out the social and gender themes from an image we all know pretty well.
For "traditional" photography, it's silly for me or anyone to try and imitate Adams' style; what we should be doing is reacting to that style and creating our own new vision, however that occurs.
Are you talking subject or style? There are still many named photographers using Zone system today (John Sexton to name one).
Reguardless, this image is not just digitally "slapping" scans on someone else's art.
Along with the rest of Lasse's work, this is outstanding. Anyone who has ever modified a negative from its original state has manipulated a photograph, whether in a darkroom or in Photoshop.
It is more effective to focus on the result rather than argue over the process. This photo inspires me to try a few techniques I hadn't thought of, and the results will STILL be photographs, albeit modified.
It might be wise not to insist that "this is a photography site, not an art site." Some photos make that all too clear, and that statement might come back to haunt many a comment...
Wasn't Lassie saying that he just wanted to have fun?).
BTW, I'm posting the original Leonardo's drawing just for
the sake of comparison (BTW it seems to me that the square and the circle are in the same
relationships in both images).
My problem is the overall aesthetical result. Going into details there's quite a mess in the center
of the image, near the model's belly. What I see is something that looks like when I jam two
slides into my projector. There are some objects (is it a draping?) that look confused and
I don't understand why they are there. My eyes are continuosly moving near the center searching
to focus on something and they can't, and I find it quite disturbing.
The model attitude is too simmetric - yes, look at
the feet and the lower legs in the original Leonardo's drawing and you'll find that he was able
to break the simmetry a little. OTOH I find that Lassie's image is too static. Moreover, the
model herself does not match with the subject, I mean she looks like a model for a CD cover,
a fashion magazine, a soft-erotica magazine, everything but a classic subject like this.
We are thousands and thousands of users here, we cannot expect to see only things that we like.
An POW is not a 'premium', it is just a pick over a photo that fosters discussions. I'm learning
lots of things even from stuff that I dislike.
About time. Lasse's work is amazing and deserves every bit of this wonderful attention. This particular choice is very well done. The previsualization required to create such a work is really astounding. Its not scattered and haphazardly assembled, but precise, containing many different photographic skills (macro, portrait, landscape, digital darkroom, etc.).
We dont all want to shoot street or take pictures of Yellowstone. Great artist are not a product of their technology. They are simply great artists who are forced to use the tools of their time. Clone Leonardo da Vinci, grow him up in the 21st century, and watch what he creates. Would it not be a masterpiece because he used acrylic paint or maybe even, god forbid, that technological cheating device, a camera?
Lasse, you know that I have admired your work for a long time on this site. I really like this work and think it is among your best (you have removed some of your best work IMO, but that's beside the point.) What has bothered me about this image, however, is that the position of the models arms and legs do not match up with the origianl Da Vinci drawing. Indeed the arms should be straight out, with the legs closer together and one foot to the side. This is a minor point, I know, but if you're trying to recreate a classic image, why not try and get the details as close as possible to the original?
If we assume for a moment that this image has a clear or quite clear meaning, instead of just believing Lasse who tells us he was having fun, (which certainly was a way to avoid further questions), we can suppose that the legs may need to be just as they are - see above the hypothesis of the aerobic for example. Again, this IS NOT A COPY. As Mike said, it is RE-CREATING something. This re-creation has no rules except the ones the artist has set for himself to produce the work. To judge the rules, you need to understand the work. No choice. The lack of clarity overall especially in the central area is a problem by traditional photographic standards, but doesn't shock me at all in this context. The "drapping", by the way, is a major element of another piece in this series - which seems to show, once more that elements of these compositions are not chosen at random.
<p>
Then the cog is out of the center of the squared image frame, Fabrizio - that's what I meant - and to me, that means instability, disorder. And the foggy look of this image means aetheral and ascending, and confused - which is related, imho, with our times and with the confused march of "progress". What are we progressing towards is the question Lasse raises in this image. Reason is leading us nowhere... (Neither does this thread, by the way...:-)
<p>
Regards.
This piece is wonderful.
