# The Threats



## unpopular (May 22, 2012)

CC Welcome:


----------



## LizardKing (May 22, 2012)

Are you really expecting people to give good feedback on this? What was the intention? Anything in particular? Because the photo itself (without any explanation) is boring, uninteresting, poor lit and basically one I'd delete right in the camera and completely forget about it jaja
Please don't take it the wrong way, I just don't understand what you're expecting here...


----------



## unpopular (May 22, 2012)

For me, it's about the world which we live in, not the one we wish we did: one of compositional conventions, perpetual 'golden hour light'. It's about decay, opinions wanting to be heard, leaving a mark, differing messages by different people. Who left them, what were they thinking and why. It's about the people who came before us, and the people who came after. The attempts we make to cover up these inconveniences with white-wash paint.


----------



## Desi (May 22, 2012)

I think I see what you are trying to show, but it is just difficult to see the writing on the wall.  

The photo has made me stop to think.  But I wish I could see better what has been covered up.


----------



## LizardKing (May 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> For me, it's about the world which we live in, not the one we wish we did: one of compositional conventions, perpetual 'golden hour light'. It's about decay, opinions wanting to be heard, leaving a mark, differing messages by different people. Who left them, what were they thinking and why. It's about the people who came before us, and the people who came after. The attempts we make to cover up these inconveniences with white-wash paint.



You could do all that and also try to find better compositions and lightning. In this case, it seems your subject's supposed to be the writing on the wall, so if that's the case, then the door handle and lock are distracting the viewer's attention from your subject and the writing is not clear... Maybe it's my monitor or my eyes, but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what it says... Also, the exposure seems like you took it with a point-and-shot using on-camera flash...

Finally, you can try breaking the rules... We all do that all the time... But these are not some guidelines a bunch of people thought looked nice... The study of proportions, perspectives, colors, etc etc... are constantly playing with how we see with our eyes and how our brain works to process this information... And the 'golden hour light' is pretty much the same... Photography is all about light, so it's kind of a big deal to use the best light you can find for you picture...


----------



## Jaemie (May 22, 2012)

I think the lock has something to say to the door handle.


----------



## Trever1t (May 22, 2012)

I llike the title and the concept


----------



## unpopular (May 22, 2012)

First of all. I really do appreciate your feedback, and I don't want to scare you off or anything. While, I disagree with much you are saying on both process and philosophic levels, please understand that I value your input and feel a healthy debate benefits everyone. So please don't get upset by my reply.



LizardKing said:


> You could do all that and also try to find better compositions and lightning. In this case, it seems your subject's supposed to be the writing on the wall, so if that's the case, then the door handle and lock are distracting the viewer's attention



What would be more interesting? A snapshot of some writing on the wall, or writing on the wall with context about where it is and the space which it is found. At first glance, this appears to be taken in a small room behind a possibly locked door, the fact that it is a door heavy gives the viewer a sense of intimacy, if not claustrophobia.



> from your subject and the writing is not clear... Maybe it's my monitor or my eyes, but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what it says...



The writing on the white wall is obstructed, and that is one of the more interesting points for me. Viewing more carefully, you'll read "socialist democrat" quote clearly. Why was this politically motivated vandalism so quickly to be painted over, while the more typical graffiti left? Is it older? Did they run out of brown paint?

The words, even though both barely legible can clearly indicate what kind of stereotypical person left them; what does this say about ourselves and our prejudices?



> Also, the exposure seems like you took it with a point-and-shot using on-camera flash...



The flash was not fired.



> Finally, you can try breaking the rules... We all do that all the time... But these are not some guidelines a bunch of people thought looked nice... The study of proportions, perspectives, colors, etc etc... are constantly playing with how we see with our eyes and how our brain works to process this information... And the 'golden hour light' is pretty much the same... Photography is all about light, so it's kind of a big deal to use the best light you can find for you picture...



This is not intended to be a comfortable or attractive image. It's about how we try to ignore each other while still reaching out to touch one another. It's about the discomfort we feel by one another and knowing that someone was there before us, they they leave a mark, that we'll leave a mark and after we leave someone else will leave a mark. There is conflict, it's meant to be there. Why would I choose a harmonic composition to convey a conflict? Why would I bring in studio lighting and cast pretty feathered shadows?

Photography is all about light in the most elemental sense of the cliche. But what light you use will convey a different message.

--

It's fine you don't like it though, I'm not trying to convert you or anything.


----------



## unpopular (May 22, 2012)

Jaemie said:


> I think the lock has something to say to the door handle.



