Sculpture

[Charles L Webster]

I just received my new Canon 30D, and took this.

As usual, I'm looking to simplify and abstract a piece of reality to make a statement. This one is about urban art and architecture.

Canon 30D w/ EF-S 17-85 IS USM @ 85mm f/11 1/320sec ISO 200 manual focus manual exposure RAW capture converted in DPP

 

[Asher Kelman]

This subject is challenging. It looks easy since one starts with two diffent materials. One curved steel shiny and textured and the other flat and sparse, almost indifferent.

The curves are not the same it seems as the lower edges diverge.

The Interview: This is a subject I'd revisit a number of times and just shoot from different positons just to interview the building and its suroundings.

One can do this by walking around the building with a piece of car a cut out or one's fingers framing a rectangle and simply examine and interview the subject, like you would a person for a job. What can they do, what would be impossible. What do you like about them and what not?

Do you have other pictures to show in this series.

I feel that you will be well rewarded and I personally would love to see how you proceed.

Asher

 

[Klaus Esser]

I just received my new Canon 30D, and took this.

As usual, I'm looking to simplify and abstract a piece of reality to make a statement. This one is about urban art and architecture.

Canon 30D w/ EF-S 17-85 IS USM @ 85mm f/11 1/320sec ISO 200 manual focus manual exposure RAW capture converted in DPP

Hi Chas!

Very interesting structure and view!

best, Klaus

 

[Charles L Webster]

This subject is challenging. It looks easy since one starts with two diffent materials. One curved steel shiny and textured and the other flat and sparse, almost indifferent.

The curves are not the same it seems as the lower edges diverge.

The Interview: This is a subject I'd revisit a number of times and just shoot from different positons just to interview the building and its suroundings.

One can do this by walking around the building with a piece of car a cut out or one's fingers framing a rectangle and simply examine and interview the subject, like you would a person for a job. What can they do, what would be impossible. What do you like about them and what not?

Do you have other pictures to show in this series.

I feel that you will be well rewarded and I personally would love to see how you proceed.

Asher

This building is only 2 blocks from my place of work, so it's easy to revisit. I want to visit at different times of day, this one was noon so the light was directly overhead, the wall in shadow. The wall faces North, so I will have to visit daily to see the change of light as the sun moves.

This picture is of the sculpture alone with no building.

Here I was just looking at the shape of the metal and the contrast of the shape against the sky.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I figured there was more! Great subject. You have work cut out for you! Enjoy, I am interested to see how this turns out.

Glad you are sharing.

Asher

 

[Charles L Webster]

Asher, this might be one of those posts that causes the thread to go in a different direction.

As I returned to this location this evening, I realized that this sculpture is a piece of art, copyrighted by the original artist. And that by taking pictures of it, even in a different context, I making "derivitive works" from that original work of art.

Consider also that to take these pictures, I had to be on private property, and therefore completely in violation of the "right of public photography." I have no legitimate business with the tenants or owners of the property, so I am technically trespassing.

I think that before I take more pictures of this piece, I need to get a property release from the original creator, and permission from the property owner to be on the property doing the shooting.

I know some might think this a bit extreme, but I would not want someone producing some derivation of one of my works while technically trespassing to do it.

I'd like to hear other's opinions on the matter.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I'm not sure if you trespassed. A lawyer would have to wrok that out. Did you climb over a fence. Was there a sign that you should not enter? Was there a sign that you could not take pictures?

Such places allow personal pictures generally but exepct a request from a professional photographer seeking to exploit the art.

This work is not being sold or offered as art. You are not making a derivative work, I would argue, we are only discussing a concept of abstraction and the nature of thec architectural art. We are allowed to do this as editorial comment.

Just make it clear that these pictures are not for sale, just for personal use.

You can take this pic ture from a plane, a helicopter or from the street.

Anyone can take a picture, exploiting the image is another thing.

Here we are just discussing artistic choices not running a business.

If you took a picture from the street and there is nothing newsworthy, then the picture might have to get release before you sell the images. If there's a holdup or a road accident and the building is in the background, that's news! The news photojournalist will tell you that news trumps almost anything and just deliver the picture to the news desk and they know how to deal with rights as they do it every day.

You cannot make a profit out of something copyrighted without having permission or having a real newsworthy picture that you can defend.

As far as I can see, you are doing an excellent service advertizing the exceptional architecture and that is IMHO, what architects and owners like. To spend these pages highlighting the eshtetics and abstract nature of the work is not, as far as I can see, anything but reporting and admiration.

Let's see if we get different opinions.

Asher