photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
Type your message and click Add Comment
It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest.
Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help private comment
Phil Douglis | all galleries >> Galleries >> Gallery Twenty Five: Stimulating the imagination with “opposites and contradictions” > Painterly Pixels at the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005
previous | next
20-JUN-2005

Painterly Pixels at the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005

Rembrandt’s best known work is the Night Watch, painted in 1642 – the first major work of art portraying its subjects in motion. Nearly 500 years later, the huge canvas dominates an entire wall of a room in the Rijksmuseum, a target for a never-ending parade of digital snapshooters. I applied my own pixels to this act of contradiction – electronically recording another photographer in the act of digitally mimicking the brush strokes of one of the greatest artists who ever lived. By removing the floor she stands on, I have also inserted her squarely into a niche of available space in the middle of the image itself. The photographer’s body language corresponds to the action in the painting -- the militia’s young female mascot avidly watches the photographer, while the fellow wearing the ruffled collar waves his hand directly at her camera as if to invite her to the party. Still another contradiction is the clashing color – the painting reflects the somber colors of the 17th century, while the photographer’s lavender shirt is very much in the palette of the 21st. Because of the low light in the gallery, I used ISO 400, which fortuitously adds a grainy texture to the photographer – making it almost seem as if she, too, has been made of brush strokes.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20
1/15s f/2.8 at 7.8mm iso400 full exif

other sizes: small medium large original auto
share
Phil Douglis23-Nov-2014 17:06
Thanks so much for your astute observations, Pranev. "Pixels as contradiction" would be a good subtitle for this image.
Pranav 21-Nov-2014 11:03
What I feel is the most stand-out contradiction here is how the different types of media stand compared: 17th century to the 21st, from having to arduously paint a detailed painting to capture a realistic scene, to just having to whip out a camera and shoot. And as so many of the other commenters wittily observe, the characters in the painting seem blasphemed by this new-fangled technology! Also great idea with increasing the ISO to make the woman look blurred, matching the painting.
Phil Douglis14-Nov-2006 22:34
And therein lies the point of the picture, Alistair. Opposites, indeed -- they span the centuries.
Guest 14-Nov-2006 18:16
this is not only a nice photo-of-a-photographer shot, but it gives one the almost comical impression that the 17th Century gentlemen are posing just for her
Phil Douglis23-Jul-2006 18:00
And your comment made me laugh out loud, Ceci. You turn the tables here, and give us a view from the inside, rather than the outside. I love your satirical wit. You certainly put digital photographers in their place. Hopefully not all of us are as intrusive as this "lavender alien" seems to be!
Guest 23-Jul-2006 05:30
This photo made me laugh out loud! It's almost as though all the people from another time are scrambling in terror to get away from the lavender alien before them holding up God knows what -- but obviously something unknown and frightening to them. I get a sense of the intrusiveness of the camera with this delightful image -- almost like the central figure is saying, with great authority: "This is what the youth of today have come to, with their lurid dress, their disrespect for tradition, behaving in ways that are out and out heretical! Off with her head!"
Phil Douglis09-Jul-2005 03:53
Get going, Ruthie. I don't want you to miss your plane. And glad you see my reasoning for this crop. The more I look at it, the more important it becomes to the dynamics of the image. She seems to be inserting herself into the tiny crack between the edge of my frame and Rembrandt's frame. Wonderful tension!
ruthemily09-Jul-2005 03:42
it makes sense about the crop. i will make sure i come back and look more closely at the previous comments sometime. i really should be out of here now though! :)
Phil Douglis09-Jul-2005 03:17
I welcome you at last to these new galleries, Ruthie -- I know you are leaving on a six week shoot in Southeast Asia in a few hours, and it is amazing that you could find the time in the dead of night to post this comment. I thank you for your comment, particularly on this image, which was inspired by your own satire of digital souvenir hunters at the Louvre. I agree with your observation that this woman most likely forgot to see this painting for what it might have given her -- as you imply, she was too busy photographing it to appreciate it. As for removing sliver of frame from the bottom of my own frame, Alister and I had a debate about that here earlier. I explained to him in detail why I intentionally included that line. As I told him, I tried cropping it, and it did not work for me. Catriona agreed -- she said that by leaving the suggestion of the frame at the bottom of the shot, I leave the woman as observer, fixed in this world, but peering into another. There is tension in that relationship. I agree that removing that line would put her in the painting -- but the tension would be lost in the process. I'm glad we agree on the choice of painting for this concept. It was the first painting to ever depict subjects in motion, and the animation of the Rembrandt's cast of characters work perfectly -- it is almost as if they are performing just for her. That is why I moved my vantage point to align the camera directly under the outstretched hand of the painting's central character. Thank you, Ruthie, for this comment. I look forward to many more when you return in late August, and I can't wait to savor your impressions of Thailand, Cambodia, and Viet Nam. Bon Voyage!
ruthemily09-Jul-2005 01:17
Phil...i'm FINALLY here! and this had to be the first image i searched for. i think the contradictions have already been mentioned. thank you for being inspired by my own image! i feel honoured. i think the "empty" space at the top of your photo serves to highlight how vast the painting is, and how she is trying to see it all on that ridiculously tiny screen (when she could just move her camera and look at the actual painting!). it highlights how she is trying to squash the whole painting into one photograph that she can keep as a souvenir of a painting she forgot to see, because she was so busy photographing it... i think i would crop a slither off the bottom, just enough to get rid of the black line. i'm not sure i can explain in words how i think it helps the image, but i'd be interested to know if you agree with me. without the black line (the bottom of the painting/wall, i presume?) the lady seems more lost in the painting, she seems more a part of it, as though she is becoming sucked into it and lost amongst the other characters. your positioning of the woman is superb. she does seem part of the painting...and i see your photo as a new painting, almost. the man directly in front of her, looks like he is posing for the camera, the man just behind him is peering over his shoulder having a look at what's going on. the same with the young girl to the left. you couldn't have chosen a better image to use this idea on!
Phil Douglis07-Jul-2005 18:31
Thanks, Dirk for noticing the clashing colors of the 17th and 21st centuries at work here.
Guest 07-Jul-2005 12:42
Hi Phil,

