An apology....

[Cem_Usakligil]

"Modern technology owes ecology an apology " - Alan M. Eddison
As seen in Utrecht, NL.

​

 

[Asher Kelman]

"Modern technology owes ecology an apology " - Alan M. Eddison
As seen in Utrecht, NL.

​

"As seen in Utrecht"? In a shop window, exhibition, book cover or you made this?

But surely, Cem, modern technogy is also part of ecology itself, just as a bird's nest or beehive or ball of elephant dung prized by the dung beetle!

Asher

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Asher,

Don't shoot me, I'm just the photographer.
It's just a wall with a quote and a a painting on it.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

By now I know when an image doesn't appeal to the OPF public due to a lack of reactions. Don't worry, I'm not sure I like this one either. I just liked the mural. The quote seeped in as an afterthought when taking the picture.

 

[Tom Dinning]

By now I know when an image doesn't appeal to the OPF public due to a lack of reactions. Don't worry, I'm not sure I like this one either. I just liked the mural. The quote seeped in as an afterthought when taking the picture.

I'm still asleep, Cem. Too much culture this weekend.
I'm still coming to grips with the significance of the photo.
Did you include the quote/title over the image or was it on the wall?
Are the bikes part of the art or just an adjunct to your approach to the image you present.
Are you just recording what you see or are you asking us to make an interpretation of the photo?

If I take the image as is I immediately percieve a connection between the elements. Symbolism is strong. The ecology represented by the paining on the wall, an anomoly in itself, represented in silhouette as a shadow on the wall of a life form after a nuclear explosion, overplayed with techniology of similar form which may be part of the technology that is erasing our environment. Yet those same bicycles are seen as a 'saviour', or at least a tool for progress to a cleaner environment.

I'm not sure where the apology is coming from. It may be a bit of irony. I'd really need to know who put it there before I cast a vote.

Thanks for waking me, Cem.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I'm still asleep, Cem. Too much culture this weekend.
I'm still coming to grips with the significance of the photo.
Did you include the quote/title over the image or was it on the wall?
Are the bikes part of the art or just an adjunct to your approach to the image you present.
Are you just recording what you see or are you asking us to make an interpretation of the photo?

If I take the image as is I immediately percieve a connection between the elements. Symbolism is strong. The ecology represented by the paining on the wall, an anomoly in itself, represented in silhouette as a shadow on the wall of a life form after a nuclear explosion, overplayed with techniology of similar form which may be part of the technology that is erasing our environment. Yet those same bicycles are seen as a 'saviour', or at least a tool for progress to a cleaner environment.

I'm not sure where the apology is coming from. It may be a bit of irony. I'd really need to know who put it there before I cast a vote.

Thanks for waking me, Cem.

I am not giving you a vote for this one, Tom! Don't trust hoe you'd use it!

Asher

 

[Tom Dinning]

By now I know when an image doesn't appeal to the OPF public due to a lack of reactions. Don't worry, I'm not sure I like this one either. I just liked the mural. The quote seeped in as an afterthought when taking the picture.

"OPF public". Is that an oxymoron?
Reaction and interest aren't necessarily analogic. Nor is 'like'.
Some days OPF members just couldn't be bothers, or were asleep, as in my case. Or just brain dead.

 

[Asher Kelman]

"Modern technology owes ecology an apology " - Alan M. Eddison
As seen in Utrecht, NL.

​

I think I understand now and in fact, this is particularly interesting with knowledge of your series of photographs of civilization contrasted with smokey industry. We have a similar "motif-pair" here. Perhaps you might give the link or repost one of your previous pictures of such a series, for example, one with sunbathers and in the background some toxic appearing industrial plant!

The picture with the bicycles adds an extra element - of industry with respect for nature, as while the bicycle's production caused injury to the global ecology, it enables a future savings by not using so much polluting fossil fuel. So this is indeed a rather sophisticated image. While the quote and reference is educational, the picture works on its own, especially for those familiar with your past art series.

Delighted to be given the mental challenge, but I think I'm better off for the experience.

