Abstraction of the Feminine Mystique

Critiques

Write a critique

If you find one of these critiques especially helpful--or especially unhelpful--then please take a moment to register your opinion by clicking one of the buttons to the right of the critique.

Show newest first		Show most helpful first
Show oldest first		Show least helpful first

		from istanbullu811/Istanbullu (1,709) on September 25, 2009 4:04:50 PM CDT hi John...great composition and brilliant idea for abstract category...my first impression was these are images from x-ray or special devices of airport security ...ah!...suprised a lot and like your idea a lot...Welldone.Regards Reply  From johngoyer/John (84,170) on October 2, 2009 10:44:59 AM CDT Thanks! glad you liked it - John Reply
		from kyphotonut/Ralph (1,642) on September 22, 2009 7:47:36 AM CDT (4) Abstraction of the Feminine Mystique Critique John, in looking at this photograph I believe it meets the requirements of being an abstract, though there is some varying thoughts as to what is a true abstract. Of course the same is true in debating what is country music. As Patrick Swayze's character in RoadHouse said, "Opinions vary." My old dictionary gives the following definition, "Designating a genre of painting whose intellectual and affective content depends on and intrinsic form.' Since you have drawn a basic shape of a female curved form and modified it with graphics of a geometric pattern I believe you have succeeded in making a photograph, at least for me, that is an abstract. When you stated, "I was trying for the look of the early fetish carvings of women." I thought that this was an interesting idea. You have a very simple form here, but then on the form you have a graphic pattern that when looking at it a current way looks like a profile of a face with the nose ending just below the waist and the being of the lips at this juncture. With the face not really having any true female or male characteristics again the viewer would have to judge for his or herself. In looking at the technicals of this photograph the only change I would have like to seen is a little more contrast between the forms hips and the background, and also maybe a little most contrast overall. The coloring works for me. Again, interesting photograph you have created here. One that I had looked at several times to try to get my take one it. TFS - Ralph Reply  Show ratings  From johngoyer/John (84,170) on September 22, 2009 11:13:14 AM CDT Thanks so much for the thoughtful critique Ralph - I've had a wide varying response to this one, with some very positive comments privately and from a couple of artists I know in Albuquerque. I would make some changes if I were to do this again, and the good feedback has certainly made this a worthy exercise! John Reply
		from thedavidwright/David (8,818) on September 17, 2009 12:23:58 AM CDT (5) I'm not sure why you show 3 copies of this image. In references of archeological object aren't the photos done with different lighting? Anyway, IMO you've achieved your stated goal - this does look a little like a photo of a fertility statue. Don't think it's a strong entry in the 'abstract' category. Reply  Show ratings  From johngoyer/John (84,170) on September 17, 2009 10:36:15 AM CDT Hi David - it's one of those "seemed like a good idea at the time" sort of things! I'll consider this warm up for the next hunt ;-) John Reply
		from warbaby/Dave (14,596) on September 2, 2009 3:27:49 PM CDT (9) Well... I am almost lost for words John..! I think Karin at the start said what I was thinking... it this an abstract..? as an artist as well I find it hard to say wether this is abstract or not, as a pic it is very interesting indeed, maybe something one might find in a fashion mag.... Technically good, looks like it could make a nice silkscreen on the wall, but an abstract I really can't say... regards Dave Reply  Show ratings  From johngoyer/John (84,170) on September 17, 2009 10:34:53 AM CDT Looking back, a stronger crop would have definitely helped here - next time! John Reply
		from cryptoref/David (3,141) on September 2, 2009 7:32:13 AM CDT (9) First this made me look, so i think you got one part right. The technicals are nice, but i wonder about that piece in the middle that is pretty sharp. Looks to me like the back of a dress shirt. Not sure that's what you wanted there :) Overall this just doesn't pan out for me. I don't really mind the form knowing that you were trying for a certain look, but the triplet just doesn't convey your stated meaning. Reply  Show ratings  From johngoyer/John (84,170) on September 2, 2009 3:50:15 PM CDT Hi David - I have to admit, grabbing the viewer's attention was part of the idea of this..... but I think your assessment is right - I should have gone further into abstract land as suggested by some of the crits here - John Reply
		from olmosfamily/Enrique (33,414) on September 1, 2009 3:43:04 AM CDT (13) One would think you're a misogynist hiding in a "wolf's" clothing, John. The female form, thus portrayed does not come across either as mystical or at all attractive, for me at least. I, also, do not see the resemblance to the "early carvings". Those, as far as I know, had very wide heavy buttocks, thighs and breasts." It is, most certainly, abstract in its presentation and one can see the effort in the processing. Result, however, needs re-working as the blurred areas, between the legs and detract by "dirtying" the picture. The picture looks more like an x-ray and I doubt, very much, that that's the result you were after. Cheers, Rick. Reply  Show ratings  From johngoyer/John (84,170) on September 1, 2009 10:30:55 AM CDT Good feedback Rick - and fortunately the models and photographers I've worked with know the first part isn't true ;-) I totally agree about your assessment of attractive, but decided to try this anyway - the early carvings are extremely ugly to me - this obviously doesn't work for most people either, but it's my 21st century take on the same theme - streamlined and thinned down, and abstracted for quick and easy birthing - John Reply