This piece is Art. Yes, we can agree that its not everyone's idea of Art. But lets sit back and enjoy it, not slam it because its not a "true photograph".
We hear a lot of the argument that you shouldn't harshly criticise a work here if you can't match it yourself. Does the same apply to praising a work? Are you qualified to praise a work if you can't achieve the same result yourself?
The sophists may think they have conclusively demonstrated by reducto as absurdum arguments that, as all photography on a web site goes through some degree of digital processing, the difference in degree between a primarily manufactured work like this compared to a shot of Yellowstone or a B&W taken in the street is insufficient to differentiate them as to photographic bona fides. We are all made of molecules, atoms and subatomic particles too. They're not even matter, under certain conditions. We are all energy, ultimately. Does this mean that there are no demarcation lines between species, no distinguishing characteristics that separate animal, vegetable and mineral? True in one sense, false in another.
We draw demarcations for convenience. We draw them to distinguish broad ranges of achievement and interest. Ultimately we draw demarcations to slow down the onset of the madness that will overtake us if, in trying to deal with a particular field of human endeavour (in this case, photography) we are forced to consider and admit as equivalents all other forms, not only of creative activity but of abstract thought as well. In photography, the bar seems to be set at whether the image - no matter what its origins may be, or the processes used to produce it - can be expressed in the form of a JPEG file.
Photography is that element of illustration that ends with the capture and cleaning-up of the image. Let the layout artists, album cover designers and air-brush experts do what they will with photographs that are presented to them.
"This is one of those very rare pictures that cause one to look a second time. And then a third, and then a fourth . . . "
It's a quick read - a takeoff of the familiar drawing that substitutes a woman for a man and adds in a cog wheel. Throw in a few faint textural elements.
"The color is surreal . . . "
Another red, yellow, or brown shade would have been equally suitable, I suspect.
"the subject matter very imaginative . . . . "
You must have known from the numerous reactions to similar recent POW choices that this would have been seen as kitschy.
"the artistic treatment exceptional . . . . "
If you like your photographs doctored up, I suppose so. Your choice here perpetuates the notion that this is what artistic photography is all about and that a straight shot by comparison is less 'original' or 'aesthetically' pleasing.
"and most of all, it has emotional content. . . ."
Some raters agree with you. Many, including quite a few who have given up on rating because of images like these, do not.
"It takes a great deal of photographic skill and knowledge . . . ."
How can you tell? The skill and knowledge is in the use of PS techniques.
"along with great artistic talent, to produce such an image."
On this site, artisitic talent has come to mean something you create using a photograph as raw material as opposed to capturing something that has interest by virtue of being real. Many of them deserve better. You just have to look at them a second time. and then a third, and then a fourth . . . .
I can honestly say that I only clicked on this image because it was POW -- and even then only to read the discussion rather than admire the image.
As a graphic artist myself, I can see plenty of merit in this particular piece, but not as a photograph.
"I really think you are reading too much into it Marc."
Maybe so, Nick, but... 1) At least I explained what I saw in it - which I thought was the purpose of this page...:-) 2) Nobody has so far told me anything relevant to prove that this interpretation of mine made no sense.
It seems to me this week that we are not talking about the image, except for a few very rare posts. I personally regret that, because, "regarding this image... interesting I suppose, but with all due respect, I really think you are reading too little into it Nick..." :-) And I certainly wish you told me in what sense an interpretation can be, ever, "TOO MUCH" !? Imo, it can only be too little...:-) (Pardon the pun, but I couldn't resist...)
Basically, eventhough what I saw here maybe wasn't what Lasse put in it, I feel a lot happier to have seen something than I would feel if I had posted a few angry paragraphs about something else than this image... But that's just me... happy to be silly...:-) Cheers.
Ah, Tony. If I was as gifted in photography as you are with words, my work would would be hanging in museums all over America! Why is it that some people find it so difficult to accept "edgy" stuff? Must I be BORED forever with more people pictures, more cat pictures, more dog pictures, and the ever trite landscapes? Geezzz, give me a break.
