photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
ctfchallenge | all galleries >> Challenge 70: Framing >> Challenge 70: Exhibition > Old Schoolhouse
previous | next
7-29-04 jude mc

Old Schoolhouse


other sizes: small medium original auto
comment | share
xreum0d@google.com 20-Nov-2006 10:17
funny ringtones
ctfchallenge20-Dec-2004 03:42
Well, the picture is very evocative - but fuzzy. These comments - now, that's art! - Walt
Canon DSLR Challenge18-Dec-2004 03:42
Rod's always nice to me too... for a "dizzy chick"! LOL! He seems to have a way of making things get giddy around here. :) I love the way he dishes.

As for your banana, your sensuality has been thowing off it's vails around here faster than a harem on speed! LOL! Your shots always had a nice, comfortable warmth to them. Lately they've really been heating up! :) I think they are wonderful and either you're getting more comfortable with what you're willing to display here, or you're really letting the artinst within you find it's true bliss. There's no denying that there is a hot-n-heavy love affair going on between you and the camera. It just ooozes in your hands. I like the way I feel when I look at your images. ;) ~ Lonnit
jude15-Dec-2004 14:04
How did my banana pic get into this melee?
Rod? I'd never blame you ... you're always nice to me :D
Rod 15-Dec-2004 10:42
That's right, blame poor ole me:-)
ctfchallenge15-Dec-2004 03:25
Wouldn't you really prefer to lick Jude's banana? Or perhaps in exchange for your licking between her wheat stalks she would suck your banana, should you choose to proffer one, as she seems to be fond of that.

Hmmmm... perhaps it's time for someone to toss out a bucket of cold water! LOL!

You know, ever since Rod has shown up, things have gotten a bit odd around here! LOL! ;)

~ Lonnit
jude14-Dec-2004 21:08
* wield
jude14-Dec-2004 21:07
jude chastens Niall with an old school yardstick found in the field, left behind by a nun who finally had grown too weak to weild it any longer..
"I said NO!"
type14-Dec-2004 18:53
Come on, let me lick it. Just once. I'll be ever so good!
jude14-Dec-2004 18:51
I won't hurt you.. i just won't let you lick my picture...
type14-Dec-2004 18:48
Correction, William Carlos William's infamous poem. And 2nd correction, this pic is definitely, irrefutably art because jude will hurt me baaad if it isn't!
jude14-Dec-2004 18:46
Um ... you licked my picture?
type14-Dec-2004 18:42
Um, iy lik dis pickchur. Huh huh...

Seriously, from an emotional standpoint, I'm with Rod and jude on the 'rules of art' debate. From a logical standpoint, believing there are no rules to what constitutes art makes the statement "X is art" (for X substitute anything, your discarded sock, a Rembrant etc.) irrefutable. I'm reminded of Wallace Steven's infamous poem, The Red Wheelbarrow:

so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens.

Does it actually, though William, really? Hmm...But taking jude's position to its logical conclusion, who am I to disabuse anyone of the claim that this is art, or convince them that Williams is wrong, or that everything doesn't depends on a red wheelbarrow? To me, art implies a distinction between that which has a certain value; let's say to elevate, in some way, to engender a certain truth or beauty or reality in a revealing, original way, and that which lacks these and other redeeming qualities, those which are likely to ensure it survives the artist and is appreciated by some generation, some time, again and again, even if not by his/her own. I'm not trying to define art here, in any limiting sense, but it would be churlish to say that these qualities don't have anything to do with art. Clearly, if discernment has anything to do with art, i.e. in distinguishing between wheat and shaff (sorry for the pun) then the idea that the claim "X is art" MUST be refutable. The mistake is to imagine that something can be enshrined or dismissed as art/not art from a PURELY rational, logical viewpoint. jude is right when she says that art is art because of what it means subjectively to the viewer. Therefore, there's no contradiction between one person saying definitely, that, as far as they are concerned, something is or is not art and another person saying with equal conviction and legitimacy, the opposite. It is not an offence to contradict someone on this. It could be viewed as a duty. So, by all means say something isn't art. My personal motto is just be prepared to defend it as much from a subjective, emotional viewpoint without apology, as from a so-called objective viewpoint. Postmodernists will tell you that the idea of intrinsic and permanent value and truth is a fallacy. Who goes through life thinking this? What planet are they on?

