Watching Us, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 2004 by Phil Douglis

Phil Douglis | all galleries >> Galleries >> Gallery Two: Travel Incongruities > Watching Us, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 2004

previous | next


22-NOV-2004

Watching Us, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 2004

When I noticed the faceless cardboard figure wearing a vest and shirt propped up in the window of a Santa Fe clothing shop, I saw the possibilities for an incongruous image immediately. All I needed to do was to create the most effective context for it. I tried shooting it straight on, then from below. I tried first one window, and then two – there was a similar clothing display in every window of this old building.

Then I realized that the image expressed its incongruity most effectively when the bizarre widow display comes to us slowly, as a surprise, rather immediately. I backed off at an angle, obscuring two of the three window displays in the process. I brought a lovely branch full of golden Aspen leaves into the frame, complementing the soft yellow color of the brickwork. All of this context works in such harmony, that the bizarre figure watching us from the first window may well go unseen by some of us for at least moment or two, and then it suddenly stops us in our tracks with its mysterious effect. If some viewers do not take the time to read this verbal context, they might get quite a jolt when they finally notice that blank face looking at them through that window. The message: all this beauty, and suddenly, little more than a ghost for our thoughts.

Canon PowerShot G6
1/250s f/4.0 at 12.7mm full exif

other sizes: small medium large original auto

previous | next

Phil Douglis		25-Jul-2006 06:21
Thanks, Emi, for your comment. You are right -- the flat mannequin might be hard to make out at first, particularly if you are looking at this image on a smaller monitor. I see a big difference between when I look at it in "large size" and "original size" as well. But remember -- these are all teaching images, Emi --- they are not meant to stand alone on a gallery wall. They are meant to study along with my captions and the other comments. Which is what you did. It is important to keep the importance of my captions in mind -- that is how I teach.

Guest		25-Jul-2006 03:59
The incongruity here works very well here, and the choice of angle and the colour bring it out successfully. However, I wish the window display is a little brighter so that we can see the human figure a little clear. Because if I didnt read your caption, I didn't know it was a mannequin. Had a hard time to identify what it was. Emi

Phil Douglis		06-Jan-2005 18:59
Thanks, Zandra, for returning to this image. I am delighted that you find this image works so well for you now that we have masked the distracting roofline and branches. I can see that you are no longer being yanked back and forth down that row of windows any more either. Everything makes sense to you now, which is what composition is really all about. Organizing information so that everything works for you. The most important part of this exercise was not just to somehow make this image work for you. Rather, it was all about what you learned from the process of criticizing it. You grasped the value of incongruity as a way of expressing meaning ever more deeply. And you learned how important is to be as critical as you can be with even an image you love, because that is how you grow as a photographer. Little things can mean a lot, both for better or worse. A distraction can be minor and do no harm. Or it can completely disrupt an image so that its meaning is diluted or negated. Your criticism of this image will make me a better photographer and teacher as well. I will notice things as a photographer than I might never had noticed before. I learned from you how simple it is to later cover up a distraction using Photoshop's copy and paste technique, without changing the facts of the picture itself. We made a very small change here, but it had a very large effect. That will now become a staple of my teaching, thanks to you, Zandra. I look forward to teaching you much much more as you study my galleries. And if you are willing to continue to be as tough a critic of my other examples as you were of this image, I can also look forward to learning a lot from you as well. Thank you, Zandra, for coming to play with this image. I'm glad now that I made the mistake I made in it -- if not for that error, look at what we might have missed!

Guest		06-Jan-2005 16:15
I find this to be alot better picture NOw Phil, when the branches does not distract me. The whole composition makes sence to me now as i start by noticing who beutifully the green marque to teh left is embraced by the leafs, then i can see the other branches pointng me in the right direction untill i notice the manequin in the window. The leafes becomes like a pointing hand as if saying "hey...wait a minute...look at that, did you see that" Thank you for letting me play with this image Phil. I learned alot while doing it. Both about incongurity but also about the impact of distracting elements can have and who litle it mayb take to remove them. What difference it can make.

