Egrel, yes, that's exactly it. After all, you say it's there, so we can talk about it.
Mono, Empathy—that, in my opinion, is the main difference between photographs with "soul." You either empathize with what's depicted, or you don't. You, as a "geometrician" in photography, look for lines, angles, and intersections in everything, so you, accordingly, also look for a point for the soul—an "entry/exit point"... But the soul has neither an entry nor an exit point. The soul simply exists, or it doesn't exist; a person either feels it or not. Honestly, for me, your photographs are simply geometry in illustrations: lines, angles, squares. You savor it: a centimeter to the right, a centimeter to the left—it's a matter of taste. Looking at your photographs, my soul doesn't rejoice or sympathize, doesn't grieve or soar—it's boring, and for me, if there are no emotions, there is no photograph. If you want to find a soul here, look for it yourself, and no one else will help you find it.
Egrel, Reminds me of an industrial zone in the 1970s, Tyumen Oblast, only back then fences and posts weren't painted with lime. I don't understand THIS trend
Egrel, this is all strange. I think everything you mentioned above is born in the human brain and/or heart as a reaction to the contemplation of art. And photography and plastic art in general are lines, spots, composition, concepts, etc. What is called the "visual language" of an image. And the value of a work depends solely on how expressive and fresh this language is. Otherwise, you see "soul" here, I see something completely different. How can one understand what a photograph is?
Egrel, this is all strange. I think everything you mentioned above is born in the brain and/or heart of a person as a reaction to the contemplation of art. And photography and plastic art in general are lines, spots, composition, concepts, etc. What is called the "visual language" of an image. And the value of a work depends solely on how expressive and fresh this language is. Otherwise, you see "soul" here, I see something completely different. How can one understand what photography is?
Mono, Well, if you don't know, then I certainly don't...
Honestly, for me, your photographs are simply geometry in illustrations: lines, angles, squares. You savor: a centimeter to the right, a centimeter to the left – it's an acquired taste. Looking at your photographs, my soul doesn't rejoice or sympathize, doesn't grieve or soar – it's boring.
Probably because photography for you is something outside of you. Here are beautiful lilacs; take a photo of them, and the photo will be beautiful. With a mood. This doesn't mean photographs "with angles" are bad, it means you haven't gone beyond the photocopier in your creativity, simply copying the surroundings and storing these copies "for memory." Without understanding the beauty you saw. Without trying to show the viewer this beauty, and not just a bunch of branches with flowers.
If there are no emotions, then there is no photograph.
There is no photograph when there is no light. Often, when there is light, there is no photograph either, because the photographer doesn't know how to use it. There are also concepts like form and composition... In skilled hands, they evoke emotion in the viewer's soul. But you consider them an innate quality of any image. Sure, a grandmother is crying, so the picture is sad. But what if she's crying because her son returned from the war alive? She's crying with happiness, but her son is simply not in the frame. Who's at fault here—the viewer, who doesn't know the whole picture and is sad, or the photographer, who stupidly captured the grandmother's tears in the hopes of capturing emotion?
Malakhov, Yes, yes, I'm a dumb housewife, an idiot, I have a low IQ - you and your team constantly repeat this, and those who don't repeat it, smirk and happily give upvotes, so leave me and us alone... We don't bother you, smart people, we don't ridicule everything you're proud of, we don't wonder out loud... Well, whether you like illustrating geometry or admiring dirt and garbage - that's your choice. No, you catch us out, make sarcastic remarks, call us names, competing to see who can say it more pointedly. Is it really so hard to coexist, simply ignoring each other? You're evil, not geniuses... You don't have to ask me any more questions, I prefer to communicate with ordinary people who like lilacs and who sympathize with grandma's tears. I'm a dumb housewife, you're geniuses, and on that note we'll leave it at that...
I'm a dumb housewife, an idiot, I have a low IQ—you and your team keep saying this.
Can you give me a quote? Where did I say this? So I know.