Lasse's work is a breath of fresh air. A valid attempt to break from the mold. Keep in mind that most photographers, such as Lasse, who attempt to combine art with photography must FIRST be a really good photographer. In fact, I would bet that some of his "straight" images would be superior to 99% of what I see here on photo.net.
So should we penalize him because he has mastered TWO mediums? For over 30 years I made a damn good living as a photographer. I was also one of the first kids on the block to play with Photoshop. And yet, I can NOT produce something as beautiful and creative as Lasse's work. Can you? (And the key word is creative.)
I really do not wish to trade verbal barbs with Tony (as I will surely lose), but I think his comments, as well as those of others, are missing the point!
Should we really CARE how this image was created? I would suggest simply judging it on its merits.
Oh my, kiss a frog, win a prince. Whoops. Perhaps not what you expected? Oh well, sometimes you lose (or maybe not).
For further enlightenment and possible education (?) please visit http://www.lassehoile.com. Please note the two upcoming exhibitions, one in Denmark and one in Germany. If you missed the one in July (in Denmark), you might want to attend the one in November. Point being, Lasse is an accomplished artist in his own right. If you don't like his stuff, fine. I am sure you are not alone. Such is the nature of being different.
Back from the Wilds, Steve? Welcome home! You puzzle me a little when you say, "I can NOT produce something as beautiful and creative as Lasse's work. Can you? (And the key word is creative.)". This seems to be suggesting that an inability to emulate Lasse's work disqualifies one from critiqueing it. If that was the case then most of us would be disqualified from holding an opinion on anything, and I know you (especially you) wouldn't agree with that as a proposition.
I'd also like to take issue with you on your description of this image as "edgy". I'd call it "way over the edge" and heading in the general direction of one of Andrew's "extremes".
The world you conjured up of endless pictures of cats and dogs, Yosemite vistas and shots of drunks recorded on Tri-X was a trifle depressing, I'll readily admit. But equally, I have to ask you, do we really need another Leonardo Da Vinci quotation?
I've been counting the cogs and the bolts (there are 24 of each), and trying to suss out the clouds (are they?) for an inner meaning, and can't come up with anything more than Lasse's information that this was just a "fun" thing to do. I'd like to attempt to critique the photographic aspect of it, but there seems to be a swirl of fog (or cloud?) in the way.
Moderator edit
Undoubtedly Lasse has used some skills to create this work. It seems to be a combination of several photos - two people (the woman with a pretty deadpan expression on her face), some clouds, a kind of sprocketed wheel and some steel bolts. And there's something else lurking in the background too. Looks like a curtain or drape of some kind. It's difficult to make it out at thumbnail size. Plus the square, of course. Layered in together to produce a swirling effect (and possibly to preserve modesty, as the figleaf version above suggests). Dare I suggest it wasn't that difficult? (this question comes from the comfort zone of not having to duplicate it myself).
But please tell me where the emotion is here? Where's the tear-inducing oomph! that makes me want to reach for my hanky? Or, are we talking about another kind of emotion. Laughter? Happiness? Can't see either of them either, not much more than, "Oh yeah, I think I get it," level. Next...
Even when I try, I can't see the point, the message or even the irony of this image (that must mean I'm a Pharisee or a Philistine, right? - maybe both?). And certainly not any overwhelming emotion coming through. But, then again, Lasse did not claim any such thing for the image. He's had greatness thrust upon him.
This is obviously an endless debate. And I certainly do NOT wish to foster my opinions on anyone - because they are simply that, opinions. But in response to Carl's comments, I have simply become bored with "straight" photography. As an example, here is the LAST scenic I ever submitted. I would NEVER hang it in my home. And yet is was published 3 times (once on a calander)and brought in close to $2,000 total. This is the sort of straight photography that bores me silly. Perhaps because I have seen so much of it. However, photography is a progression of learning experiences, and I would NEVER begrudge anyone for loving this form of photography. Most do. "F8 and be there" or "F32 and be there with a 4x5 and a Snyder 90mm" certainly have their well deserved places in photography - as does experimental work!
I admire anyone who can paint this well; but if I presented the Venus de Milo as a male, I don't think everyone would be applauding. This is PC stuff, and people are lining up to display fashionable reactions. In fifty years, people will roll out of their chairs laughing at us for such posturing.