Phil Douglis		04-Jan-2005 22:38
A few days ago, Zandra, you noted on another one of my images -- the old car, i think -- that it kept you up all night wondering about its meaning. Well, you got back at me last night, all right. I woke up about two a.m. and realized that there was an easy solution to the crappy stuff that was distracting you in the upper left hand corner of this picture. Look. It's gone. I decided to use Photoshop to simply just move a few leaves up there to mask the confusing white branches merging with the roofline. To quote a favorite word of yours: "BAM" -- the problem, to my eyes anyway, is solved. I have no ethical problems with it either. To change the position of a few leaves in an image is as innocent as cropping out a distraction. The big question will be answered when you come back here and post your own final verdict and grade on this shot. Does it work for you any better now, Zandra, and to what extent do you feel this image succeeds in both content and form to move your mind? Looking forward to hearing from you. Phil

Phil Douglis		04-Jan-2005 02:25
You are back again with more, Zandra, and so am I. I hope that out of our dialogue on this picture, learning will come for both of us. Glad you are now more comfortable with the meaning of incongruity. I hope you keep the definitions i gave you below in mind and take a look at all of the examples in this gallery and see how each of them fits those definitions. Then go back and look at your own images, Zandra, and try to see where you have used incongruity already without even realizing it. And finally, apply what you learn from all of this to your own work in the future. Incongruity, more often than not, is behind meaning. Look for that as well. OK? Why is the far left window the focal point of this picture? First of all, the angle of this shot makes the underside of the awning on that window extremely prominent. It is the largest solid black area in the picture, and in photography, dark shadow areas usually dominate an image. I moved my camera so that I could soften that black hole by using the golden leaves to frame it perfectly, and then draw your eye over to the middle window, and finally to the window with the mannequin in it. When I composed this image, I composed it from left to right, not right to left. I intend to pull your eye to that black hole first, and then to the golden leaves as they wrapped around that hole. From there, I want to move you to the larger mass of leaves that point directly down like a big finger at the second largest window, and finally carry you on a bridge of leaves to the largest window, and on down to the mannekin. That gap that you see as "dividing the picture in half" does not seem like a gap to me. A gap is defined as empty space. And that space is certainly not empty. A layer of golden leaves flows right through it, linking the pair of small windows at left with the largest window at the right. At least that was my intention, Zandra. If I took your suggestion and found a sharper angle to bring those windows closer and make their sizes more equal, you would never see the mannequiin in the window and I would have no picture here. If your eye flickers back and forth along those leaves, that is fine with me. Once you have discovered and savored the meaning of the mannequin, you have grasped the meaning of my picture. As you say, "you are being watched because you are not trusted. You are under suspicion." I agree with you that the distraction of the roofline up top is not great enough to remove the focus from the mannequin. But regarding your suggestion of possibly making the roof look more yellow with post processing so that it blends in to the yellow wall and becomes less distracting, I have two questions for you: first, how can you turn something yellow that is a fragmented as that roof is? I am sure that you use post processing effects more frequently than I do, so you must know things about Photoshop techniques that I will never know. How would you do it? And secondly, if you did do it, what do you think about the ethics involved? Do you think it is right to so blatantly change the facts of a travel photograph such as this one? I can see you changing colors in any way you want in a work of personal art. But to me, travel photographs, street photographs, and photojournalism, should stick to the facts that are already there. You can clone out a leaf or something if it is distracting, or perhaps even a telephone pole. But to actually change the color of the trim on a well known Santa Fe mall building is crossing a line that would make me weigh the benefits to be gained by the color change vs. the risk to my reputation as a credible travel photographer. What are your thoughts on that, Zandra? As for those white branches up top, we agree entirely on that point. They are a significant distraction. They make a jumble of confusing forms in the upper left hand corner of this image. And as you say, they yank your eye there and distract from the rest of the picture. But as you also say, there is nothing I could do about that jumble when I took the picture without seriously affecting its meaning. Your comments make perfect sense to me, Zandra. You are trying to tell me, without actually coming right out and saying it, that you want to give this picture a low grade on aesthetics, and a high grade on meaning. The question is, to what extent does the distracting crap up top, your flickering back and forth problem, and that "big gap" you think you see, affect that meaning you defined so vividly in your original critique? What do you think? I know you never give up on your first try. Or on your second try either. You are welcome to come back here as often as you want and whenever you want and sound off on this picture. Eventually you will reach that point when it makes enough sense in your own head, so you can at last be satisfied. And each time you come back, you will learn more, too. As for me, Zandra, I will be satisfied if the knowledge you gain from this process will be helpful to you as an expressive photographer. Even if it means that you must grade me low on this shot, I would be delighted with that score -- as long as I knew that you learned a great deal by coming to such a decision. That is why I post my images here. As lessons. You may come to like some of my images very much. Others you may not like as much, or even like at all. But all of the nearly 500 images I have posted in my cyberbook are here to teach you something of value. I will only be disappointed if you can not learn from them.

