« Photo Book of the Year 2008 | Main | Random Excellence: Hendrik Kerstens »

Saturday, 03 January 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Absolutely, optical confusion is the main tool to build an original image from a conventional matter. Nevertheless, the very concept is completely subjective; for instance, I can see nothing confusing in the picture you used to ilustrate the post (I am rather primitive about females, you know). I've also had to explain tens of times what is in this picture


although I -and many other viewers- found it very evident. So, I think that you may use optical confusion to appeal the viewer and bring him to your image, but more and deeper things are needed to get the impression remain longer.

its been my experience that photos that provoke a little thought (not a lot, though),
tend to score more connections with viewers, and it's the connection to the viewer that wins recognition and praise along with sales, not to mention satisfying personal sense of achievement.
It's a fine line and very vague, the one between just enough required viewer thought and too much, which loses the connection.
I find it tough to think a shot like that up, but every now and then I stumble onto one by accident. I've learned to keep my eyes open and my camera at hand.....can't collect images without a camera...
best wishes...

One of my favorite never-ending art arguments:

The Eisenheim Altarpiece is a painting of the crucifixion by Grunewald (which you can Google) which is not only horrifying in itself, but also was originally hung in a hospital for dying people - not to inform them of the horrors of dying, but to show them how much Christ suffered for them, and that *his* suffering would bring them everlasting life after death.

Modrian, at the height of his powers, painted grids in primary colors, plus black and white.

Both are accepted as master painters of their time.

But which one, really, gives you something of substance to think about? Grunewald touches on death (and all of those issues), the meaning of suffering, the foundations of Christianity and all that entails, the relationship between dying people and their environment, and on and on and *on,* including such formal issues as painting handling and the used of color.

What do you really *think* about Modrian?

Which brings us to these photos. What do you really *think* about them? For me, not much. They're a kind of visual trick, without much content, and with even formal considerations suppressed by the demands of the trick. I look at Adams "Moonrise" almost every day, and take something away. I doubt that I'll remember "Belly Landscape" tomorrow.



Are we to assume from your comment, that Mr. Kidd is a "realistic" painter?

I don't disagree; I guess that makes us "Philistines" in this strange "age of reason".


It's such a frustrating photo above. I want to see the rest. ;)

"What do you really *think* about Modrian?"

The question is if "thinking" is the only connection we can make? What's to *think* about your connection with a baby or a sunrise?

I'll agree that the best photos are the ones invoking thought, bringing you back, making you think about them when the image is only in your mind and not your eyes.

Echoing Greg, the hardest thing is to make instantly accessible but everlasting durable images...

Part of me believes we can only stumble into that balance; they typically come from such small, serendipitous yet poignant slices of life that they are impossible to plan entirely.

"In Photography, What Puzzles the Eye May Please the Mind".

That's the basic idea of the article "Photography as a Framing Art":



The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007