Regarding the question about Jackson Pollock. I don't see why not. People can critique the ability of the photographer in recording the painting. Getting the lighting right and the colours correct. Perhaps even lighting the painting from different angles so as to capture the texture of the applied paint.
Lasse's work is groundbreaking photography at its best. It challenges the very ideas of photography, but that doesn't make it not photography. I believe that makes this more than just a photo, but an important photo.
I can still appreciate a good photograph that plays on the old themes with new ideas, such as Tony's or Doug's work, which I enjoy as well.
Lets all go take pictures, but be careful not to post anything new and different because we will have to make a whole new website for that so no one gets his/her feathers ruffled.
"Evolution of man into a cog in the machine... Superposition of the feminine... etc... Yeah, I saw it; I get it--I just thought it was touched upon by the artist without much depth nor much worth saying about these subjects. Just doodling with some predictable juxtapositions as part of a photoshop flight of fancy, as best I can tell."
I find it very reassuring to see that you actually somehow made sense out of this image, and that you actually "only" found the symbolism weak. To me, it isn't the same to say that a work doesn't have any meaning - i.e: doesn't make any sense at all - and to say on the other hand that you find the message poorly expressed and / or uninteresting.
I would be interested to know, by the way, whether you meant "poorly expressed" (form) or "uninteresting content", or both... May be my English playing tricks on me again, but I'm not quite sure which of these 2 things you meant.
If you care to answer this question, I believe an interesting discussion may take root in your answer... I believe that each category of artistic work has its own language and codes and works as a system, with its own set of rules as well. An idea that could be developed later maybe... Regards.
After a couple of hasty postings yesterday, I decided that I didn't have
a well-formed opinion of this image (hence their deletion.) Despite Marc's
best efforts at directing the discussion, and Dennis's imaginative interpretations,
I still don't. Part of the trouble is the slowness with which I process information,
but another significant part of the trouble is the selector's blurb, which in effect
tells us how we ought to feel about the image (the last I heard, usually POW's are
selected by a single member-at-large contacted by the administration.) I do detect an initial
visual sensuousness, a measure of urbanity and a feeling of fun, but am not able
to detect any "inner meaning" (my loss.) Now I'll stop before committing a gaucherie.
So far it looks like 2-3 layered photographs, photographed/scanned shards of green glass, lots of dodging/burning.
Obviously it has been extensively modified, but still comes across as a photograph as opposed to anything else, is balanced compositionally, is interesting, original (despite being a remake), and just plain works.
<p> <em>mod. edit</em>
Fascinating stuff. I was originally ambivalent towards the shot, but after spending some reading the critiques I gained a healthy respect for this POW. In striving for originality we are evolving photography.
This shot does not rate 7 IMHO for asthetics but is certainly 7 for originality, you cannot deny that it is original.
Expect to see more of this type of work.
My first reaction when I saw this as POW was "Yes, another great discussion 'photo'."
My second reaction to the photo, no offense to Lasse, was "What is that?" I wouldn't try to discuss the technical aspects of this "photo/image" because it is impossible to see the actual photo (not that I would be qualified to disect the technicalities). As far as the composition, color, etc. goes, the photo/image really doesn't do anything for me. The brights and darks aren't consistent and you can see too many details in the face to be consistent with the rest being so blurred (sorry for the run-ons). I remember a few POW's back someone commented on the wall hanging test. This photo/image would not pass that test for me (I wouldn't hang it on my wall).
Please view this as just an opinion of a beginner photographer that still enjoys photographing and viewing the "ever trite landscapes". Please keep posting because I love to read this stuff. I find that I learn a lot about photography as a whole from these threads.
Perhaps we should have a permanent "What is a photograph/Ethics of Digital Manipulation" Forum with a different image to be discussed each week. We could put the image to be discussed on the home page. Oh, we have that already -- only we call it "Photograph of the Week".