Guest		03-Jan-2005 23:16
So, i may have a chanse to learn what incongruity means, beoynd the translation of the word itself, which did not make much sense to me. Thank you for your further exlpanation of it. It is in those terms i have started to use when trying to understand the meaning of it. I do thinkg i am pulled in two directions when lookign at this kmage. I noticed that i end up in two difrent places from time to time when lookgi at it. One time i ampointed directly to the manequin ant the next tiem i am stopping by the window to the far left. Yet another time i find myself flicker between them. i can not clearly say what it is aboyut the window that apperantly attracts my eye so much. If it is the position of the window withing the fram and maybe also how the branch and tree is formed around it, as to high light it. It could be the gap between teh window to the right and the two windowas to the left. It divides the image in two. I think i woudl have chosen a slightly difrent angel, trying to even out the space in between the windows a bit and make ther sizes a bit more equal. Not much. If it is to much then you will lose the perspective that it gives teh iamge. As to the roof, as you say, it is something we have to accept as to much of the leading lines will be removed with it. The distraction is not so grandour so that it totally removes focus from the manequin. If i were to do anything in post process with it, then i would proably have altered teh colour of it and turn it more yellow. It woudl then blend in better and not distract as much. You asked about the shadow, in the window, what i would do about it. I am not sure. I woudl probaly have tried to clone it out. While tinkgin of these details though i also noticed another distraction and i tink i foudn the answer as to why my eye often end up in that part of the image. I find teh white brashes to be a bit of a distraction too, as they contrast quit alot with the rest of the colour scheme. Difficult to do anything about as that is nature. I tik the reason forme ending up ther is that ther are quit many distractiosn conentrated in that corner. teh red roof, the white branch, teh framing of teh window and the placement of all these elements in teh composition. I am not sure if all this makes sence. i might come back for further analysis...as you know y now, i don't give up after my first try. It has to make sence in my own head, only after that can i bee satisfied.