Great and very well seen. I love the cold color from the present against the warm colors of the past. And I love the Rembrandt light very very much. Amazing capture Phil, congrats!
Phil Douglis07-Jul-2005 00:26
Thanks, Marisa. As I said in my response to Catriona's comment, this image largely came about because of my fascination with Ruth Hanson's photo of the Mona Lisa made through the LCD viewfinder of a tourist. Thanks for appreciating my comment on digital trophy hunting here, and thanks too for your observation about possessive minds as empty and lost. But at least she's having fun, and I'm sure Rembrandt would not object to her intentions. So we, too, can have a little fun with her.
Guest 06-Jul-2005 23:34
Oh... this one is just amazing!
Seems that everybody in the painting is thinking and asking what the heck is doing the lady out there with her camera...
It's really funny the way you picture this picture. Again, a fantastic mirror game you present for us: everybody here is looking at something (we all included), pointing and 'shooting' at ...
Incredibly, the woman is trying to 'capture' the moment instead of enjoy it. She probably doesn't know at all the history of the painting, or understand each detail, the context, the light and shadow game... she just want to show 'them' that she was there.
The photograph, in this context, becomes a trophy: I did it! (Instead of the Nike sponsor we surely have Nikon or Canon or Sony one... ups.. do I have to pay a fee??).
This woman, for sure, can't say: I enjoyed Rembrandt, but she can say: I have Rembrandt.
Possessive minds, possessive souls... are empty and lost minds and souls.
Phil Douglis04-Jul-2005 18:52
Thanks, Catriona, for weighing in here. As you saw, Alister has also agreed that the bottom edge of the painting has a function here. He just likes to play the devils advocate now and then to make me justify my decisions, particularly cropping decisions. I agree with your point that my crop leaves her in this world, looking into another. She can't leave the present and step into that big dark space Rembrandt has left just for her -- she can only be an observer. And so she does the next best thing. She photographs it, to forever link herself with this moment out of the past. I must also give credit to Ruthie Hanson for inspiring this idea -- her satirical image of de Vinci's Mona Lisa in the LCD screen of a digital photographer athttp://www.pbase.com/ruthemily/image/43821400 got me thinking along these lines. Ruth notes that "everyone looks at the Mona Lisa through their LCD screens to prove to themselves that they had seen it." Perhaps that is also what is motivating this young woman -- yet she stands so close and the painting is so large, that at least she seems to be selecting one part of the image to remember forever.
Guest 04-Jul-2005 11:51
Although this debate about whwre to crop the image looks like it is settled, I'll add my bit (for what it is worth) to it. Sorry Alister, I would have to argue the same way as Phil. By leavinng the frame of the painting in the image lets the girl be an observer. It leaves her in this world, looking into another. By leaving the negative space at the top shows the emornity of the painting, contrasting the size of the painting with that of the girl. This is such an unusual image Phil, full of rich colours, contrasts and "Rembrandtesque" (you win on the word inventions Alister!).
Phil Douglis02-Jul-2005 18:08
Thanks for getting me going, Alister. This cyberbook is a wonderfully interactive experience. An image can acquire a new life of its own, just from the discussions and thinking it generates.
alibenn02-Jul-2005 08:35
your "justifification" is just and accepted!!! Just checking!!
Phil Douglis02-Jul-2005 06:34
I invent my own words, Alister. As for your suggeted crop, I tried it and I still prefer to leave the subtle implication of something there for her to step up into in order to be absorbed into the image. The crop you suggest just looked too abrupt to me. She appears truncated. Your logic is impeccable, but in practice, I really want her to be both observer (the photographer) yet participant as well (absorbed by the painting). So I need that thread of tension there, and so it must stay. But thanks for this discussion -- it's the kind of talk that helps people learn, including myself. I cropped it this way intuitively, and now I must defend it and you have made me think long and hard about my intuition and we all learn from it. Thanks, Alister.
alibenn02-Jul-2005 05:35
Is Rembrandtic a word? Anyway!! Okay, I can live with the top negative space, I wouldn't want to make it less Rembrandtesque, but I still concur with my original suggestion to crop a touch off the bottom. To me, showing the edge of the frame makes it look like a tourist snap, by removing the edge, it shows a compositional insite, and isn't she already in the image? She stepped across the thresh-hold of it when she saw it, urging her to take out her own camera...I believe the crop would add a level of abstraction to the image that is suggested but not complete..
Phil Douglis02-Jul-2005 04:44
Good suggestions as always. However I left the bottom edge of the frame in to add a touch dimensionality. It creates a subtle tension, urging her to step across that narrow threshold and into the image. As for the negative space on top, that space is the glory of Rembrandt -- it is the dark well from which his gifts spring. To crop off the top would make it less Rembrandtic, and that would be a shame.
alibenn02-Jul-2005 04:36
Oh yes, this is good too..Obvious incongruity here, but I'd like to pick your brains on the crop...sound familiar?

For me, I'd take a shade off the bottow to remove the edge of the pictures frame, and I'm not convinced as to the effectiveness of the negative space on top, I'd crop it down to just above the heads of the pained figures, thus making it a far busier image, but concentrating the eye on the incongruity.

Look forward to hear what effect you feel the negative space has on the image...
Type your message and click Add Comment
It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest.
Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help private comment