DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Art Appreciation 2
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 10 of 10, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/30/2002 03:02:35 AM · #1
If anyone missed my first "Art Appreciation" post, it's here.

This time I'm going to talk about a photo called "Make My Night (Kebab)" by artist Paul M. Smith:



I'm sure the first thing most people will think when they see this is "Wait a second! That's not art... that's a snapshot!!!" And they'll shake their heads sadly at people who don't know better and hang an image like this in a gallery or pay money to have a print of it in their house. The madness of it all!

In fact, this photo is one from a series called "Make My Night", some more of which you can see here, although I'm not sure that's the whole series. One thing that's difficult to see in this particular photo is that all the people in it are the same person, the artist himself. This image is highly processed, and was deliberately made to look like an ordinary snapshot. Why? Well, think about it for a second :)

Paul M. Smith is a young British artist, even younger than the group I talked about in my last post. Some people have casually grouped him together with a bunch of other young artists and given them the title "Neurotic Realists". He works in digital photography and manipulates all his images in interesting ways. So far in his career he has focussed on exploring masculine stereotypes, with series of photos that are set on a sporting field, in the army, on a "lad's night out" (in this series), and others that explore the image of the action hero, and sexuality. I really want to talk about one of his "Action" photos in a little while as well.

"Make My Night" isn't the only one of those series where he used the technique of photoshopping the same person into the photos multiple times. It's an interesting technique, because to me it raises questions about the group mentality that can overcome men (and women as well, but these are specifically photos of men) in the situations of sport, the army, and on a drunken night out. He seems to get to the core of what happens in these situations, where there is a fine line between male bonding and the kind of tension that spills over into hooliganism and violence. There is no individuality in these photos, just a group of men with the same face, the same body language, the same semi-instinctive behaviour. In another of the "Make My Night" photos, one man is pretending to have sex with another man while he lines up a shot on a pool table... this and other poses in the photos have a really primal quality to them that strikes a nerve with me. There have been many times when I've been out late at night and felt quite threatened by groups of men behaving that way.

So, have you worked out why this photo is blurry, badly exposed, badly lit, etc.? It's because it's supposed to look like a photo one of the drunken guys on this night on the town would have taken. All the technical aspects of photography are there for you to use in the most appropriate way to communicate your feelings and your aim. None of Smith's other photos have technical imperfections like this, only this series. It is a deliberate technique to make the photos as real as possible. Is it pretty or attractive? No, but neither is the subject matter. This is art that explores themes, feelings and experiences, it's not just about decorating the walls of your house.

Message edited by author 2002-12-16 11:37:34.
 08/30/2002 03:18:03 AM · #2
thats pretty neat stuff. illustrates just how far your imagination can take you in the digital realm.

the one thing that i noticed right away was that despite their "snapshot" appearances, all his photos had a very strong sense of composition. which is important in any medium.
 08/30/2002 03:24:49 AM · #3
Hear! Hear! Lisae! Well said!
We all need to realise that not everyone sees everything in exactly the same way! What a dull world it would be if we did! How boring the art of photography would be if everything was pin sharp, perfectly lit, exactly framed according to the rule of thirds. We need to realise that the rules are there to guide, to assist in learning, but the photography police won't lock us up and throw away the key if heaven forbid we break them! Alright sandy off your soapbox!!!
 08/30/2002 08:20:17 AM · #4
Let's talk about what differentiates a photograph from 'art'. Whether or not a photo is considered 'art' is strictly up to the viewer. Because *I* say it's art or *you* say it's art doesn't make it art for everyone else. So, that being said, *every* photograph is probably 'art' to someone.

These photos in this particular series cary some merit, but they hold very little of my own interest. After reading what you posted about them, I can see their merit and I can see their purpose as well. I would not likely have understood these on my own. I *did* notice that all the people were the same person.

I don't like these photos from a subjective standpoint. There's nothing about them that grab my attention. This is for the same reason I didn't care for the last photo you posted. I look for images that I think will have a lasting impression on me. I can see where these particular photos would appeal to a large group of people... primarily people who are slightly younger than I am. (I'm 34 and beginning to feel the oncoming signs of turning into a curmudgeon :)

I would not consider these images to have a 'timeless' interest level. If I loved them today, would I still feel this way as my maturity and personality changes over the years?

As I said earlier, these images each have an interesting level of intrigue about them. For me, that intrigue would be short lived.


08/30/2002 08:56:37 AM · #5
This type of photography is interesting to look at but doesn't have long term appeal to me. But then again ,art has to have a bond with me beyond looking nice or having curiousity.