Phil Douglis		03-Jan-2005 21:51
Thank you, Zandra, for this excellent critique. You question the very meaning of incongruity, which gives me a chance to go even more deeply into that concept for you, before I even go on to answer your specific questions and criticisms of this image itself. You came up with the word "opposites" and thought that it might really mean something that is "unexpected." These words can certainly be related to incongruity, but they do not explain the meaning of the term itself. I define the incongruous as something that is out of place in a particular context or setting. It can also be a form of strangeness, absurdity, the inappropriate, the bizarre, the surreal. Something that is abnormal, that does not seem to fit in. That is, as you have defined it yourself, unexpected. Do you see it better now? What is incongruous about this image, Zandra? You described it perfectly here! "To have a non-living 'being' looking back at you from inside a window is in a way unexpected." You go on to find more incongruity in its resemblance to a human. This mannequin wears a vest and almost looks like a person but has no depth and no face. That is what makes it a non-living "being", right? And a non living being casually watching from the window of an old building is an incongruous relationship or juxtaposition, is it not? I am delighted that you find my image a success, but I am even more delighted that for the first time you have written a true critique, which tells me I might have even improved. By telling me what works for you and what does not, you are also teaching yourself some very important lessons as well, Zandra. You are right about the effect of subject placement here. There were mannequins in ALL of those windows, but I took a vantage point that shows only the closest one so that i could give you what you so beautifully call the "Hey, what was that??? effect." That was exactly what I was trying to do. I did not want you to confront you with the surprise. I wanted it to creep up on you. Robin Statfeld also liked the angle i took on this shot. She made a similar image to mine in Italy at:http://www.pbase.com/robinstatfeld/image/27646478 in which she presents its subject to us head on because she wanted to jolt us with the shock of suddenly seeing a naked woman pull back a real curtain to expose her body to us out there on the public street. Only it was not a naked woman. It was a sculpture, and this made Robin's image -- and the artists' art, incongruous. I do not shock or confront with my own image. I want my figure in the window to be more of a gradual discovery, becoming a lingering surprise that haunts us, instead of astonishing us. That is why i place it at an angle instead of shooting it head on. And I also did not want to dilute it by showing the figures in the other windows. The layering of the branch, wall, window, and subject was intentional, and as you pick up so well, I did it to make the viewer become the watched, instead of the watcher. Nobody else had picked up on this until you did --which is a very important psychological point. The layers also crate a sense of depth perception here. The eye moves from one to the other, moving ever more deeply into the image. Without the leaves, I have no picture. And without the color I have no picture either, because the yellows of both leaves and building harmonize to create a continuous flowing path into the image. All of which brings you to the meaning of this image. That you are not trusted. The figure in the window questions your presence, as I you have caught in the act of being somewhere you don't belong. Your meaning brings to mind an even more important meaning, Zandra. We live in an age of paranoia. At least here in the US. To take out a camera and begin to photograph a building today in the US can lead to some unpleasant questions and maybe even temporary imprisonment. Fortunately this is a clothing store in Santa Fe, New Mexico, a laid back kind of town. But if I was seen shooting a government building in Washington DC for a fifteen minutes, people might have questioned my motives. So the meaning you see here -- of not being trusted -- is really a universal metaphor for a state of mind that sadly exists today in the world itself. At this point, your previous critiques have ended with a statement of meaning. However here, for the first time, Zandra also becomes a photographic critic and begins to question many of the decisions I made in making this picture. It is a departure for you, and I hope that from now on, you will be willing to do this on every critique, because you will learn much from both your questions and my answers. Your first question refers to the segment of the roof in the upper right (I think you mean left) corner. You say it is the first thing you noticed in this picture and you call it a distraction. Yet you also say that it led your eye down through the branches and leaves into the right hand side of the picture where you found that colorful awning and then the mannequin itself. You asked me if I did this intentionally. No, I did not. And I agree with you that the roof itself, with that tangle of branches over it, is distracting and breaks up the purity of this picture. If I had had my way, would have a pure golden shower of leaves leading you into this image. Instead, it is an unsightly mass of irrelevant information that draws your eye. But what could I have done to get this stuff, (which from now on you can jus call "crap") out without changing viewers course through this image, and thereby the meaning? If I had cropped the roof out in my frame, or cropped the image later, i would have also had to chop off the important red and green awning. If I had moved closer to the building and shot up to avoid the roof, I would have lost that progression of ever-growing windows as they march from left to right. This is one of those times where I had to accept a distraction as just that, and make the best of it. No pictures are perfect, mine included. And your critical eye has jumped all over my major fault here. As well it should have. Fortunately, you gave me an escape valve here, Zandra. You also found the awning itself giving you another "entrance" to this image. You say that if you start there, instead of up at the confusing roof line, you are carried up to the branches and then down again into the window, presumably negating the effect of that distraction of top. So which is it, Zandra. Where does YOUR eye really want to start when you look at this image? The roof, or the awning? This brings up another key point. Different viewers will be drawn to different things as they enter an image. We may think we are guiding them logically from point to point, but invariably, people jump around in pictures. It's like eating an ice cream cone. Some start at the top and work their way down. Some like to lick around the bottom first, gradually working their way up. The ice cream tastes just as good in the end. Likewise in viewing images, some might start at the roof, others at the awning, still others at the leaves. But few will start at the mannequin. It is important that they come to that last. (You will find much more on leading the eye through a picture in my composition gallery, Zandra.) Finally, you tell me that the diminishing size of the window frames show you the way through this image. If I am reading your criticism correctly here, you feel a distracting conflict here. The branches and awning are pulling your eye toward the mannequin, but at the same time, the flow of windows is leadinh you away the mannequin, instead of towards it. I did not do this intentionally, Zandra. The very last thing I wanted to do was to compose a picture that pulled the eye in two directions at once. I felt that since we are used to reading from left to right, I wold make the eye flow from left to right. The leaves point from left to right. And I feel that my windows, by getting progressively larger, do as well. I want everything in this picture to lead you to that Mannekin, not away from it. Although I do want my viewers to take a few moments to get there, and be surprised by what they find. Are you really pulled in two directions at once here, Zandra? If so, what could should I have done differently to avoid such a conflict? And what could I have done about that tiny distraction you found in that last window -- which is a corner of the vest worn by another mannequin. Would you clone it out? Or just leave it there? No matter which way your eye takes you, you still got the point of this image. And you felt the image, in spite of these distractions, conveyed its message to you effectively. Your final observation may be a misinterpretation of something I said in my caption. I said that I felt that even those who do not take the time read my caption and acquire verbal context for this image will get quite a jolt when they finally discover that blank face looking at them in that window. So I must disagree with your comment that "not all will even notice the subject in the window" -- I actually think most who look at this picture will see it incongruity. As for this being a "difficult topic" for you to understand, Zandra, I would remind you of your remarkably clear definition of incongruity as something that is unexpected. I also thought you analysis of meaning here was right on target -- you grasped the meaning of this picture in all of its dimensions. You noted things here that nobody else has noticed, as well. So I think you are well on the way to understanding incongruity, and as you critique each image in this gallery, your understanding will deepen and broaden. Most importantly, I thank you for willing to be critical as well, honestly tellinh me how you felt about the way this image worked for you. You did an excellent job of picking it apart, and telling me where, how, and why certain thing distracted you. This is the kind of tough criticism I had hoped you would bring to the table, and you are doing just that and doing it quite well. I hope that my responses to those criticisms, and the questions that I have asked of you, will be valuable to you, Zandra. I look forward to your response to my comments and questions, and to watching you apply what you've learned here to your own amazing images.