I think it's saying 'i'm broken'. Which makes peeing all the more exciting!




Trever1t said:


> I llike the title and the concept



Thanks trever. As you know, my stuff is not very well received. It's good to hear something positive, even if you fall short of liking the image


----------



## Jaemie (May 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Jaemie said:
> 
> 
> > I think the lock has something to say to the door handle.
> ...



That's why I never lock the door.   



Seriously, though, I like the photo. It may appear stark at first, but it's hard to look away. It grabs me and begs me to strain my eyes to read what's been poorly painted-over. Those surfaces bear so many questions and so much drama. It looks like it's a bathroom, but is it really? And those hand prints add an almost spooky element. Deceptively great stuff.


----------



## BlackSheep (May 22, 2012)

This is an image that the viewer has to take a few minutes to look at to understand, which makes it much more interesting than many others.
I like it quite a bit, thanks for posting it!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> The writing on the white wall is obstructed, and that is one of the more interesting points for me. Viewing more carefully, you'll read "socialist democrat" quote clearly.



Viewing even MORE carefully, you'll read "Montana's *Communist* Democrats" quote clearly.


----------



## deggimatt (May 22, 2012)

Photo does nothing to me. My ex's facebook wall is more interesting.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 22, 2012)

I see what you're saying, but there is a disconnect between the message you intend to convey and the photographic implementation of that message. There is friction created by the compositional elements, and not good friction. 

With that being said, I do see a shot here. The shot doesn't include the door. The door does nothing. The image I see here is a well exposed and treated shot of the painted wall with the hand print-- one that brings out the textures of the wall and paint.  To me it would be far more visually interesting.


----------



## Ernicus (May 22, 2012)

I found myself examining the door handle and lock more than the writing.  Looking for signs of forced entry that sort of thing.  First glance, boring door.  When i tried to see the message or intent...it was a struggle, not that of absent minded babble, but there is just not enough "threat" in this particular shot as intended.  I don't mind having to "look for" things in a picture to make it all work...but to me, you have to look too hard which causes loss of interest.

my 2 cents.


----------



## LizardKing (May 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> First of all. I really do appreciate your feedback, and I don't want to scare you off or anything. While, I disagree with much you are saying on both process and philosophic levels, please understand that I value your input and feel a healthy debate benefits everyone. So please don't get upset by my reply.




I'm glad to read this. More often than I'd like, people react different when their work is criticized.  If I'm to say something, it will always be something constructive... or at least that'll be my intention 

Got your point now and really like the idea/concept you're trying to achieve. It's just that, in my opinion, probably there was another composition that would help deliver the message better or more clearly. Door handle and lock are kinda distracting and while they could add to the idea, they cannot be more attracting to the viewer's eyes than the writing itself...

Anyway, have a nice day and keep it up! Photography is all about originality


----------



## Kerbouchard (May 22, 2012)

Yes, it could have been an interesting concept if it had a better framing and a more distinguishable subject.

As it is, it's a bunch of gibberish...both the image and the explanation of the image by the OP.

Poorly executed.


----------



## invisible (May 22, 2012)

unpopular said:


> For me, it's about the world which we live in, not the one we wish we did: one of compositional conventions, perpetual 'golden hour light'. It's about decay, opinions wanting to be heard, leaving a mark, differing messages by different people. Who left them, what were they thinking and why. It's about the people who came before us, and the people who came after. The attempts we make to cover up these inconveniences with white-wash paint.


Chapeau.

Whenever one tries to share an "unconventional" photograph, less people will make a connection with the image, especially on photo forums (which are the  speed-dating version of photographic enjoyment  you have two seconds to make an impression, or else). The good news is that when people do make a connection, that connection can be much stronger than the one they make with conventional material. Just my two cents, of course.

I like the photo. Like someone else said before me, it made me stop and think.


----------



## Kerbouchard (May 22, 2012)

invisible said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > For me, it's about the world which we live in, not the one we wish we did: one of compositional conventions, perpetual 'golden hour light'. It's about decay, opinions wanting to be heard, leaving a mark, differing messages by different people. Who left them, what were they thinking and why. It's about the people who came before us, and the people who came after. The attempts we make to cover up these inconveniences with white-wash paint.
> ...



This is why I hate art crtiics and artists.  It is also why I have routinely said that I am not an artist.

My definition of an artist:  One who claims that his message is hidden in his work and that you have to be worthy to appreciate it.
My definition of an artist fan:  One who claims he can see this hidden message thus proclaiming himself better than those who are around him.
My definition of an artist fan's friend:  One who agrees with the fan so that he is also deep.