Asher

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Tom,

...
Did you include the quote/title over the image or was it on the wall?
Are the bikes part of the art or just an adjunct to your approach to the image you present.
Are you just recording what you see or are you asking us to make an interpretation of the photo?
....

The quote and the title are painted on the wall, no post-processing has been done. I have included the bikes expressly, in order to add an additional layer. Bikes can be considered ecology-friendly but they are also a part of technology. I am just recording what I see, although the viewer is always invited to interpret.

.....
If I take the image as is I immediately percieve a connection between the elements. Symbolism is strong. The ecology represented by the paining on the wall, an anomoly in itself, represented in silhouette as a shadow on the wall of a life form after a nuclear explosion, overplayed with techniology of similar form which may be part of the technology that is erasing our environment. Yet those same bicycles are seen as a 'saviour', or at least a tool for progress to a cleaner environment.

I'm not sure where the apology is coming from. It may be a bit of irony. I'd really need to know who put it there before I cast a vote.

Thanks for waking me, Cem.

Precisely Tom, bingo.

I don't know who has put the quote on this wall, my vote is blank too.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

"OPF public". Is that an oxymoron?
Reaction and interest aren't necessarily analogic. Nor is 'like'.
Some days OPF members just couldn't be bothers, or were asleep, as in my case. Or just brain dead.

I know that reaction and interest aren't proportional. But I know how the the cookie crumbles over here in OPF. By looking at the concurrent activity of members in other posts and the high number of views of my post, I am able to deduce that people are holding back on commenting because they are not entirely sure how to react.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

I think I understand now and in fact, this is particularly interesting with knowledge of your series of photographs of civilization contrasted with smokey industry. We have a similar "motif-pair" here. Perhaps you might give the link or repost one of your previous pictures of such a series, for example, one with sunbathers and in the background some toxic appearing industrial plant!

The picture with the bicycles adds an extra element - of industry with respect for nature, as while the bicycle's production caused injury to the global ecology, it enables a future savings by not using so much polluting fossil fuel. So this is indeed a rather sophisticated image. While the quote and reference is educational, the picture works on its own, especially for those familiar with your past art series.

Delighted to be given the mental challenge, but I think I'm better off for the experience.

Asher

Thanks Asher for your kind thoughts. You are right that one should put this picture within the context of my interest of how humans interact with their environments. I'm am not so sure if the image is a sophisticated one, perhaps not. But it is one I felt compelled to take and share after a long period of absence.

 

[Tom Dinning]

I know that reaction and interest aren't proportional. But I know how the the cookie crumbles over here in OPF. By looking at the concurrent activity of members in other posts and the high number of views of my post, I am able to deduce that people are holding back on commenting because they are not entirely sure how to react.

For those who don't know how to react, the question is:
"If you did know how to react, what would you say?"

 

[Asher Kelman]

For those who don't know how to react, the question is:
"If you did know how to react, what would you say?"

I would say, "Give some context and how the picture came to be taken."

In many or even most pictures we see, we know enough history, folk tales, fables, bible stories and proverbs that we "get" what's meant by the work of art. However, we cannot possibly be expected to understand all symbols or motifs a photographer uses. Here, I make it my business to understand each person's body of work as best I can, even then, I was flummoxed at first with some images recently. For example Tom Dinning's picture of garbage had the title of the spacecraft that spent 8 minutes speeding past Pluto! There was no context offered to explain the title, but doubtless others understood.

Some say a picture should "speak for itself", but I doubt this can work in all cases as we each use even similar motifs differently!

Asher

 

[Maggie Terlecki]

I apologize, Cem. I thought this was the cover of a book that had the bicycles on it and the shadows of flowers on a wall and that the print was from the book cover. Seriously, I don't know where my brain was. I didn't realize it was a photograph you had taken of a wall. I blame that almost pristine font that looks printed not painted. As for the image, I actually like it.

I like the bikes in the front because it makes us consider that the matter is not black and white - yes, bikes are part of technology, but still ecological and in many countries, even today, where people have little money, such an important tool for kids to get to school, for transportation of goods and going to the market etc., The Helvetica font reminds us of the printing press and how reading changed the world but it is still part of technology. Interesting image to make us think.