Guest		03-Jan-2005 19:41
I have have been havinf real problems with grasping incongruity as the word iteslf is translated in to swedish. When i looked it up it was translated to "opposites" and i can't find that in the images in this gallery. I think "unexpected" is more correct. Atleast then i seem to start understand the concept more...while looking at the pictures. To have a non living "being" looking back at you from a inside of a window is in a way unexpected- The incongruity for me here is the resemblence to a human. Had it been a porslain statue it woudl have been expected and the effect of suprice would be gone, it would be expected and so the incongruity would be gone...am i grasping the right straw here? I will come to an understandingof teh concept, only it may take me some time. I won't give up though. Teh thing that makes you jump a bit and which makes the image a success in tis aspect is where the subject is placed. Had it for instance been placed in the window furthest away the supricing effect woudl not have been the same. But as it is now, we "walk" by the window, then we stop and look back saying to our selfs...Hey! What was that??? Another thing that works for this image is the layering created by the branch, the wall/window and the subject. Including the branch emphyses for the viewer that they are outside of the building and that THEY are the once being watrched, not the other way around as you may think at first. That is the feelign i get from this image...i am being watched, i am not trusted. the silent figure in the window is asking me...what are you doing sneeking around here. Don't hink i don't know you are here. As if i have been taken bare handed ding something i shoudl not... Ther is a part of the roof in the upper right corner, between the branches which is distracting me. It is one of the first thing i notice about the image, then my eye start to fall towards the left and i notice the red and green thing over the window (i don't know the name of it in english, marque maybe?). Only after that do i notice the subject itself. I can not help but to wonder if this wasn't your intention...as a way of luearing me in to the image and then forcing me to go back, then the suprice by being watched. Ther is another "entrance" to this iamge too. The green thing/marquee above the window to the right. By starting thre the viewer is brought backwards in the image by the braches...then the subject behind the window. If my eye were to fall on teh windowa itself as i enter the iamge, then for me it does not work. I follow the windows towards the right and leave the iamge. In the end as all these things work together i have to force myself to stay with the subject in the window. Evnethough the braches and the marquee leads me ther, the window frames them selfs shows me the exit and i end up by the window furthest away. Was this intentional, as to enhance the effect of incongruity and suprice? Ther is a tiny shadow in the small window too which begs for my attention. All in all those small tings distracts me from the main subject, intentional or not. Itis just as you say in your note, not all will even notice the subject in the window...it is a difficult topic for me.

Phil Douglis		22-Dec-2004 01:27
You have brought another meaning to this image, Mikel, and I thank you for it. You have linked the season, with its cold and its dead and dying leaves to the melancholic dummy in the window. Thanks for the insight.