I have very few art pieces displayed in my house....especially very little on the walls. There are a couple illustrations that were given to me by a friend in the comics business and a few photos I have taken of my family.

Why I mention this is that many folks often say around here "Would I hang this on my wall" as part of some ultimate test of whether they like something. I would say that 99.999999999% of anything I see I would NOT hang on my wall. Art appreciation (even of my own stuff) has to go to a special psychological level to really get to me long term.....everyting else is superficial and momentary.

I would not hang an Ansel Adams print on my wall BUT if I were friends with his family and they gave me a print I would put it in a very high place of honor.
 08/30/2002 08:57:49 AM · #6
Thanks everyone :). This is so much fun.

I said that I'd talk about one of Smith's "Action" photos, and this is it - "Action (abseiling)":



Others from this series are here. These photos are designed to be mounted in a light box on the ceiling, so imagine you're looking up at this. I love it, it has a really ominous feeling about it. All the photos on that page (except perhaps the last one) use the centre point of the image as an important focus. This one has the skylight centred, with the man's face right in that central circle, as though he has a little black halo. All his limbs are on radial lines, and his gun is on one of the thicker radial spoke... things. This draws your eyes out to those important points, but sickeningly back to his eyes, which are hidden by sunglasses and make him seem impersonal and amoral (to me anyway).

This is the kind of thing I think people need to understand about composition - the centre of a photo always plays an important role. If you want to create a feeling of stillness or formality, use it. In these photos, it seems to create a mood of inevitability. They all involve falling in some way (the 2nd one, with the guy jumping between two buildings, is really interesting because his forward foot is centred, and it makes you realise he's actually not going to make it to the other side). The feeling is that these guys are falling towards you, and you can't get away. Your gaze is fixed on them as they approach you.

Anyway, these are more pleasing to look at than the "Make My Night" series. More of his photos are here. Definitely look at the "Artist Rifles" photos, they're really cool :). The "This is not Pornography" series could be a bit confronting for some people (just a warning).

Message edited by author 2002-12-16 11:38:32.
 08/30/2002 09:00:21 AM · #7
The one question I have is: HOW??? How was this done, because I would luv to be able to take pictures like this....same subject in several poses in the same frame.

Originally posted by lisae:
[i]If anyone missed my first "Art Appreciation" post, it's here.

This time I'm going to talk about a photo called "Make My Night (Kebab)" by artist Paul M. Smith:
08/30/2002 09:30:28 AM · #8
lisae, congratulations on your discussions of these photos. I have enjoyed reading them and I think you are providing the most important tutorials on this site - amateur photography is big on technicalities and small on aesthetics but you have managed to put over some thought-provoking questions in an accessible way. This is no mean feat and I look forward to reading number three.
 08/30/2002 11:59:29 AM · #9
I agree with grahamgorman. Lisae, you rock :-) Many thanks for your time writing these posts. I enjoyed them very much. I spent more thoughts while viewing the photos your explained than I spent while taking some of my own photos. It feels good to see that there is something else to photography than just the technical merits. I'm not sure if that's possible within the challenges on DPC but you certainly encouraged me to think more about what, why and how I take my photos.

I think lisae showed very good that photos which are not visually appealing still can be exceptional good photos. But I'm sure these photos would score very poorly here on DPC. I would have given them low scores without the background information, too. Now I know that almost everybodys opinion here is "a photo should speak on itself" but don't you think that it's sad that these photos wouldn't get the recognition they deserve?


 08/30/2002 04:46:56 PM · #10
Originally posted by lisae:
Thanks everyone :). This is so much fun.

I said that I'd talk about one of Smith's "Action" photos, and this is it - "Action (abseiling)":

here. These photos are designed to be mounted in a light box on the ceiling, so imagine you're looking up at this. I love it, it has a really ominous feeling about it. All the photos on that page (except perhaps the last one) use the centre point of the image as an important focus. This one has the skylight centred, with the man's face right in that central circle, as though he has a little black halo. All his limbs are on radial lines, and his gun is on one of the thicker radial spoke... things. This draws your eyes out to those important points, but sickeningly back to his eyes, which are hidden by sunglasses and make him seem impersonal and amoral (to me anyway)...

lisae -- thanks for starting this thread...for fun, try taking that skylight image and inverting the colors. By the way, I believe in heraldic description that glow around a "holy" person's head is referred to as a nimbus, and is usually golden...

I find it a bit odd that so many of us seem to like these discussions, when in (high) school teachers probably labored to extract a two-page book report from us...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:04:28 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:04:28 PM EDT.