Gormley! Dont jump!

[rhysb123]

Taken couple of weeks ago. I quite like the composition but at first didnt like the blank sky- but now I do.
I normally shoot with a 20D but I only had my trusty compact A80 with me on the day.
I'd be interested to know what others think.
Cheers!

Rhys

[clockdoc]

I think the white sky works on this shot, particularly since your attention is drawn to the figure on the top of the building. Is that a statue? You may want to also try some cropping of the left side so that it isn't symmetrical just for another look. The overcast day probably gave you the low contrast as it appears on my monitor but I still like the thought behind the shot.

[thingy]

Yep nice shot. I believe Gormley has several of these statues dotted around the city.

G

[uvsub]

This shot is all about the guy on the roof! Who the hell is he? Is he going to jump and kill himself? What's he doing up there? The white sky is fine but that silhouette is the center of interest, yet I get the feeling you had a more architectural comment by selecting this composition.

If the latter was indeed the intent, this is a smashing shot of a unique structure, but get rid of the silhouette. If the guy is the subject, than it could use another viewpoint/layout.

[uvsub]

ahhh, so it's a statue... that's a relief. I was worried for a moment.

[thingy]

It sparks a bit of a debate in my opinion. Is this not just a replica of a work of art (i.e. Gormley), as even the location for the statue was chosen by the artist to create the tension etc mentioned earlier by uvsub. Or does this shot stand on its own artistically as the angle, exposure, choice of lighting (when to shoot) etc are all decisions made by the photographer.Where do we draw the line of when it is or isnt acceptable. Of course, I am not referring here to snap shots for personal consumption but to photos intended to be appreciated by others and stand on there own artistically. This obviously applies to any photos of someone elses art. I would be interested to hear any opinions on the subject.

G

PS. rhysb123 - Sorry to choose your shot (which I love by the way) as an example. This is something I have contemplated myself when I am in the same position of shooting existing artworks, sculptures etc and would just like to get a general consensus of opinion of this sort of work.

[eydryan]

if not for the title i'd have had no idea there was something up there. honestly, try more focus on the guy... this way it just looks like one of those tourist shots where the dad and kids are really small and the building looks ok. focus on people not buildings is what i mean here. and please don't take it as a bad thing, just a detail i think would make it better

[thingy]

Hmm, I disagree. I think the shot works because of the geometry of the building and the addition of the statue breaks the symmetry (which is one of the rules of pattern to throw something in to disrupt it). However, maybe the title is the culprit of drawing too much attention to the statue.

G

[a.saliga]

Originally Posted by thingy

It sparks a bit of a debate in my opinion. Is this not just a replica of a work of art (i.e. Gormley), as even the location for the statue was chosen by the artist to create the tension etc mentioned earlier by uvsub. Or does this shot stand on its own artistically as the angle, exposure, choice of lighting (when to shoot) etc are all decisions made by the photographer.Where do we draw the line of when it is or isnt acceptable. Of course, I am not referring here to snap shots for personal consumption but to photos intended to be appreciated by others and stand on there own artistically. This obviously applies to any photos of someone elses art. I would be interested to hear any opinions on the subject.

G

PS. rhysb123 - Sorry to choose your shot (which I love by the way) as an example. This is something I have contemplated myself when I am in the same position of shooting existing artworks, sculptures etc and would just like to get a general consensus of opinion of this sort of work.

I was actually pondering this same subject last weekend as I was taking some photos at a museum. The museum has a formal garden with great landscaping and a variety of flowers As I walked along one of the paths I saw a sculpture and wondered if I should take a photo. The conclusion that I came to was that the distinction must be made between preserving memories or archiving art vs. adding some artistic flare and claiming something as your own. It is obviously not acceptable to photograph a painting and create what is basically a derivative work out of it. Where is the line drawn though? Gardens filled with flowers and topiaries were created by the landscape artists/gardeners. What about a beautiful hand crafted piece of wooden furniture? Even architecture for that matter.

It is definitely a gray area.

[eydryan]

Originally Posted by thingy

Hmm, I disagree. I think the shot works because of the geometry of the building and the addition of the statue breaks the symmetry (which is one of the rules of pattern to throw something in to disrupt it). However, maybe the title is the culprit of drawing too much attention to the statue.

G

i don't say that the oddness of that shape up there doesn't draw the eye, but it's just too small and featureless to really present any reason to keep your eye there. a closer shot with just the top of the building would've revealed the same symmetry but with a bigger sillhouette to look at..