Is it really impossible to coexist without noticing each other?
Yes, it is. If you forget that FC is a photo site, not just a platform for posting photos. You're angry for no reason. Tell me, why is it that when someone writes under a photo that it's "..." and says nothing else, the author begins to burn with righteous anger, but when they write "good!" and say nothing else, the author remains satisfied and remains silent? Isn't a detailed positive comment just as useful for the author and readers as detailed and "positive" criticism?
I prefer to communicate with ordinary people
Do you find it unpleasant to talk about photography?
I apologize to the author for letting the discussion of your photo devolve into a squabble. ( Egrel, please, this only amuses me.) I'm interested in every comment... Especially from the super experts. ))
PEAHIMATOP, Have any of the super experts expressed their opinions, shared their impressions, or done a detailed analysis of your work? Don't be upset, I've also never come across a good, competent analysis of works, either good or bad. Although it seems to me that they simply don't know how to do it, and so they constantly try to force housewives to do it for them, asking leading and non-leading questions... But there's plenty of bile. What self-respecting housewife would talk to them about art afterwards.
What self-respecting housewife would talk to them about art then?
About what, excuse me? About art? Well, if clouds of varying degrees of curliness are considered art...
Although it seems to me they simply don't know how to make it.
You seem to have so many things in mind, but you don't bother to confirm your assumptions. Dig into the comments, the blogs, the forum. It's harder than writing about spikelets, and it's a tedious task anyway, but make an effort.
When all you've created People perceive without praise, And perhaps, from resentment Suddenly, bile boils within you, Step back three steps And spit, standing to the side of the circle, So as not to splash bile on a friend And not to please an enemy.
This feature isn't on the site -)
Empathy—that, in my opinion, is the main difference between photographs with "soul." You either empathize with what's depicted, or you don't.
You, as a "geometrician" in photography, look for lines, angles, and intersections in everything, so you, accordingly, also look for a point for the soul—an "entry/exit point"... But the soul has neither an entry nor an exit point. The soul simply exists, or it doesn't exist; a person either feels it or not. Honestly, for me, your photographs are simply geometry in illustrations: lines, angles, squares. You savor it: a centimeter to the right, a centimeter to the left—it's a matter of taste. Looking at your photographs, my soul doesn't rejoice or sympathize, doesn't grieve or soar—it's boring, and for me, if there are no emotions, there is no photograph. If you want to find a soul here, look for it yourself, and no one else will help you find it.
fences and posts weren't painted with lime. I don't understand THIS trend
There is no photograph when there is no light. Often, when there is light, there is no photograph either, because the photographer doesn't know how to use it. There are also concepts like form and composition... In skilled hands, they evoke emotion in the viewer's soul. But you consider them an innate quality of any image. Sure, a grandmother is crying, so the picture is sad. But what if she's crying because her son returned from the war alive? She's crying with happiness, but her son is simply not in the frame. Who's at fault here—the viewer, who doesn't know the whole picture and is sad, or the photographer, who stupidly captured the grandmother's tears in the hopes of capturing emotion?
Yes, it is. If you forget that FC is a photo site, not just a platform for posting photos. You're angry for no reason. Tell me, why is it that when someone writes under a photo that it's "..." and says nothing else, the author begins to burn with righteous anger, but when they write "good!" and say nothing else, the author remains satisfied and remains silent? Isn't a detailed positive comment just as useful for the author and readers as detailed and "positive" criticism?
Do you find it unpleasant to talk about photography?
You seem to have so many things in mind, but you don't bother to confirm your assumptions. Dig into the comments, the blogs, the forum. It's harder than writing about spikelets, and it's a tedious task anyway, but make an effort.
People perceive without praise,
And perhaps, from resentment
Suddenly, bile boils within you,
Step back three steps
And spit, standing to the side of the circle,
So as not to splash bile on a friend
And not to please an enemy.
D. Kugultinov