New Exhibition by OPF Member

OPF attempts to support members work, posting exhibitions, visiting where possible and reviewing their work.

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/expo.php

The latest one is from Tony Bonnano.

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/expo.php#

Santa Fe - Tony Bonanno - "Hooves & Dust"
"Hooves & Dust" is a recent body of work by photographer

Please look at the images referenced in the exhibtions page and discuss any images that interest you. Open a new thread for each photographer. This thread is for tony's work.

Asher

This is beautiful work. It would be great to learn more about how you created it. I think this holds true for the other exhibitions mentioned on OPP as well. Having each artist talk about the challenges they faced, their inspirations/ideas for each project, the equipment/techniques used, and in this case the location and animals, which are uncommon for many people, is definitly something interesting.

Alain,

I'm writing reviews so your points are a useful guide to my interview with the artist.

I'm glad you like Tony's work. There's one thing finding a horse to photograph, there's another to capture a sense of power and independence in these beautiful animals in a novel and powerful way.

I'll be interviewing Tony but in the meanwhile, feel free to comment on the composition and the picture as a work of art.

If it also sells, I happen to give it capitals, ART to designate a commericial currency that can both transcend and confound esthetics!

All opinions welcome!

Asher

I look forward to the interview. Regarding commenting on composition, art and more I do so when discussing the art with the artist. I feel that this needs to be a conversation and not a statement on my part. I find making statements about all this to be not only didactic, but very much the approach of a critic. As you know, I see myself as an artist and not a critic, hence my position.

That's fine, Alain, we still can have reactions. That, anyone can provide.

Is someone wants to go further, then that's an extra.

My reaction is visceral and the picture connects with very basic feelings of awe, wonder and respect for power and individual freedom. That's my reaction.

There are no symbols that refer to anything political or religious that I can recognise. It doesn't test the limits of any understanding or require any special codes available only to the highly informed. Tony's work gives a visceral response of power and beauty.

As art, to me it passes the test of being impressive and impactful to want to return to see that energy. I also believe, at least from sale of corporate art, that this is likely to sell.

I'd love to hear what different people feel when they see this picture.

Then what they think.

Asher

Asher,
Of course, everyone is free to reply any way they like. I am only describing my approach, not imposing my views on anyone.

I am reposting what I believe best explains by example what we want and need, as a minimum, in discussion of pictures in the "Photography as Art".
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=538
Simply put, describe what you feel and think in simple terms as Alain has.

Alain Briot said:

Very nice. Wide angles are great to add dynamism and movement to compositions, so using them in combination with sports gives fantastic results. We feel like we are right there, sharing the moment with the people in the photographs! It's worth every distortion the lens may create.

Click to expand...

Asher Kelman said:

Alain,

Your description of the pictures sets the standard for what I perhaps couldn't present well enough in the "Photography as Art" forum.

The concepts of "dynamism", "movement" and "presence" that you so perfectly describe are the kind of facets of photographs that we would like to see recognized in photographs discussed by people in reference to peoples photographs.

Click to expand...

The above comments explain how we should approach photographs. What you feel and think in simple terms.

If one can and wishes to add references to other pictures or cultural, political or compositonal or artisitic frames of reference, then that would be a bonus.

My goal is to develop a valuable place to discuss our pictures in a meaningful way according to our reactions, thought and ability. Each forum has to develop its own tone. This is a great start.

Don't be afraid to express your reactions and interpretations.

Thanks,

Asher

I think that in regards to Tony's photographs (horses) the use of sepia helps locate them in a space that is half way between contemporary (we now tend to see sepia/b&w as "grunge" in a way, a perception reinforced by the use of distressed image borders by some photographers) and historical, since sepia at one time wasn't a choice but rather simply all that was available.

Normally I do not publicly comment others work, when I like it I say it (as I did here:http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=531.

But I see that a discussion arises about Tony's work for his exhibition, and I would like to explain more why this is great work to me, why all people around Santa Fe should run to pay a visit (see where the exhibition is held on the exhibition page from front page of OPF).

