Panes & Panels - Project (P&P-P)

[Paul Abbott]

This was a project I started nearly two years ago, but hadn't shot much for it. Although, now I have kind of woken up to shooting for it again.
Some in this series you have seen before, I think.

#1

#2

#3

#4​

 

[Paul Abbott]

#5​

 

[Ken Tanaka]

These are each nicely seen and nicely captured Paul. Yes, I recall #4 from earlier this year.

These are fun to shoot, and I have certainly done my share of them, too.

But I must share my own view on such images (including my own): I ultimately find most such images utterly mundane and uninteresting...yes, even my own....especially when presented as a body or images. I've long wondered why. Here's what I've concluded thus far.

1. Pedestrian POV: The 3-point perspective of looking up at tall buildings immediately signals "easy shot" to the viewer, rather like Stephen Shore's silly (but sadly celebritized) images of dirty breakfast dishes. Anybody can get that shot at any time, even with an iPhone. Like that hot blonde from your high school days, pretty but too easy.

2. Someone Else's Vision: You're ultimately often capturing a vision that someone else has already created for you to see, rather like taking a photograph of a painting. Each of your images is delivered to your lens fully premeditated by an architect.

So in shooting this stuff look for opportunities where multiple elements momentarily come together to create a vision that you can claim as unique to the moment. Shadows, people, odd incongruities, unanticipated scenes rarely captured, points of view other than looking upward from the street. (Two such images from my own collection that I feel fulfill such a bill: Skywashers and Urban Autumn.)

Otherwise the best this imagery can ever be is generic stock.

 

[Paul Abbott]

You know what Ken, your words have totally summed up how I have felt about these images from time to time. Sometimes I daren't look at one or two of 'em for fear of falling into a coma!!
Also, I take onboard and agree with your other points, wholeheartedly. Multiple elements of which you speak are essential.

I think I mentioned awhile ago on another photograph of mine at how I was getting fed up with abstracting and/ or simplifying my images, but hey - I hate all my photographs in the end!
My reaction to this was to work on my Statues & Monuments project where maybe I could set up contrasts and juxtapositions of people, the street and the statues.

Having said all that though, I still think that an image like this is still worthy of a frame or too, if only for my own wall, on which #2 hangs.

Regards.

 

[Asher Kelman]

These are each nicely seen and nicely captured Paul. Yes, I recall #4 from earlier this year.

These are fun to shoot, and I have certainly done my share of them, too.

But I must share my own view on such images (including my own):


I ultimately find most such images utterly mundane and uninteresting...yes, even my own....especially when presented as a body or images.

Gracious, but more true for most of us, than not!

I've long wondered why. Here's what I've concluded thus far.

1. Pedestrian POV: ..... Like that hot blonde from your high school days, pretty but too easy.

2. Someone Else's Vision:.... Delivered to your lens fully premeditated by an architect.

......... Otherwise the best this imagery can ever be is generic stock.

Your remarks are like experiencing a great swordsman disarming a hapless band of pirates, but putting them adrift with perfectly ample supplies and a compass and a bible to learn their lessons and start life over again. We are lucky to have no holes barred approach to what we present, especially with such style and consideration. "Tough love", but valuable.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Ken,

Let's me dare to revisit one of Paul's images. This is both despite but also with the help of your observations which provide awareness of the rote things we all sometimes do to be "creative"

I actually like Paul's "obvious views", but the image does not then need to be pedestrian. Here's one example:

#2

Is this indeed showing an aggressive form on the left confronting a more tranquil being on the right?​

Paul,

Ken's remarks made me spend more time and consideration. Looking through the filter of his cautionary advice, have some impressions that still stand.

The reception I have may be just my own daydreaming brain and not applicable to anyone else. Still, I see a strong sense of aggression coming from the left towards a more vulnerable "open" being on the right.

So, Ken, out of the simple, architecturally conceived rectilinear architectural forms, Paul seems to have imagined, devised and manufactured a sense of contrasting stances in our city world, the lion and the lamb, the warrior and the artisan, the beast and beauty itself.