As for people lack of comments; I know how that feels especially when you see people commenting on other images and not yours. It has been one of the hardest things about posting here for me; that feeling that people don't like what I do. I, for sure know that certain people laugh at the type of work I do and only think their own work is of any value. I can't say how many times I've not posted in fear of feeling crushed. But then my work is silly and yours is not. I've always thought your work is of the highest standard and not only for composition and technique but the depth of thought that goes into them.

I'm sure that many also thought you were showing a book and were a bit perplexed as I was. Please do not stop posting as it would be a loss for us all.

all the best,
Maggie

 

[Tom Dinning]

I would say, "Give be context and how the picture came to be taken."

In many or even most pictures we see, we know enough history, folk tales, fables, bible stories and proverbs that we "get" what's meant by the work of art. However, we cannot possibly be expected to understand all symbols or motifs a photographer uses. Here, I make it my business to understand each person's body of work as best I can, even then, I was flummoxed at first with some images recently. For example Tom Dinning's picture of garbage had the title of the spacecraft that spent 8 minutes speeding past Pluto! There was no context offered to explain the title, but doubtless others understood.

Some say a picture should "speak for itself", but I doubt this can work in all cases as we each use even similar motifs differently!

Asher

Pictures don't "speak for themselves". They don't "speak to us".
We speak on or about them.
People here might claim some skills at taking photos but few have the skills to put their reactions to viewing a photograph such as Cem's into words.
Unless the viewers here have either something profound to say or something totally lacking content such as "like" or any other pathetic synonym, they say **** all.

I'm OK with 'I couldn't be bothered'. At least it's honest. But to suggest any photograph provides no thought that can be scribed, with or without content support, tells me that the person is in dire need of resuscitation. That's just bloody insulting. I know. I'm an expert on the subject.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Pictures don't "speak for themselves". They don't "speak to us".
We speak on or about them.

Tom,

To whom are you addressing these comments?

Just in case it was to me, then let me clarify, if I may, the concept here of "speaking" as applied to a picture or other work of art. Here we mean "an abity to present a clear meaning of the sort intended more, or less, by the artist". Indeed, some works clearly speak for themselves to provide all or practically all the built in meaning asserted through the image by the author. For example an image of "a mother nursing an infant", might have sufficient clarity that no title or introduction could be needed.

Cem's pictures speak to me pretty clearly as I have invested the time to try to understand the iconography he uses. However, this might not work for others if they find only one of his pictures and have no frame of reference.

In summary, some images do speak for themselves and others might need some prior exposure to such art to appreciate the motifs and get the full intended experience.

Asher

 

[Maggie Terlecki]

Tom,

To whom are you addressing these comments?

Just in case it was to me, then let me clarify, if I may, the concept here of "speaking" as applied to a picture or other work of art. Here we mean "an abity to present a clear meaning of the sort intended more, or less, by the artist". Indeed, some works clearly speak for themselves to provide all or practically all the built in meaning asserted through the image by the author. For example an image of "a mother nursing an infant", might have sufficient clarity that no title or introduction could be needed.

Clem's pictures speak to me pretty clearly as I have invested the time to try to understand the iconography he uses. However, this might not work for others if they find only one of his pictures and have no frame of reference.

In summary, some images do speak for themselves and others might need some prior exposure to such art to appreciate the motifs and get the full intended experience.

Asher

Actually, I'm pretty sure that it was that I said I liked his image. I never professed to being a writer. I'll leave now, let me know when the coast is clear!

 

[Tom Dinning]

Hi Ash.
How's things?
I was speaking to the ether, as it were. You're previous comments sparked some life into this sleepy brain in preparation for the onslaught of the great grand-daughter. Mind you, for complete mental preparation I would need a 7.8 earthquake or and attack from ISIS, both of which I have more chance of survival.

I understand you statement, Ash. Its conventional and clear. I was suggesting that those who don't comment either couldn't be bothered or can't think of anything they feel might be worthy of such a prestigious site such as OPF.