		from donnalee/Donna (7,444) on September 1, 2009 1:14:20 AM CDT (10) This is certainly a unique photo I will give it that. I don't know if it portrays the shape of a woman in a positive manner. The hips and the bold leggedness is quite unique. I am not really sure as to how this is an abstract. But I do commend you for your uniqueness in presenting this. Donna Reply  Show ratings  From johngoyer/John (84,170) on September 1, 2009 10:26:19 AM CDT Thanks Donna - I think I'll file this under failed experiments, but I've gotten some good feedback on it in any case! John Reply
		from minis/Mindaugas (5,443) on August 31, 2009 9:53:59 PM CDT (11) Hi, John, It's very interesting picture. I was looking at it for some time now. However not everything in the picture works for me. I really like the way you play with light, the texture and flow of the cloth. I extremely like the way you captured all the wrinkles and the texture the play of shadows and light is very pleasing. Technically i cannot see anything that would need to be changed. Looking at one panel i think composition is also pretty interesting and strong. However when i think of abstraction of an idea of feminine mystique, i agree with Robert, that it has to be more sensual and semi-erotic/motherly type of picture. I believe that dichotomy of the nature could hardly be represented in a triptych, though some variation of diptych might work better. I think, that i understand your idea of getting a generic feminine mystique that would not have a specific reference to the everyday world, however i find that the shadow on the cloth is a little too sharp for that and the shape of it somewhat excludes certain type of women (i am not sure i expressed my thought clearly, though i hope you might understand). I think, that if you would take picture the same way, though with some variation in distance between model and the cloth you might get better representation. I would also be tempted to change cloth angle in order to see the way shadow and the wrinkles would work in connection. As it is now, i think, that some wrinkles could be more in the shadow and some probably not. anyway, i like the picture (at least one panel) but i am not sure it works well and show all the potential. cheers! Reply  Show ratings  From johngoyer/John (84,170) on September 1, 2009 12:08:26 AM CDT Good suggestions - as I say below, I did like this as is, but I see now how much more potential the idea has, and that I should have gone further - thanks for the thoughtful and constructive input! John Reply
		from cremmins/Ian (3,326) on August 31, 2009 9:52:04 PM CDT (12) It certainly is an interesting concept and i admire you for thinking and putting some work into the shot, apologise in advance if i offend you when i tell you i played with this iamge a little just to see other aspects(only because i have noticed people doing it to mine trying to improve them)on this occasion i cropped the first womanly shape just above the buttocks(didnt want to say butt) and then i inverted it. the gap between the legs bothers me,, never thought i would ever say that but there you go, i said it Reply  Show ratings  From minis/Mindaugas (5,443) on August 31, 2009 9:58:09 PM CDT Yes, Ian, i also agree that the gap between legs is bothersome, i tried to crop that and i find the picture much more interesting - less connection to the full body shape. Good observation! Reply  From johngoyer/John (84,170) on September 1, 2009 12:06:33 AM CDT ;-) I have the same feeling about the legs.... wasn't quite sure what to do, and I did like it as is, but changes like you and others have suggested would make it better - I probably would have been better off more stylized rather than just a little! thanks for looking - John Reply
		from robchant/Robert (7,706) on August 31, 2009 5:37:50 PM CDT (13) Hi John, Well if nothing else was accomplished ... at least you made me remember why I don't critique abstracts! LOL. (But I guess I gotta try.) From your comments, you had a goal in mind when planning this shot: I was trying for the look of the early fetish carvings of women. Although I have no real understanding of the early fetish carvings of women either (I don't think I would admit it anyway) I do recall seeing carving done in stone, wood, baked clay, etc, with the female form as their subject. Like your work, these were usually done more in a conceptual approach and I think that's where the abstract nature comes into play in what you offer. It's how you're choosing to depict the female form. However, most of the sculptures that I recall tend to use captivating poses and mesmerizing shapes to represent the alluring form of a woman. And although sometimes very crude, they could also be inspiring, eye-catching and even erotic. That is something that I find lacking in your version, the "inspiring" and "eye-catching" (and erotic too) component of the equation. Although I