These images are full of wilderness, dust, strength of horses, movements, beautifull lights and colors. I'm a color lover. Color is life and theses stills are life like one may dream to live.
They are also "fresh", I mean somewhat candid, I am quite sure that the shooting - even if it has certainly be a hard work to find and get at the right place at the right moment - had been a real exciting moment for the shooter, jubilating? I hope so!

As an European, over 50 years old, it may also remind me the technicolor western movies (John Ford's and others) I saw when I was young, maybe these images are touching somewhere my memories, but the real thing that let me sat in front of my screen and don't move (sorry Santa Fé is too far!) is that capture of subtle moment, early morning, one can hear the hoofs of horses and the banging of the cowboys' whips.

I'm there, I feel it, I live it. Nothing else around can disturb me. I'm just caught and I like that.

It's just perfect to me, I don't feel the need (or the right!) to comment the technic, though I would really enjoy to talk with Tony about lenses, camera, etc. but not the artists choices. I don't wish to discuss the sepia or the B&W, they are the choices of the Artist. These choices are to be fully respected even if I prefer the full color ones.

Just for the pleasure of everybody's eyes...

I'm in awe!

This a window to a very special moment! I too am taken into a secret world.

Looking at the picture, right now, I don't think of technic.

However, later, I'll have no self-restraint on careful questions on vision, approach, technic, choices and method of delivery of image as a print.

Each person has to comment based on their own sense of appropriateness and goodwill and limits in experience with such work. Culture, profession and personality informs us of how we should approach commenting on other peoples creations.

IMHO, asking about artistc choices, or deeper criticism, is in no way invasive of the artists artistic world of perogatives. It often relates to our reception which itself is tuned differently in each viewer.

Of course, if the photographer actually asks for deeper questioning or advice, we should endeavor to offer constructive and measured responses, still respecting the artists own values and approach.

Here, for the moment, however, all that is silenced by the thunder of the horses.

Asher

I guess I'm coming to this from a very different state of mind. As a (transplanted) resident of the American West I find myself at odds with the common romantic perception of cowboys and their ways.

To me this image speaks of the distress, anguish, and humiliation of these beautiful and powerful beasts, subjugated by the arrogance and superior cunning of the human (ironically using one of those same beautiful beasts as a vehicle to imposing his dominion).

From an academic standpoint I can recognize some classic elements of composition (rule of thirds, ratios, symmetry, etc.) which serve their purpose well in creating a visual tension and leading the viewers to specific power points in the frame. These are tools the photographer has used very skillfully to illustrate and enhance the unfolding drama. This, however, is the "how" that should never supplant the "what" (remember Adams - "there is nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept"). The "what" here is delivered with enormous power - tense muscles, anguished expressions, light that almost seems to ebb and flow at the artist's will - an image created with the same deliberate force and and precise control over a fleeting opportunity as the very subject it portrays.

Guy

To me this image speaks of the distress, anguish, and humiliation of these beautiful and powerful beasts, subjugated by the arrogance and superior cunning of the human (ironically using one of those same beautiful beasts as a vehicle to imposing his dominion).

Click to expand...

Guy
for a lot of reasons, economics, cultural, political standpoints, we perceive such image differently.
And I like that too, this is one of its forces/strengths that enable different people like you and me react strongly with our different perceptions.
This is , IMHO, the quality of a real artistic approach. It touches us from different angles and we can speak/argue/shout/exchange about the WHAT.
Here the HOW desserves the WHAT and this is maybe the reason why I don't need to discuss the HOW.
The what is much more interesting and I thank you BTW to point out the economical/political possible meanings.

Thanks Tony to give us that opportunity!

Nicolas Claris said:

Guy
for a lot of reasons, economics, cultural, political standpoints, we perceive such image differently.
And I like that too, this is one of its forces/strengths that enable different people like you and me react strongly with our different perceptions.
This is , IMHO, the quality of a real artistic approach. It touches us from different angles and we can speak/argue/shout/exchange about the WHAT.
Here the HOW desserves the WHAT and this is maybe the reason why I don't need to discuss the HOW.
The what is much more interesting and I thank you BTW to point out the economical/political possible meanings.

Thanks Tony to give us that opportunity!

Click to expand...