Somewhere in between all that is a whole host of options of which only a few may actually 'hit the mark' as far as the photographer's intentions. Surely those comments which are simply sparked by the visual experience are as noteworth, relevant or meaningful. From time to time the photographer, one of an open mind at least such as our friend Cem, may actually learn something, be inspired by the writing or so frustrated they hang themself from a tall tree in the park whereby a passing photographer might take a snap and post it here for further discussion.

Why, only recently, James posted a comment on my 'landscape' that sent me flurrying down a different alley, so to speak. His perception was his own and not mine. Nevertheless, just as interesting.

Why even taking offence can be enlightening. I do remember in the dark past, making a comment on a photograph from the highly skilled and well known Maggie. She took offence that I didn't see it her way. That, to me, is enlightening for us all, including the photographer.

Some photographs here remind me of my bigotry. That's far from the photographers intention, I'm sure. But how enlightening it is for me, and possibly others, that such a simple thing as a photograph can do that.

You, yourself, have experienced my reaction to your own photos . We argue and squabble over their meaning, our ethics and intent and come to a resolve. What a great thing for people to do.

The significance of a photograph 'speaking to you' isn't important in itself but in the way we, as individuals take the time and effort to note what is there and what it means to us.

Its like a joke. Some people laugh because they 'get' the satire, play on words or are surprised. Some people are offended because they take it personally (the joke is about them). Others just don't get it and need it explaining to them. That's a waste of time. You may as well explain why we breathe.

On all sorts of levels, I enjoy Cem's photo.
I enjoy his company
I appreciate his skills
I find fascination in his subject matter
I know he's listening when I talk to him.
Anything goes with the comment.
He doesn't need me to like them (although I do)
I know my reaction will be appreciated but not necessarily agreed with
His photos, along with all photos, set off a reaction that connects all that I am, including my knowledge of the photographer.
Including the very discussion we are having right now.

None of this is meant as a criticism or components of an argument. Its just what photos can do.

We often here that some comments are off the track. If there was a direct line to an outcome that might be the case. The outcome here is open ended. I walking the line like a drunk in sand.

By the way Maggie, just for the record. I like what you do, I think you are highly skilled at what you do, I wouldn't expect anything less from you than what you display here. There are days when I think: Í wish MAggie were here to show me how to get this ****ing thing to work!!"

.. but I know you couldn't tolerate my cussing and blasphemy. The coffee is good though.

Cheers

 

[Charlotte Thompson]

Cem

I see this as art. Period. Framed and find a good wall.

Charlotte-

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Tom, Asher, Maggie and Charlotte. Thanks a lot for your comments. I am enjoying the discussion very much and I can assure you that no feelings of mine have been hurt; au contraire! So please keep your comments coming if you wish to.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Pictures don't "speak for themselves". They don't "speak to us".
We speak on or about them.
People here might claim some skills at taking photos but few have the skills to put their reactions to viewing a photograph such as Cem's into words.
Unless the viewers here have either something profound to say or something totally lacking content such as "like" or any other pathetic synonym, they say **** all.
...

I agree with Tom on this. A picture is a two-dimensional, static object which we turn into 3D in our heads and then attribute a meaning to it. In order to do that, we start by identifying objects in the picture first and then start looking for clues as to what those objects are actually doing (or not) and how they all relate to each other and how it comes together (if at all) for the viewer. Any meaning, value or like/dislike which then results is a product of our own brains. When we speak about pictures, we may be referring to parts of this process; such as re-iterating which objects we see in the picture and whether we think that they are placed in an aesthetic manner with respect to each other (more commonly referred to as the composition). The problem with our thought processes is that it is almost instantaneous and we may not be aware of the reasons why we end up liking/disliking a certain picture. And that lack of insight into our own thought processes is what may prevent us from reacting. We can not clearly explain why we like/dislike the picture and we would not want to hurt the feelings of a fellow photographer by reacting negatively without some substance behind our reaction.