Basically, what we are left with is a crappy piece, a fan who doesn't know why it's good, but knows that he is supposed to think that it is good so he makes something up to pretend like he understands, and the people who listen to the people who are pretending like they understand agreeing so they can feel like they are part of the 'in' crowd.

I call it the "Ellsworth Toohey effect".


----------



## invisible (May 22, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> This is why I hate art crtiics and artists.  It is also why I have routinely said that I am not an artist.
> 
> My definition of an artist:  One who claims that his message is hidden in his work and that you have to be worthy to appreciate it.
> My definition of an artist fan:  One who claims he can see this hidden message thus proclaiming himself better than those who are around him.
> ...


Good for you :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Kerbouchard (May 22, 2012)

invisible said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > This is why I hate art crtiics and artists.  It is also why I have routinely said that I am not an artist.
> ...



Just curious, but you do understand all the reasons this is bad, right?  I mean, seriously, you can't possibly think that because one has to spend several minutes trying to desipher the content of the photo that it makes it deep because you spent more than a few seconds on it?

Did it ever cross your mind that you have to spend several minutes to desipher it because it was poorly executed rather than just because it was deep?

Sure, if you think about anything long enough, you can come up with some sort of hidden meaning, but this one isn't it.

The OP saw some grafitti, took a barely recognizable snapshot of it, and is now proclaiming it some deep study of humanity.  Honestly, I hope this entire thread is a late April Fools Joke.


----------



## invisible (May 23, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Just curious, but you do understand all the reasons this is bad, right?  I mean, seriously, you can't possibly think that because one has to spend several minutes trying to desipher the content of the photo that it makes it deep because you spent more than a few seconds on it?
> 
> Did it ever cross your mind that you have to spend several minutes to desipher it because it was poorly executed rather than just because it was deep?
> 
> ...


I started typing an answer but realized that I work tomorrow morning and need to turn in. Hopefully someone else will find the time to answer &#8211; otherwise I'll make sure to drop by again tomorrow and resume this conversation. In the meantime, I suggest you forget about this particular image for a moment and re-read the thread. You'll find out that no one said there was a hidden meaning or that you had to spend several minutes deciphering anything. 

As an aside, it might be just me but I think it's disrespectful to refer to someone else's creative work as an "April Fools Joke", "poorly executed" (when you don't understand what they were trying to execute), "a crappy piece", etc. If you want to destroy an image, it's alright &#8211; just do it with class.

See ya tomorrow.


----------



## Ernicus (May 23, 2012)

I figured it out, it was dark and he had his camera on him so he snapped a shot while fumbling with his keys to find the keyhole to get inside.  Then decided to keep the pic.

oh, wait, that's not it, there is no keyhole.  Dammit.

seriously though, after reading the entire thread, again...mostly 'cause I'm bored....I then looked back at the picture...and I'm sorry, it's just a pic of a door.  There certainly is more profound graffitti somewhere that can illustrate the effect desired.  This just isn't it.

...or I'm just not deep enough.


----------



## Jaemie (May 23, 2012)

Whatever happened to "live and let live"? Whether one likes or dislikes this image, or any image, maintaining a cordial dialogue is surely the rule here. Am I wrong? Frankly, I'm rather astonished at the number of rude, aggressive, and even hostile posts on this forum. Granted, only a few people cross the line, but it's surprising, and even sad, to see on a forum devoted to photography; I expected a more mature and civil discourse when I joined.


----------



## Kerbouchard (May 23, 2012)

invisible said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Just curious, but you do understand all the reasons this is bad, right?  I mean, seriously, you can't possibly think that because one has to spend several minutes trying to desipher the content of the photo that it makes it deep because you spent more than a few seconds on it?
> ...


Good morning...

My comment that included the words "crappy piece" weren't necessarily directed at this OP or this photo.  It was more of an 'in general' reference to some of the 'fine art' world and societies 'misunderstood artists'.

The 'poorly executed' and 'snapshot' comment references were, however directed at this photo.

Looking at it this morning, I do see that a bit more thought went into it than first met the eye.  I can see how he attempted to use the frame of the door and the contrasting colors, dividing the middle of the frame to show a difference between the graffitti on the wall vs the graffitti on the door.  So, based on what looks like somewhat intentional framing, I will withdrawl my 'snapshop' comment.