Nicolas. my very good French friend,

When the dust settles, I still want to know the "Why" and the "How"!

Only that completes the arc from intent of the photographer/artist to visual reception and full appreciation by the viewer.

Once we learn the "Why" and the "How", we can "rewind" our mental movie and experience the picture closer, perhaps to the artist's intent.

Remember when, at the end of several episodes, Darth Vader, faced Luke Skywalker's light saber and imminent death, protests, "You can't kill me, I'm your father!"

Only then we learn of the "why and how" that they now face each other as adversaries.

http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/lukeskywalker/

Of course, it is dangerous to learn the "how and the why" since, if you learned, who knows what you would have left of your assumptions and givens in your world.

Motivation and method are the underpinnings for full reception of any human communication.

Still, what you expressed in your feelings and thoughts are great. For any response to pictures here, that is the standard expected.

For me, personally, I liked the "what" of your work!

However, only by being with you in Bordeaux and having the privilege of learning something of the "why and the how" have I reached a fuller appreciation of your work.

Still, with all our differences in approach, Tony's work is getting feedback that impresses me.

Asher

Asher
My dear American friend.
Of course OPF is not a gallery or a museum to be visited with silence. But it ain't be a school too!
Sometimes - and discovering some photographies like Alain's, or Tony's or some others' here - I feel I don't have to "discuss" their choice, because that stuff is what they've they wanted to express and this suffer no discussion, it just have to be respected be this photo for the spectator a
+ or - photography.
I don't mind asking "what's the hell of lense did you use to get that effect, blablabla?" or ƒ ot speed or light system. This a part of the how, the other part, the subjective one which is not acceptable to discuss is the photographer's way of framing, angle, display of light,
because they are his choice!
there are the most part of his art!

I whish for myself (and I'm not an artist) to forget the technic when I shoot and just think and feel about the what and the WHY!

Technic is here to serve us all. This is why we can share it!
How can one imagine sharing someone's Art?

Who can explain that wonderfull (I wrote about "jubilation" above) rare moment given by photography when you press the button and you know you've got it. Now, not the one before, not the one after.
Because you are with yourself, facing what and why. How is far back. Hopefully.

In another post, I wrote to Alain Briot (he did some nice and kind comments on one of my pics) it's beacuase I love them (the subject). When you really love, there's no technic anymore. Hopefully.

Cheers, I'm going to drink some good wine with some (French) friend! and I'll have a special thaught for all of you…

Guy Tal said:

I guess I'm coming to this from a very different state of mind. As a (transplanted) resident of the American West I find myself at odds with the common romantic perception of cowboys and their ways.
Guy

Click to expand...

Some could say that your work is a romantic perception of the American West... Personally, I think that your work and Tony's work is beautiful! I don't really care if it is romantic, not romantic, or other. As Nicolas says, very accurately, when one loves his subject, nothing else matters, be it technique, inspiration, etc. The viewers that know this and who believe that the artist has passion for his work, are the ones who truly enjoy looking at the images. Those that doubt, or are suspicious, do not enjoy it. I believe that you, Tony and Nicolas all have passion for their work. I am equally passionate for my own work.

This is one of the reasons why I am not a critique. I only want to talk about what I love. A critique talks sometimes of what they love, but more often they talk about what they don't like. I am not interested in focusing on the negative.

Alain Briot said:

This is one of the reasons why I am not a critique. I only want to talk about what I love. A critique talks sometimes of what they love, but more often they talk about what they don't like. I am not interested in focusing on the negative.

Click to expand...

I applaud!

However 1, when I love, I do like to exchange on the HOW.
The WHY and the BECAUSE are the pure artist choices, therefore respected should the be appreciated or not.

Sould I say that I make a huge difference between the technical HOW and the metaphoric HOW which comes from the artist view?

The technical HOW must be hidden by the artist view and quality of the WHAT, the WHY and the BECAUSE.

However 2, things may be different if the photographer asks for comments and advices...

Facing a subject to shoot, I certainly understand that there should be as different results as the number of photogs shooting that subject.

Each one will bring its technical skills (that can be easily discussed) but how can we discuss about each one views/perception? Of course Each of us will prefer one or another result. Who cares?