And now to the subject of the photo. Funnily enough, in a way this photo doesn't frame to me so much as suggest, or proffer up. If the stems of wheat were to be reversed, so as to enclose the barn, then case closed. They do something more subtle; they invite the eyes to narrow in, but not so much as to force the eyes to remain there. That's what I like about this photo - the balance of guidance and open-endedness; in composition, and in focus. I must say I don't find the 'lack of focus' issue distracting. And who says that a satisfying photo always has to have a strong focal point? You wll find retrospectively that the majority of photos probably do share this quality, but that doesn't make it a rule. Photography would fail to endure if it couldn't innovate and bend and break the supposed rules. This is where Rod's Ansel Adams quote is very fitting. As for what else I like about this photo, it stirs in me the curiosity to approach and better see the building, take it in, consume it, make sense of it, and the deliberate framing of the wheat seems as clear a signpost or invitation from the author as you could get to do just that. And, if that weren't tantalising enough, the building's lack of focus entreats you to look harder, as if it might be a trick of the eye. The haze created by the lack of focus on the building also suggests that miasmic qaulity of summer sun, that you can see radiating from the ground in waves, the narcotic sensation of endless summer daze. Is this art? In my humble opinion, probably yes!
jude14-Dec-2004 17:07
Thanks for realizing I'm brilliant Lonnit..LOL (I owe you money, right?)
I think it perfectly fits into the challenge theme though.. it's framing the schoolhouse.. at least in my opinion..
But then.. what do I know?
ctfchallenge14-Dec-2004 14:09
A daring image. You could call it "Memory of ..." because the memories are never tack sharp, right?
Rod 14-Dec-2004 09:17
"The so called RULES of photographic composition are, in my opinion, invalid, irrelivent & immaterial" That's a quote from Ansel Adams.

It's normally the case that once the rules are learnt the good shots don't start coming until we disregard the rules & shoot from the heart not the head. This is a quote from Rod:-) I've become an old armchair critic commenting on composition & focal points etc I'll be glad when I get back into photography. I've been looking at some of my old Photography books in the last few days & most of the great shots would be torn apart here, almost none were tack sharp, Composition seemed secondary, most all were very powerful & portrayed emotion. Jude is on the right path, her own journey. Wot a woman:-)
ctfchallenge14-Dec-2004 05:15
Oh, there's no doubt it was purposeful. That is very obvious, I saw your intent immediately. It's just perfect as it is :) It's quite excellent indeed. The point I was not very eloquently trying to make (hmmm... ok, I wasnt' intentionally trying to not be eloquent, but apparently even my explaination is blundering! LOL!) was that generally, people like to sit back with a piece of art and just look at it and let it tell its story. Because of the purposeful lack of sharpness, it's just that your eyes fight your attempts to gaze into it. Of course there's no hard and fast rule that says what art is. WAIT!!! Ok, forget everything I just said b/c it is all worthless. It just finally hit me over the head and I get it now. The building did indeed want to be elusive and keep its privacy. The wheat, in it's refusal to allow one's eyes to settle upon the image, is the gatekeeper forcing the viewer away!!!!! Not your best image my ass! It's positively BRILLIANT!!!!!! Intentional vollyball playing of the eyes across the wheat just simply will not allow one past! It's just fantastic!!! And it dang well is art! Very, very, interactive art!

Ok, now here's where you shoot me though! LOL! I don't know that it actaully fits the challenge theme now! It's not technically framing - a means of drawing attention to the main subject - it's actually quite the opposite. It's subterfuge tring to obfuscate it!

Jude, you're really good... damn! ~ Lonnit
jude13-Dec-2004 22:54
Although I understand what you're both saying, this was a purposeful shot. I didn't want anything VERY focused - leaving the weeds just a bit more so than the school house. There was an air of mystery in this place when I found it .. Admittedly it's not the best photo I've ever taken (or even close..lol).. but it is just the way I wanted.

On the other hand:

"So, I'd think that a shot like this doesn't work as art, because art is something to be looked at and absorbed in, but the image won't let you do that while you're looking at it"

No, no, Lonnit! No one EVER can define art by standards of any kind.. art is different to every person. Saying it's to be looked at and absorbed is not necessarily so. There are no constraints in art.. it is a personal journey for the creator of each piece. That's why I love it. It's whatever the artist feels and is then able to stand back when finished and KNOW that they achieved what they set out to do. It doesn't even matter if one other viewer considers it art.. it just IS..

I really do appreciate the feedback though.. very interesting thoughts!
ctfchallenge13-Dec-2004 05:24
Mary Ann, you're right about the eyes not resting. The real subject is the building in the background and that's where one wants to focus, but the blur doesn't allow it. Then, once you get to the wheat you're confused as to where to rest b/c they both have equal billing. If the wheat were even sharper though, it would make them even more of a subject than the building, but I believe the building is supposed to be the focus.

I love the concept of the image, Jude, but it seems that they eyes are confused in viewing it. It seems to be telling a story, but it's more like you have to glance at it to get the story and then leave to think about the story b/c otherwise, if you keep trying to look at it, you're too distracted by the eyes bouncing around the wheat. So, I'd think that a shot like this doesn't work as art, because art is something to be looked at and absorbed in, but the image won't let you do that while you're looking at it. However, I think it could be a very effective advertising image for use in a place where one goes by quickly and absorbs the story but isn't left with dancing eyes. Say perhaps on a billboard one passes by at highway speeds, or maybe on a bus where again one passes briefly.

I'm saying that I like it, but that it just has to be viewed at a much quicker glance than most any other shot. ~ Lonnit
ctfchallenge13-Dec-2004 03:46
I like this interesting, evocative image, Jude. However, I'd like to see sharper focus in the foreground. As it is, I feel as if there's nothing for my eyes to rest on.

Mary Anne