I do still think it is poorly executed.  The biggest thing missing is some sort of identifiable message that is obviously trying to be supressed.  That would make this 'concept' work.  It seems like the hands have nothing to do with the message and, yet, they are the most distinguishable part of the image, aside from the lock and handle.

Here is how I would describe a successful rendition of the shot.  Two different surfaces divided down the middle, much like the OP has.  Identifiable, opposite messages on each side that looks like they were different ages and different times.  Then, a poorly attempted coverup of the offending message, complete with identifiable brush strokes and a slightly different shade.  I might even throw in a 'Wet Paint' sign so that the viewer knows the one message was left intentionally.

Also, for the thread title, 'The Threats', imo, the title would be much more accurate if this was on the outside of a door, perhaps an apartment door with 4 locks on it, rather than the inside of the door. If taken from the other side of the door, we could imagine a family locking themselves in their apartment to escape the 'threats' and 'reality' of the outside world.  Instead, we can clearly see the latch release, which makes me think it was taken inside a restroom.

I don't think the concept is bad, and I think with the right subject matter, it could even make a compelling photo.  I just think the example posted here misses on so many levels that, yes, I use the term poorly executed.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 23, 2012)

Why is it NOT possible that something COULD have a deeper meaning than what  one person, a few people, or even most of the people miss?
Why does something become a bunch of crap, simply because one doesn't understand it? Or can't, or doesn't want to?

Why can't concepts simply be beyond you? Insulting and putting it down says more about you than it does the art.


----------



## Kerbouchard (May 23, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Why is it NOT possible that something COULD have a deeper meaning than what  one person, a few people, or even most of the people miss?
> Why does something become a bunch of crap, simply because one doesn't understand it? Or can't, or doesn't want to?



I am sure that there are some cases where that is exactly the case.


----------



## KenC (May 23, 2012)

I really get what you're doing here - a lot of mine are about obscured  or partial messages - and the image is a pretty good one, IMO.  I'm not sure why it caused such a stir on here; usually if viewers don't like an image they just move on and if they do like it, they just comment and don't argue with those having different opinions.

Anyhow, back to the image - I think the door and  the handle/lock really do add something, but I would crop a little on the  bottom and maybe almost a quarter of the frame on the left.  This would  make the writing more prominent, put the handle and lock in a stronger  position and remove the part of the door that is kind of flat and  doesn't add much.  I'm often suggesting cropping to people and don't  usually act on advice on cropping from others, so take this with as many  grains of salt as you want - this is just the way it strikes me at this  moment.


----------



## sleist (May 23, 2012)

I will decline to crit this shot for now, but would like to mention that the level of detail visible is very "monitor dependent".  The posting of this shot in a smallish version that does not allow the option for larger, more detailed viewing doesn't help any (I'll partly blame the forum's random photo handling behavior, which frankly sucks).  Looking at this on my crappy work monitor gives me more contrast that allows for seeing the details better than my higher quality (albeit not-perfect) home monitor. Go figure.  Perhaps better processing would have helped?  Can't say.

If a person feels strongly about the message in his work, he/she should work harder at making certain it's seen in the best possible light.  I don't get the feeling this was done here and some of the negative reaction might be the result of that.

My 2 cents


----------



## Galderon (May 23, 2012)

I don't care for it. It's booring and I don't see any meaning behind it. It's a door, with a bent in bit at the bottom. It looks like one of those pictures  you'd take if you had a lawsuit against the person who made the door. Your deeper meaner is a really long stretch, when the graffitti is barely visible and a composition that looks like your camera accidently went off. I'm sorry I just don't see it.


----------



## Demers18 (May 23, 2012)

I get the what you are trying to achieve with this image, however it's not doing it for me. Have you tried to make the graffiti come out a little more? Secondly, I think that this image would be a good candidate for B&W.

Thanks for sharing


----------



## Joel_W (May 23, 2012)

As for me, it's just not my "cup of tea".


----------



## o hey tyler (May 23, 2012)

George, why are you fighting Federico about his _opinion? _Who cares? Is he not entitled to one? 

I happen to be on the fence about the image. There are some aspects that I like, but there are others that bother me. I feel that it could be appreciated at a higher resolution or a large print size. I don't like the centered door frame, or the lock. But I do like the fact that you have to look for more than just a cursory glance to see everything in the photograph. 

Do I think it could have been executed differently? Yes. Does it work in some respects as it is? Yes. Am I chastising anyone else for having an opinion? Definitely not.


----------



## Kerbouchard (May 23, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> George, why are you fighting Federico about his _opinion? _Who cares? Is he not entitled to one?