The only main important thing is that we do get caught and get the great emotion by one. Or two. Or three...

Alain Briot said:

Some could say that your work is a romantic perception of the American West... Personally, I think that your work and Tony's work is beautiful! I don't really care if it is romantic, not romantic, or other. As Nicolas says, very accurately, when one loves his subject, nothing else matters, be it technique, inspiration, etc. The viewers that know this and who believe that the artist has passion for his work, are the ones who truly enjoy looking at the images. Those that doubt, or are suspicious, do not enjoy it. I believe that you, Tony and Nicolas all have passion for their work. I am equally passionate for my own work.

This is one of the reasons why I am not a critique. I only want to talk about what I love. A critique talks sometimes of what they love, but more often they talk about what they don't like. I am not interested in focusing on the negative.

Click to expand...

Alain,

I like the fact that we look at the pictures in different ways. We then have a way of placing the image in a wider context. Here Guy provides a challenging socio-political framework for Tony's art. This to me is not threatening, but stengthens my apprecation of the photographs. It now not only provides me the initial fascination and awe, but now I think of moral issues.

Such thinking, IMHO. allows us to extend our understanding of our world, questioning the "givens" and the status quo. For sure, once Guy's comments have been read, they will not be forgotten, whether you agree with them or not.

"Those that doubt, or are suspicious, do not enjoy it. "

Perhaps.

Also lack of apprecaition can be a problem of viewer reception of a picture.

Even a picture of a man waiting on a park bench with everything perfectly printed can be puzzling to naive viewers. Where are the colors? What is happening? I don't understand it! Hence I don't like it!

A picture that is puzzling to the viewer may in fact require cultural signals to be understood or a frame of reference that the observor lacks.

This is where your suggestion for the artist introducing his work, so that a milieu is set, is so valuable. This allows us to uinderstand the artist's intent and frame of reference.

As far as being a critic, one need not be fearful as long one shows respect for the artist.

Criticism done correctly, requires care, like delivering an infant.

Asher

To me these images are inspirational!, thankyou very much for sharing them.

Does anyone remember an american plate photographer who came to the New Forest (Hampshire UK) over 20 years ago and captured equally stunning pictures of the New Forest Ponies at dawn and dusk?

I think Alain and I are simply different in our perception of the world. Whereas in his arguments I see deterministic evaluations (good/bad, positive/negative), I like to take a more dialectic approach - everything exists somewhere between two extremes. I like or dislike something because of what it is, but also because of what it is not. I cannot say something is good or bad without making a judgement on all its aspects, both positive and negative.

In this image for example, I like the visual effect, the emotional impact, and the physical beauty of the animals portrayed. I admire the skill of the photographer. I don't necessarily like the act portrayed. I like that the image is unique and that it is not cliche'. I like the attention to detail under such extreme conditions and miniscule time span, and appreciate that this is not a compromise some might make ("it's the best I could get under the circumstances").

To me everything exists in any number of continuums. On any given one, it may somtimes be closer to one extreme or the other, but never definitively "all good" or "all bad".

I believe a good critic must faithfully express their thoughts on all relevent continuums. It is obvious to me that liking or disliking something is a matter of degree and that there's never a pure positive or negative - there's always some of both. This doesn't mean a critic needs to always find fault, only to faithfully represent the preponderance of factors they feel are relevant to the work in their subjective evaluation.

Finally, I believe that all feedback, positive and negative ultimately helps the artist. Positive critique may stroke the ego and tell one they're on the right track, but negative feedback may be even more valuable in the sense that it gives an artist something they cannot possibly know on their own - whether their work is successful or not in the eyes of a stranger.

Guy

Guy Tal said:

Whereas in his arguments I see deterministic evaluations (good/bad, positive/negative), I like to take a more dialectic approach - everything exists somewhere between two extremes.

Click to expand...

But still, I find your writings (on your site & on NaturePhotographers.net) to be quite judgmental... nothing wrong with that mind you. My writings are too but I make no secret of it and I don't try to pretend this isn't the case. Sometimes writers are not aware of how they come accross to their audience. I personally limit my criticism to people's attitudes regarding photography & photographers. I try not to bring a judgment upon the work itself, although I have had people tell me that I do, so I probably do, but I am not fully aware of it.