Now, Paul, here's the rub! What I say may have no value to you. Nevertheless, if these sensibilities, as I have speculated, are indeed real and matter to you, then we'd look for such a motif in more of your work. I might be wrong in the particulars of your overriding ideas. Still, we'd appreciate any such common overlay and or backbone of some values in a series of your work. Let me emphasize that having a common sense of emotional values is not at all required. There's the kind of pristine esthetics of geometry and form, without emotive qualities that can work too. Just that it's favorable to have some motif in common.


Asher

 

[Ken Tanaka]

...

Having said all that though, I still think that an image like this is still worthy of a frame or too, if only for my own wall, on which #2 hangs.

Regards.

I certainly agree, Paul. I, too, have a few that I've printed and hung, or have shown, mainly because they were compelling eye candy. But like candy they, too, were non-nutritive. They offered no answers. They presented no questions. They were/are just...there...like most landscape photography...pretty but...zzzzz.

But don't stop shooting in these environments. Just take time to look for more complex opportunities or situations that progress your observations and opinions, situations that offer irony or humor using urban landscapes as backgrounds. London offers tremendously rich possibilities with its enormous time span of architecture. You certainly have the eye, Paul. Now for a fisherman's patience....pick a spot and wait.

 

[Paul Abbott]

Another thing to bear in mind I guess, is how this type of image has reached a saturation point.
Regards, Ken.

Asher, what you say has a lot of value. With architecture and such, I genuinely have a great interest in line, form and contrast. My 'Slightly St. Paul's', 'A View of St. Paul's' and 'Bankside Power Station' images emphasize this.
The overbearing left-side of #2 just happens to be another contrast, which I was interested in creating.
I'm happy about what you saw in it, it's a valid point.

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Asher,
By "pedestrian" I meant, literally, on-the-street view NOT lacking inspiration.

The images are beautiful. But, like that high school blonde, ...?

Image #4 begs to be manipulated and tiled, perhaps due to its strong geometry and square frame. (Paul, let me know if this bothers you and I'll delete the image.)

© Paul Abbott​

 

[Paul Abbott]

I like what you've done there Ken, and no, it doesn't bother me. Feel free to have a go with #4 if you want.
It never occurred to me to do something like this, I guess this one is like a very long lasting bubblegum, no?

That's how i'm gonna' measure images like this now! I'd hate to see what a cotton candy picture would look like! LOL

 

[Andy brown]

Lovely images Paul.
And I do agree with Ken's (as usual,..cut to the chase style) remarks.
Yes, someone else created the vision for you to record and just as with landscape images, there's a touch of 'so what, I could have taken that (if In was there)'.

To lift a landscape shot from 'I could have done that' to 'I wish I saw the world like that' is the difference a good eye can bring.
Likewise with architectural stuff, if the architect can look at the image you've created and think '**** I'm good' (as they do) whilst secretly thinking 'wow, I've never seen that angle before, that looks awesome {**** I'm good}' then you've added the X factor.

I know Ken can do this and I think you've done it here.

Who cares? We do (amongst others) and.... how do I sell it?... Well there's always the well off and egotistical architect.

Apologies for stereotyping.

 

[Paul Abbott]

Thanks very much, Andy.

I think there is always something to be said about a photographer's vision/ eye and what he chooses and composes to photograph I guess.


It seems to me these days though, that the only kind of subjects worth shooting in photography are documentary type images as well as street images and all that may occur on it regarding 'happenstance'.
I have a major interest in these types of photography too, and have images of these subjects, but not too many. They come very few and far between for me, so in order to fill the vaccuum of the day of having not shot anything, I usually turn my eye to things like the above and other stuff.

Cheers.

 

[Jean Henderson]

"Hardening of the categories causes art disease." - W. Eugene Smith

Hi Paul,

Never saw this quote, but I love it!!! I like the geometry of your images, too... While Ken may be right in his comments overall, I have always found strong geometric patterns and lines to hold my interest -- almost like eye relief from the visual chaos that surrounds us at times. Still, the first image on Ken's website (or one his sites) seems to fit the bill he is suggesting to you. I don't know how to say "see this" and have it turn into a link, but the one I mean has a diagonally sliced piece of sunshine against the building.

Jean

 

[Paul Abbott]

Thanks, Jean.

In London, it is quite busy as far as construction goes, there is gonna' be some great looking buildings going up, especially The Shard. I eagerly await what these will have to offer as a photograph, and what I can do to make it a more interesting one. Cheers.