Everybody is certainly entitled to their own opinion.  I just offered my somewhat differing one.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 23, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it NOT possible that something COULD have a deeper meaning than what  one person, a few people, or even most of the people miss?
> ...



Credit given for your response.


----------



## Desi (May 23, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > George, why are you fighting Federico about his _opinion? _Who cares? Is he not entitled to one?
> ...



You are certainly entitled to you opinion.  But why disparage the artist, the people who commented on his work and those that commented further (artist, artists fan and artist fan's friend as you say).  That cast a broad net.

As far as art, I appreciate a work that makes me look twice.  I think this one missed in that, on my screen, the message was not really decipherable, but the title implied it and I enjoyed the time I spent trying to see the OPs intent.

Lets face it, not every image is like a Disney princess......some need a deeper meaning or they will never get a second glance.


----------



## LizardKing (May 23, 2012)

Desi said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



I was about to say pretty much the same...

It's ok to have a different opinion and express it. After all, that's the base in a forum, I think. The only problem, is that it seems to me, you (Kerbouchard) took the discussion to a whole different level and started talking about things that weren't the points being discussed. Not only that, it seems you also took it kind of personal and 1 every 2-3 posts in the last 2 pages are yours, trying to defend your point or why you did it... Which wasn't actually what the rest was talking about. To me, it totally ruined the previous discussion which was far more interesting.

Not trying to argue with you here, just making a point.


----------



## unpopular (May 23, 2012)

Thank you all, in particular Ernicus and Rotan, these are quality critiques which I can use. I like the idea of the door, and a big part of what I do involves context. But I cannot argue or even necessarily disagree with your assessments that the door is too dominant, and will take this into consideration.


----------



## unpopular (May 23, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> invisible said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



The point of art is not to communicate, it's to explore and understand. I cannot convey ideas which appeal to every viewer, there is no universal interest or aesthetic. This is a modernist white whale, you'll never find it and if you do you'll have nothing to say.

It's fine that you or anyone else doesn't like it. It's fine that you don't see anything. It's not about searching for some hidden meaning - I was asked what I was trying to convey, not what you should interpret. If you knew anything about art and postmodernism, you'd be familiar with the Intentional Fallacy. 

But don't tell me what I am permitted to see in the world or how I am permitted to interpret my own work. Saying something is subjectless or boring is an arrogant and self righteous position. Besides, it never was my intent to impress anyone. It's not a lingerie advertisement.


----------



## Jaemie (May 23, 2012)

^ Very well said.


----------



## Ernicus (May 23, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Thank you all, in particular Ernicus and Rotan, these are quality critiques which I can use.



I was quite surprised to see my name in there, glad I was able to give you something useful.  ;-)


----------



## Patriot (May 23, 2012)

deggimatt said:


> Photo does nothing to me. My ex's facebook wall is more interesting.


 
Wow that was uncalled for. People like you would never tell that to someone's face in person. You would rather hide behind your screen and make unneeded comments.


----------



## pgriz (May 23, 2012)

Dark on left, light on right, but not black and white.
Left is a door to somewhere, either as entry or exit.  Right is a wall, barrier between two spaces(worlds?).
The light, from the left, is shallow enough to show the whitewash as having texture and shadows.  Both the door and wall have writings on them.  I am wishing for a higher resolution image to see if I can figure out what they say. As Bitter has noted, there is Montana and communist and democrats, although it is not clear if they are linked. There is other writing higher up, more obscured.  I would guess that is connected to a student living there, since it doesnt show enough anger or angst.

The handprint is interesting  it appears to be relatively small, perhaps a childs.  Its also at a height that a pre-teen would be able to reach without stretching.  It is a right hand, so the left was being used to open the latch.

The door itself is steel, and the two latches are not keyed,so it is most likely an utility door to a stairwell, or a storage area.  

The fact that someone painted over the writing on the wall means that keeping the place more or less in order is important, but the way the paint was applied means the person doing it didnt really care.  So this door has to be in an institution, and not a private residence.

Yup, theres lots to see if you take the time to study it.  Pictorially, given that the picture was divided so evenly horizontally, Id have been tempted to center the locks on a horizon that would run between the two fixtures.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 23, 2012)

Jon Tester
Max Bacous

Both Montana communist democrats.


----------



## pgriz (May 23, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Jon Tester
> Max Bacous
> 
> Both Montana communist democrats.



Interesting!  I googled both of them, and they are in fact Democratic Senators from Montana.  Obviously the writer did not agree with their politics.