In the end, only Navajos are non-judgmental Belaganas (white people) can try but usually fail... There are exceptions and I am certainly not talking for everyone.

What matters most is that my previous post generated some nice responses. As Kenneth Burke says, "we have to dip our oar in." Meaning, jump in the conversation. Only then can we start rowing, meaning discuss things in a more and more involved manner. Eventually, we reach a shore, and there we desembark. Hopefully, we don't have to walk the plank ;-)

Indeed, but as Asher indicated - all things need to be considered in the context they are presented. Writing, like all other creative endeavors, is a tool - sometimes it is used to challenge and provoke, other times to inspire, to explain, to describe, to question, to share etc.

Also, true to my dialectic philosophy - my writing now is not the same as my writing then, same as I am now different from what I were then and what I may be tomorrow. We all constantly transform and evolve.

The dine' are as humans as any of us. Their ancestral culture has made many of them wiser and more perceptive in some respects but there is nothing in any culture that any of us cannot learn, adopt, and practice if we so choose and if we open our minds and hearts and dare to challenge our beliefs and convictions.

Guy

Guy Tal said:

Indeed, but as Asher indicated - all things need to be considered in the context they are presented. Writing, like all other creative endeavors, is a tool - sometimes it is used to challenge and provoke, other times to inspire, to explain, to describe, to question, to share etc. Also, true to my dialectic philosophy - my writing now is not the same as my writing then, same as I am now different from what I were then and what I may be tomorrow. We all constantly transform and evolve.

Click to expand...

Dialectic is nice, but it can also be used to obfuscate. Like any tool, it has advantages and disadvantages. I am all in favor of it, but not in favor of authors who constantly shift their point of view. I am not saying this is what you are doing, I am simply saying that there is a risk and that as authors it is something we need to be concerned with. Eventually, people like to be able to pin you down. And you better give them something firm to pin you down with, or they end up pinning you down as inconsistent, wishy-washy, flip-flopper and so on.

As one of my teacher said to a student who was rambling on and on in class: "Make a point, would you."

I also want to mention that the essays I read on your site and on naturePhotographers.net were the most recent you wrote.

Alain Briot said:

Dialectic is nice, but it can also be used to obfuscate. Like any tool, it has advantages and disadvantages. I am all in favor of it, but not in favor of authors who constantly shift their point of view................

Click to expand...

Views must change as we pass through time and have different experience and new data.

Studying art from around around the world this summer has tested a lot of my assumptions. Meeting young people across Europe and re-examining my own work must, I believe alter views I thought were solid.

Some of the best art, writing and theater, push boundries. I like that, even though some makes me uncomfortable. Then, I will be judgemental, rather must be judgemental.

Not doing so is a cop out. Just as the photographer, writer and artist make choices, so must we as recipients. In theater, I can walk out. In a group I can argue and disagree. If I am not judgemental, there is no social currency of worth.

I am judgemental of Tony's work. I selected it and have, as a result, already learned more than I expected!

Asher

For the sake of keeping the thread on topic, I emailed Alain off line. I am curious to understand his personal observations but don't want to take away from the discussion of Tony's work.

I will say though - this thread is testament to the evocative power of good art!

Guy

I didn't receive anything . . . Why not start another thread on this forum? I'd much prefer that. I'm not much into "offline" discussions. If it can't e said in public regarding photography, then maybe it shouldn't be said at all.

oops, just found your email. Went in a different box.

The thread is fine!

Art can be so many things. We knew the hoofs and Dust photos are beautiful. Art that evokes challenges, is, IMHO, the most valuable.

This brings us back to Tony's work. Just as I discovered how special it is to photograph landscapes at sunset or for Nicolas to capture of fast boats. Having recognised the great impression Tony's photos make on us, now I ask about the how?

I'm interested in how one organizes such a shoot. One can't be changing lenses, I'd think in the middle of a dust storm. What cooperation is there between the photographer and the cowboys. Does one have to be on a horse oneself?

Asher