Moderator comment: Right on Brian...
and once again we should remind people that the appropriate place for discussion of
what constitutes photography (and this within the context of what belongs on photo.net) is here:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001gZr
WOW, stunning! and i thought i had inspirational pictures.. that is a master peice! if Siskel was still alive he would of put his tumb way up!!! awesome JOB!
Lasse, can you toss us a few bones about your technique? I've tried a few projects like this, but as an intuitive Photoshop user, I'll admit my work did not turn out anywhere near as nice as yours. I'd like to know how you did it.
P.S. Perhaps if we knew more about the techniques used to create this we could have a better discussion.
While I think this is an interesting image, it is tamer than Lasse's other work. For some reason, I keep seeing this shot on the facing page of some article in Newsweek entitled "Working Mothers: Can They Do It All?" I prefer those of Lasse's photos that I can imagine nowhere but on a gallery wall, and there are many.
While I like the idea of using the cog to replace the pure geometric form depicted in the original, I think maybe this picture tries to do too much and therefore ends up being superficial. To the extent that this photo is not just an aesthetic effort but also an intellectual one, why both introduce the cog AND change the gender of the person? I'd appreciate a more focused look at EITHER the "cogginess" of today's world OR the changing role of women in it. But when both are thrown in, they each get short shrift. My mind can't do too many things at once.
this could be a nice effect, but its too one dimensional. an effect does not a picture make however, it is lacking any meaning, it would be better as a part of a whole. it reminds me of how people go "wow" at a boring picture just because it is super saturated by fuji,etc.
Congratulations -- this is aesthetically a very fine image and certainly involving a lot of skill and thought. I really, sincerely, think this is a brilliant piece of computer graphics. I also sincerely think that the elves are way off suggesting that we should consider this piece as emotionally engaging. The technique used, the concept employed and above all, the resulting aesthetics so obviously force the intellectual response that I suspect elves were either drinking or wickedly projecting emotional responses involving the genre of this image (most of them deleted by now).
Needless to say, this is well done and aesthetically interesting, but I'm not sure what to make of the various elements mingling in the center. The bright spot in the center could act as sort of a radiating core, but instead it's more of a bright drifting cloud that's a bit distracting and takes away from the general symmetry of the image. Is it intended as a sort of fig leaf? There are other things going on too, but I can't really make them out. A little ambiguity can be good, but my imagination is not taking the reins.
Interpretation? Well, the image is sort of Metropolis meets Da Vinci with a female model, fed through a City of Lost Children filter. Mixing those elements obviously leads to numerous interpretive possibilities, but I'm not sure I feel anything stronger than that it's a nifty image.
That said, Lasse is obviously very talented, and I look forward to seeing more of his creations.
[ moderator edit: we try to keep the discussion focussed on the image itself. Discussion of photo.net policy and other issues is welcome, but this is simply not the right place. So we delete such comments and edit those which are at least partially discussing the image. If anybody is not happy with our edits to his/her comment, he/she is free to remove the comment entirely ]
* Aesthetically, why is everything cloudy and murky? I don't get that. If you're trying to suggest the industrial revolution, why not do it more directly? Why obscure the human form? Aside from the figure and the wheel, the whole thing feels very arbitrary. The square shape is an afterthought. The result, I think, is not really a photograph, more of an illustration - maybe for an article on the health issues effecting women in the workplace. Lasse should consider putting together a portfolio, in fact, and showing it around to magazine art directors. But this isn't really photography, it's the use of photography to create something other than a photograph. I, personally, don't like it very much.
* To suggest that it was somehow inappropriate to have made this image is really absurd. Far from being upset by this, Leonardo himself would have recognized the appropriation as a very commonplace thing (though he would have wondered how you got access to his private notebooks). Artists in the renaissance appropriated like crazy. In fact there are works of Leonardo's that we only know of because they were copied by other artists. (By the way, in the US, anything that was 'authored' more than seventy five years ago is in the public domain.) Appropriation is definitely fair play.
* This isn't a masterpiece. I don't think there is any official definition or process, the distinction just seems to come from a lot of critical consensus over a longish period of time. I think that this is very unlikely. At the very best, this image is 'neat.'