Guest		21-Dec-2004 23:07
This image has more a melancholic meeneng to me, it's fall, I imagine, someone is alone at home looking at the landscape, alone because you've hidden very effectevly the other figures and closing the image with the liefs make it very intimate, locks the subject in the context. Don't know if I could say he is waiting for someone to come, but probably, he wold be just looking as the time passes by, the dummy doesen't have a real face to identify with so it gives me the sence of a passivity or even sorrow, rather sad for the season of the year it is. Fall is beautifull for it's colours yes, but also it is prior to the deth symbolisem of winter.

Phil Douglis		10-Dec-2004 21:14
A fascinating observation, Tim. Yes, I agree. Everything here is dressed either by nature or by those who wish to sell clothing. You also bring up an incongruity that has not yet been mentioned -- the faceless cardboard figure is trying to be so human by wearing those clothes, yet in the process I think it calls attention to its incongruous self at the expense of the clothes it is trying to sell. (Speaking of selling, while I was outside shooting this picture, my wife was inside shopping. And yes, she proved to be a very good customer.)

Tim May		10-Dec-2004 17:13
As I look at this image I think about "clothing" Every element in this image is wearing special clothes which make them more engaging: the tree is dressed for Fall, the building has been painted and dressed in a stylish manner which accentuates its uniqueness, yet the cardboard figure is all about clothing - in the figure the emptiness of the content doesn't matter - its the clothes that matter - clothes literally make the man.

Phil Douglis		08-Dec-2004 04:52
And guess what image I had in mind when I made this shot, Robin? It's at: http://www.pbase.com/robinstatfeld/image/27646478 Our pictures both surprise. Yours comes at us head on. Your frontal camera position intensifies the immediacy of it by engaging us directly. My faceless mannequin is not as jolting as your naked woman, but my angular view of the two dimensional figure does indeed provide an eerie perspective that we discover gradually and with lingering surprise. I also make strong use of environmental factors such as additional windows that may or may not harbor similar visions, and a depth producing spray of golden leaves screening the viewer from the windows. I think your Girl in the Window in Sienna is a masterful image, combining the whimsical and somewhat shocking concept of an sculptor and your own interpretation of it in light and space. I am delighted that you picked out this image to draw a comparison.

robin statfeld		07-Dec-2004 23:20
Phil, I agree with you and Nut that the angle works here. The slight, angled view of the 2-dimensional figure give him more character and depth. I can't help but think of the differences and similarities between this and my own Girl in the Window in Siena...

Phil Douglis		06-Dec-2004 21:24
You don't have to see the watcher, Nut. You can feel it. So much of this image rests within our imaginations. That's why I made it as I did. To play with your head!

nut		06-Dec-2004 20:45
But it's about your thought and imagination who play with you on those invisible watching eyes, right? This is double incongruities, which represented in the same thing or not? How can he watching without eyes? But if someone is watching you then...how do you know about this without watch back? This is ground floor, right? If not, it can't say "watching eyes" with an angle of figure hand.

Phil Douglis		06-Dec-2004 20:15
Thank you, Nut, for this comment. It is one of the most complete and thoughtful comments I have received, and it shows me how much you have learned so far in your trips through some of my galleries. If you can put this knowledge to work when you are ready to buy your own camera and become a serious expressive photographer, you will be making substantive images very quickly. I agree with all of the points you have raised about this image, and you have made me realize just how thought provoking this image can be to some viewers. You commented first on the effect of the layers of yellow, and how they bring a sense of depth perception to the image for you. You sense an incongruity between the liveliness of the leaves (these are the first leaves that have worked for you in my pictures, Nut) and the stillness of the background. I see it more as simply contrast. You can have contrast, which is a comparison by degree, without having incongruity. The incongruity comes when we spot that cardboard figure in the window. I make it a gradual discovery by taking a vantage point from off to one side. How do I know that this is the "right" angle? The answer is very simple. In digital photography, we get answers to such questions instantly. Just look at your picture. If it works, its the right angle. If it could work better, take another angle and then another. That's what I did here. You are exactly right, Nut, when you guessed that it must have something to do with the relationship of the subject to its context, as well as the degree of abstraction I wanted to create. As I moved my angle of view, those relationships changed in terms of space and perception. In this shot, I have completely abstracted similar mannequins in the other windows. They vanish because of my angle. I love your sense of cold here, too. There was a heavy snow in Santa Fe only a few hours earlier, and it was wet, raw, windy, and cold there. No sun - the light was flat, but very bright because of the reflectance from the snow on the ground. And I intensified the effect of light and color by boosting contrast and saturation in Photoshop later. I loved your question about the non-existent pants, too. I find that very amusing. Mannequins on a cold day without pants! Of course this store is not selling pants in these windows. So we only see the upper half of the mannequin, don't we. But if it amuses you to imagine the rest of the mannequin standing at that window with a bare bottom, go ahead and chuckle. I never intended such pleasures, but if that's the way your whimsical mind works, Nut, go to it with my blessing! (I can see you grinning over there in Thailand at the thought of those bottoms!) Finally, I am glad you feel the ghostly effect I intended. Human form and behavior is expressed in that window. But it is faceless and without dimension, an incongruous non-person, its invisible eyes watching us wherever we go.