understand you were quite limited when using just a shadow to suggest form and figure, the pose portrayed makes me think more of a bow-legged woman than a woman that is suppose to be sensual. I do recall statuettes that represent a woman's figure with abbreviated limbs as you have in your work, so that's not really a problem. I also recall that most women were bestowed with huge, voluptuous breasts in early carvings. However, I can't easily remember works that showed just a rear view of a woman, but like I said, I'm not an expert on such carvings. While I think the manner that you chose to execute this work is valid, my opinion is that her pose it letting you down. So go with another pose that shows a more rousing and striking form, and you might be on to something. I also don't think that you need the triptych, and can't understand your reasoning behind it. Out of the three presented, the one in the middle is the most aesthetically pleasing to me. Take care, Rob. Reply  Show ratings  From johngoyer/John (84,170) on August 31, 2009 6:07:22 PM CDT an excellent crit from you - makes posting this worthwhile! The carvings I referred to usually had large breasts and very large hips - focussing on the role in birth of course - the illusion of bow-legged infers easy birth, but I totally agree it's not sensual to the modern man - probably my fatal error in this idea.... but it's been a learning experience and that counts for a lot - thanks for the good input! John Reply  From blackcat/Luis (23,664) on October 21, 2009 8:11:56 PM CDT I had thought that "bow-legged" were cowgirl legs. How would they infer: "Easy birth"? I'm puzzled! Regards John, BC/Luis Reply
		from robinab/Robin (54,696) on August 31, 2009 5:29:31 PM CDT (13) Hi John and welcome to the 'Hunt"! Although pretty weak for 'Abstract' (the forms (body & shirt) are just too recognizeable as they are) I can see your attempt to show the ordinary as unordinary. There is good balance of light and texture but even as a triptych, I would have tried to have the repeating panels flow in a more sequential way. For instance, I might have had the tones go from warm to cool or vice versa, from L to R. As a variant, maybe as a less contrasty to very contrasty range or even Hi-Key to Lo-Key. What I see as abstract within the submission is the center part of the body/shirt. Cropping down below the arms and up to just below the concave fold in the shirt - shaped like a smile (no I am NOT on drugs!), I picture an abstract sad face with 1 eye, a nose and the mouth or chin! :)Robin Reply  Show ratings  From johngoyer/John (84,170) on August 31, 2009 5:35:52 PM CDT I see that face too - good idea and one I wish I had thought of - just consider this my entry to lull you all into a false sense of security ;-) John Reply
		from hankbenson/Hank (43,995) on August 31, 2009 3:44:54 PM CDT (13) John, I like the warm center image best and think the three together are redundant, not serving your purpose as a triptych. On the larger question of using one image as an icon to represent a class of being (women, saints, Christ, totems), what characteristics should be stressed and which left out? I think a nude probably works best with women because clothing and other cues tend to place the subject in time and culture. The design of this shirt, for example, contemporary. not uninteresting as a picture. You might want to look at my current forum thread in critic's corner which deals with the photographer's efforts to bridge his own associative process and those of other viewers--and how that relates to self-critiquing. Reply  Show ratings  From johngoyer/John (84,170) on August 31, 2009 4:01:48 PM CDT Hi Hank - very good points - the neolith-man meets Andy Warhol idea isn't the best in retrospect! Appreciate you taking a look as always - John Reply
		from lakecarole/Carole (8,639) on August 31, 2009 3:33:40 PM CDT (12) John I'm afraid I just don't like this. The pose is awkward and yes skeleton like. I don't feel this fits abstract (whatever that is). Maybe if you removed the black lines and overlapped the images some what it would work better. The color is ok but a bit washed out looking. 1 tu for the work I know you put into this photo. Carole Reply  Show ratings  From johngoyer/John (84,170) on August 31, 2009 4:00:01 PM CDT Hi Carole - thanks for your thoughts (which I don't disagree with!) I probably should have tried something else, but thought this was interesting at the time ;-) Maybe I was working too hard.... John Reply
		from karin2007/Karin (11,137) on August 31, 2009 2:22:53 PM CDT (14) Hi John! ... well, if it were not for the "ScavengerHunt" I'd probably would not  critique this image - for me this photo is very difficult to evaluate ...it's an interesting concept though with the three images beside each other, the middle one different in color than the two other ones and the lighting is also intersting, as well as the bright white areas. My first thought was, it reminds me very much of an exhibition I saw once in Vienna, called "Body Worlds" , on the other hand it reminds me also of X-ray images seen in a doctors office. ... Technically it is well done, but for me, it is not really what I would consider abstract - Cheers, Karin Reply  Show ratings  From johngoyer/John (84,170) on August 31, 2009 2:35:55 PM CDT Hi Karin - thanks for your thoughts on this - and 108 people agree with your first thought so far! John Reply

Comments

Add a comment

There are no comments on this photo.

Return to photos