Way back in the past, I used to deliver"constructive" criticism, which could include certain "actions" by means of which a picture could be "improved". Actions such as cropping a part of it or straightening the horizon or turning it into B&W, etc. In the recent years, I have become increasingly aware of the fact that there is nothing "constructive" about it at all. Of course, if a novice photographer asks specifically for this kind of advice, it can be given in moderation. But for any regular poster, their picture is a "completed work" as presented in 99% of the cases. If the photographer would later present another version of that picture, it too will be a completed work in its own. It is not up to the critics to offer ideas to the photographer how their work could have been improved. The critics should discuss how the completed work as presented works for them. Does it invoke certain emotions or does it lack something to tickle the viewers' imagination? Does it fit within the larger framework/context of the photographer's body of work? Does it convey (new) information for us and does it interest us? All those things may form the basis of our comments. As Tom said, if a picture creates no thoughts (either positive or negative) in our minds, it would be an alarming situation indeed.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Tom,

....Somewhere in between all that is a whole host of options of which only a few may actually 'hit the mark' as far as the photographer's intentions. Surely those comments which are simply sparked by the visual experience are as noteworth, relevant or meaningful. From time to time the photographer, one of an open mind at least such as our friend Cem, may actually learn something, be inspired by the writing or so frustrated they hang themself from a tall tree in the park whereby a passing photographer might take a snap and post it here for further discussion.
...

How true! This is actually the only reason why I share my photographs here. I am not looking for a confirmation of my capabilities as a photographer, I believe I am capable enough for what I want to achieve with photography. But the comments of others are important since they offer a different look into my own images and I try to learn from that. And I enjoy the banter that goes along with it. PS: please photograph me from my favourite side hanging from that tree.

....The significance of a photograph 'speaking to you' isn't important in itself but in the way we, as individuals take the time and effort to note what is there and what it means to us.

Its like a joke. Some people laugh because they 'get' the satire, play on words or are surprised. Some people are offended because they take it personally (the joke is about them). Others just don't get it and need it explaining to them. That's a waste of time. You may as well explain why we breathe.

Agreed again. I enjoy the banter no matter which way it goes. And I try to not to take things too seriously. Not everything is joke to me, mind you. But there are more important things in life than having serious arguments on Internet.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Sorry, I was taking a nap. Did I miss anything?

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Sorry, I was taking a nap. Did I miss anything?

Best regards,

Doug

Not at all Doug. Was it a good nap? How is the weather over there? As a matter of fact, I wonder if there are noticeable variances to the weather on a day-to-day basis?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Pictures are a form of speech. No way around that! It just is a visual language that has to be read.

Asher

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Pictures are a form of speech. No way around that! It just is a visual language that has to be read.

Asher

Absolutely!

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Cem,

Not at all Doug. Was it a good nap?

Yes, it was, thanks. Yes, I didn't think I missed much. These love-hate fests (with a side dish of navel-contemplation) seem to self-nullify fairly reliably.

How is the weather over there? As a matter of fact, I wonder if there are noticeable variances to the weather on a day-to-day basis?

Well, it doesn't vary much day-to-day most of the time. We occasionally have a little rain (although a couple of weeks ago we had a really severe rainstorm, over 1.5 inch/hr for a while).

The temperature these days usually tops out at about 102° F, but it is not too uncomfortable outside as the relative humidity is usually less than 20% (a few decades ago that would have been less than 10%).

In the winter, one rarely needs to put on more than a light jacket. Typically it will snow a few times a year, usually in the morning or overnight, but generally such that it is gone by mid-afternoon if not sooner.

Overall it is a very comfortable environment.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Sounds like good weather to me Doug. Stable and low humidity. Over here we usually have 4 seasons in one day and when it's hot, it is also very humid.

 

[Tom Dinning]

Pictures are a form of speech. No way around that! It just is a visual language that has to be read.

Asher

Replace 'speech' with 'communication'.
Also: '....has to be read' with 'can be read'.
Remove 'just'
Read as:

Pictures can be used as a means of communication. The way around that is not to look. The photo is a visual experience that can be interpreted in words.

Cheers

PS. That's my red pencil working.

 

[Tom Dinning]

Sorry, I was taking a nap. Did I miss anything?

Best regards,

Doug

Wake up! The world is passing you by.