* This image isn't groundbreaking. We've been seeing the use of famous works of art like this since long before personal computers. What's groundbreaking is the technology and especially the access to the technology that was used to make this.
* I'm not too impressed by this technically. Once you get around to playing with blending modes in photoshop, this kind of thing isn't that difficult. Not to downplay it, I know that it takes effort to get it right and polished, but these are techniques that are not on a very high shelf.
Having now looked at the rest of Lasse's folder, I think that this image is probably the least original and interesting of this body of work. He seems to be pretty influenced by HR Giger. The images that he comes up with without appropriation seem to have a greater sense of purpose and unity. They seem less arbitrary.
We're told images like this are the way of the future so, if we're supposed to learn something here, could Lasse enlighten us about the computer techniques he used to achieve his final result, e.g. which filters, blend modes, coloring techniques, layer effects etc. Also, which parts are photographs from his Nikon camera and which parts are added post-exposure software. There is obviously more than a Nikon F3 with a 50mm lens in use here. How about filling us in, please, Lasse?
"Aesthetically, why is everything cloudy and murky? I don't get that. If you're trying to suggest the industrial revolution, why not do it more directly? Why obscure the human form?" -
Touchel Berne.
<p>
Why do it more directly, Touchel ? Is a photographic motion blur or a defocussed shot a bad thing as well...?
I would also like, if possible to hear a few details from Lasse, about the execution of this. As far as I can tell, though, it seems that Lasse used mostly, for the background several layers of clouds. I do not think that's wrong, and to me, it relates both to industrial smoke, and gives an aetheral feel to the image. Images like this are not meant to show details of this or that. They are supposed to do what's right for the mood of the shot and to fit the concept. Confusion and disorder are imo part of this concept. Regards.
After taking some time to view Lasse's portfolio, and paying a visit to
lassiehoile.com I must say I am impressed. This is a very talented and
creative person.
While "ReMake" is not my favorite of Lasse's work I do like it very much. The fact that some people find deep meaning in this image while others find
no meaning at all is something that can be said of just about any image.
There is no right or wrong in that regard.
Usually by mid week I've grown tired of the POW (that speaks more of my attention span than the images). But here it is Friday morning and this image has kept my interest. I would gladly hang it on my wall.
CHRIST!!!...I can't even leave home for one week and then this happens!!!
Let me first thank everyone for the comments, good or bad, and the guy's choosing this for POW, I am honoured!
I don't want to "defend" my picture, I just want to say thanks again for all the constructive critique, and I think its great that this little picture has generated some debate!
as has been intimated before, what destroys this picture for me is the obvious allusion to daVinci, but missing the point of davinci. The idea of the picture is that the lower set of arms should be perfectly horizontal, as a demonstration than armspan is equal to height.
it's a gripping picture, but it is distracting because it misses the point of the configuration.
I just have to say something here. First a crit.
I love the contradiction of the woman floating in space and yet bolted down inside a gear ring. The limited color palette keeps it from becoming to busy. The highlight in the middle makes it look like it is under glass, like wristwatch crystal with the light from the right. It is also interesting if you consider that the two superimposed images are subtractive and not additive, a natural trait of photography opposite to painting. I think the face is fine but her hair needs some pizzazz, like medusas curls or something.
Secondly I am always very annoyed when people attribute this image to Da Vinci. Leonardo even called it the Vitruvian Man because he copied it himself from Polio Vitruvius. The treatise De Architectura written by Vitruvius around 23 BCE is my all time favorite book and it rivals much of Da Vincis work (IMO).
To put the original Vitruvian Man into perspective, imagine a time when people used all their body parts as measuring instruments just like we use measuring tapes, theodalites, and laser beams today. Back in a time where artist were establishing all the visual design basics like atmospheric perspective, geometric perspective, and the Golden Segment. The very rules that we now defy in the name of Moderism. I am a believer in the old shool with an appretiation of but little respect for Moderism, and I like this image even though I give it more graphis design credit than photographic.
So if we are going to nit pick about who copied who then lets at least get the facts straight. This is another interesting, original spin-off just like Da Vincis is.