nut		06-Dec-2004 19:38
I have no problem with your golden Aspen leaves. I don't know the real meaning of "put into the frame". What I understand is about how to make 2D object which got from camera into 3D so I made more send as close as it could for the real thing. I saw the gap between the group of golden leaves and the building on the background. To do in this way, make me feel that I am there and look at this photo with my true eyes. The different between the golden leaves and the soft yellow on background separated this photo into layer. The gap, layer and the color shade made me think about "Lively Light and Constant Shadow". Lively brightness on foreground and stillness shadow on background is incongruous in my feeling but not incongruous in the matter of this photo. Only the right angle can give the good incongruities photography. How can photographer know that this is the right angle? I think it's something to do with what object/context and/or an abstract that he want to express, right? I think an object here is the faceless cardboard figure and the basic context is "Watching". Normally the cardboard won't move by itself. There are three faceless cardboard at three windows in this photo. But I saw a few part of them because of the angle of this photo. With this angel, "See Less, Think More" and hiding some part of an object so I can see the movement of one cardboard figure. But cardboard figure can't move by itself so it's incongruous. I don't think the weather is too cold because it's so bright with golden of leaves. So must to light source or sun source from somewhere outside and it's not cold here. Funny thing is about their pants, I am not sure they have it or not. If not, it's incongruous too. How can they stand without pants at these windows? If the weather is cold enough to wear a vest, how about pants? Not only visible incongruities, this photo give me the abstract incongruity too. No matter what I saw here, the truth is always true. Cardboard figure can't move and never will. Angle, incongruities and abstract are taken into this photo to express human feeling and instinct. Fear of something you don't know, can't explain and can't see clearly then my instinct will bring me an idea about "ghost". And this is what I see and feel here.

Phil Douglis		06-Dec-2004 19:21
Thanks, Dave, for these observations. I was fascinated by your mention of The Scream, because the same thought went through my mind while I was shooting this picture. The lack of a face made me think of that mannequin as a silent scream -- which is heightened by that tiny reflection coming out of the lower face. You also take it to an entirely new level by likening the two-dimensional mannequin to Janus, the two-faced Roman god of doors and gates. If we see this image as a reference to not only what goes on outside, but also inside, we extend its reach farther than I originally intended.

Dave Wyman		06-Dec-2004 07:26
1) The figure in the window bears a vaguely reminiscent resemblence to Edvard Munch's painting, "The Scream." In fact, the painting was stolen from a Norwegian museum a few months back. Coincidence? Perhaps. But for sure the watcher is not an ordinary mannequin. The shape of the blind and indeed faceless head, is what makes this "watcher" so disquieting. 2) The mannequin also reminds me of a blind Janus, Roman god of beginnings and endings and doors and gates. It's quite possible it can watch over the world outside the the window, as well as what goes on inside the building, because Janus is a god with two faces. As a god, it certainly doesn't need eyes in a physical sense. And this mannequin is not only blind and faceless, it is also apparently two dimensional, its front really the mirror image of its back. This is another great photograph. Dave

Phil Douglis		06-Dec-2004 02:36
Thanks, Bruce. I'm delighted you like this image -- I must have made twenty versions of it until it worked for me. There many kinds of incongruities. Some are appreciated instantly. Others take a few moments to sink in. This is one of those.

Guest		06-Dec-2004 02:25
Wondrous photo, Phil. The colors all work so well together, they create a tranquil scene, especially with the golden leaves - one any decorator would be proud of. Then there is the mannequin, peeking at us... perhaps shy, perhaps sly. I like the way you present this, and let us discover the surprise.

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

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