----------



## Trever1t (May 23, 2012)

Well! I hadn't noticed the writing on the wall, and I mean that both figuratively and litterally. Obviously your image invoked emotion so much so that half the posting members didn't even realize it, well done!!! 

Sorry for not looking closer originally


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 23, 2012)

pgriz said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Jon Tester
> ...



Because republicans are the REAL threat!


----------



## Demers18 (May 23, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:
			
		

> Because republicans are the REAL threat!



And this is where it gets real dangerous!


----------



## Frequency (May 24, 2012)

*A Face Has brought Thousand Warships!!!  
*

i read all the arguments above and cleansed myself out of that to say my original opinion; i liked this image; i like the way in which light fell on the subject; i like the duality of the handle-which helps one to open- and the latch -which helps to close; two opposing aspects of life ...and the same is reflected by the dark half and the bright half of this image; i could not find any writing on the walls and doors even after scrutiny and i have no concern or opinion regarding that.... 

And i hold that i should not say those words which i don't like others telling me 

Regards


----------



## jowensphoto (May 24, 2012)

I dig it. The contrast of door and wall, and that handprint is an interesting element. 

I can only imagine what those walls have seen.


----------



## pgriz (May 24, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...



I'd respectfully disagree.  The real threat to our society is when we start assuming that our cherished formulas (political or otherwise) are the only way to look at the world.  Power comes from unity, and unity is not about thinking all alike, but being able to work together to find a way forward that respects most (kinda hard to get "all") viewpoints.  The ability to listen carefully, and understand another person's viewpoint and opinion, even if you don't agree with it, is a skill that we need to develop and encourage.  The characteristics of humility, patience, respect, and a willingness to admit that perhaps we don't have all the answers, will go a long way to reducing polarization and perhaps create a common area where we can work together.  Certainly, there is comfort in surrounding oneself with people (and media) who mirror one's ideas, but in the long run that comfort prevents adaptation to changinge environments and circumstances.  OK, I'm getting a nosebleed, and I'll get off the soapbox.


----------



## spacefuzz (May 24, 2012)

Ill chime in and say I dont like it.  I think the idea was decent but it was poorly executed.  Not enough focus on the covered up graffitti which I couldnt even see on my work monitor due to contrast. If you want someone to stop and look deeper into an image I think it needs to have a hook, something to grab you and keep you around long enough to notice all of its subtleties of light / subject / whatever.  This one doesnt.   I think a lot of people will try to overlook that and say its artistic, but in my mind thats just poor implimentation of vision.  

I like Galen Rowells take on it, a great image needs vision, technical excellence, and good light.  For this shot you had vision, but i think the technical implamentaion was off for some reason.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 24, 2012)

pgriz said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > pgriz said:
> ...



It was a joke, for the most part.

I believe both parties are doing a fine job.
A fine job of dividing the country.
Media showcases and sensationalizes the extremists. Moderates seem silent.
Extremists motivate people. For the wrong reasons.

This country will never experience unity. Ever.

We aren't allowed to talk politics here, so we should leave it at that.
Our views are probably very similar.

Mr. Pgriz, feel free to respond to me in PM.


----------



## Haya.H (May 24, 2012)

interesting how this thread turned out. The thing is with this picture for me is that, it doesnt catch my eye. What i mean is, the subject of the picture is hidden. Its so hidden that you actually have to stop, stare, tilt your screen, change the brightness and squint to understand whats going on. I feel like something needs to pop to catch the attention of the viewer. Something that will make it easier to understand the picture and your concept, which is a really great one by the way, but if you hadnt explained i wouldnt have understood.


----------



## Espike (May 24, 2012)

unpopular said:


> For me, it's about the world which we live in, not the one we wish we did: one of compositional conventions, perpetual 'golden hour light'. It's about decay, opinions wanting to be heard, leaving a mark, differing messages by different people. Who left them, what were they thinking and why. It's about the people who came before us, and the people who came after. The attempts we make to cover up these inconveniences with white-wash paint.



Mind = BLOWN!

At first, I thought wtf is this? Then I read your post, looked at it again, and my brain exploded. Very cool.


----------



## unpopular (May 30, 2012)

What precisely the grafitti says to me is not important, and is not even terribly interesting. What is interesting to me is that this mostly white, upper middle class audience almost seems to find the 'gang-style' grafitti almost invisible, despite that it's more clearly represented. As I stated earlier, this image may also say something about our impressions of who left the grafitti on the door, verses who left the grafitti on the wall, their motives and their values.


----------