I have to say that i agree to some of those that say this is not one of the best of Lasses images. But its well done technicaly. And Lasse is one of the few who are trying to exspand the medium not trying to re-invent them self as puritanistic documentist.
On the other hand I am shocked over the response frome some puritanists stating that this is not Photography.
I will answare it with the words of Alving Langdon Coburn from the year 1913:
Why should not the camera artist break a way from the convention of the medium...... and claim the freedom of expression any art must have to stay alive.
of course this is Photography and nothing other than Photography. Computer or darkroom? is ther realy any difference.
Picture taken is phtography. This image started as Photography image. What was later added does not matter it is still photograph. You dont call images made with many negatives in the enlarger enlarger-art. so Why call images manipulated in computer computer-art. Is Jerry Uelsman enlarger-artist or Photographer. Was Man Rays images any thing else than photography. Is Misha Gordins images any thing other than photography.
I manipulate images I am an artist working with Photography. They start as photographs and they end as photographs what happens in between does not matter as long as they deliver what I want to say.
Hi Lasse!
You must bee a reel Guy ;-)
No other person can do it like you, born, artists.
Keep on with your beutiful work.
Your friend in Sweden,
Staffan
I checked out your website which has further images of this 'series'. Your visual comments on the frailty and also the mechanization of human beings are beautiful and profound. Very nice work.
This is not a photograph. It is a composite overlay constructed like a graphic artist would create a logo or an advertisement. There is no doubt whether or not it is an attractive piece of art, or that this artist is very talented, but I am dissappointed that this was chosen as a photo of the week because of the extent this image was manipulated. Does this set a precedent for future photos of the week, such that unless significant maniuplation and graphic overlay is used, it is not good enough?
Of course the image creates an emotion and response from the viewer, but why don't we just post still frames from movies, or artist sketches to create the emtional response?
Show me the negative. This image does not look like a photograph. I can't believe that people like this image so much!!! C'mon people, either call this website digitalphoto.net, or start posting real photos!!
Honestly, guys, Photo.net is for photographers helping photographers. This is definately graphic art, not photographic art. I'm not saying it's wrong to create art like this, I'm just saying that the digital imaging and graphic art is and should remain in a separate realm than traditional photography. This is NOT the future of photography. Or perhaps you want to create a $4.00 disposable camera that my kids can buy from Wal Mart, and this is what that $4.00 camera will create? Photography is about capturing memories of our lives in the realm of reality, not fantasy or surrealism. If you are tired of real photography, go tell that to your wife and children, and your childrens children. Aren't you in effect telling them, "Hey am no longer interested in preserving my memories of you and our lives together on film, so I am throwing away my camera and never taking a photo image of you again." Technological changes will not change our desire to have photography capture the people in our lives in a real and literal fashion. Technological advances may improve the quality of such an image, but they won't look like this artists work.
Great work Lassie, you are worlds away from us earthy "photographers"
May your PC have much ram and your imagination be wild!
Unless otherwise indicated,
all photographs on photo.net are
copyrighted by the photographers, whose permission
is required for any usage.
Send a free photo eCard
Photo eCards from photo.net are a way to email someone a photo.net Gallery photo
with your personal greeting or message. Send an eCard to your contacts to announce
your portfolio on photo.net. Send one of your own photos as an eCard to ask
another photo.net member to write a critique of it. Share photos
and portfolios that you have discovered on photo.net with your friends. Or
just send someone a greeting or message for
a birthday, holiday, or other occasion or observance.
The recipients will receive an email from
photo.net announcing that they have received the eCard, with a link back to
photo.net. When the recipients follow the link, the photo and your message will
be presented to them in a special eCard format.
The easiest way to see how eCards work and what they look like
is just to send yourself one!
photo.net eCards are free: by sending one, you are letting others know
about photo.net and the exceptional photographers on the site! We won't charge you
for that. The email addresses you enter into this form will be kept private. Send as many
eCards as you like, but please don't turn this feature into a spam-a-thon.
You must be logged in as a registered user to send an ecard.
, July 19, 2002; 07:30 P.M. 
