[Sharon Passmore]

Photomanipulation

[Christopher ONeill]

I am finding that this is just too obviously on its side.

A painting that asks to be rotated 90° seems sort of needy.

[Sharon Passmore]

Thanks for commenting, Christopher. Can you say why you would prefer it turned? I mean more specifically? I am going to try it other ways now.

[Sharon Passmore]

NORTH


SOUTH


EAST



WEST

[Vernon Sims]

I think that it is photomanipulatgiopn and the viewer still sees and perceives a right way up for the photo.

I do like it very much. I'm wondering that if you copy pieces and add them back in, increasing the canvas size, just enough that we don't immediately expect to see the original orientation might make us really see it in the way you want.

[Sharon Passmore]

I am not really sure how I want it now LOL.

Just to clarify, this photo was of a pile of plastic items, whatever had a grid structure to it - in a pile - taken from directly above. I manipulated the photo with "edges" filters. Other than that it's a straight shot taken at the orientation I first posted, labeled above as "East". After seeing this I like "South" too. I do not like North because it puts the chair upright and makes it too recognizable as a chair. I would like that to take a minute to become aparent.

[Vernon Sims]

Do you mind if I subject it to some additional manipulation. What software version where you using?

[Christopher ONeill]

Both North and South seem to me natural orientations for the piece; East and West are only faintly annoying.

The chair is probably the big determinant, but once its strong up / down directionality is acknowledged (an upside down chair is just as recognisable as an upright one, though it invokes a closed restaurant rather than a more ambiguous space) the chairlines dragoon the other prolonged lines into verticals.

Why would you want an observer to take a minute to decipher the chair? If there is a shape there which is decipherable, shouldn't it be either obvious (obvious enough to force an orientation on the piece), or else really challenging?

I don't mind spending time with an artwork (I've been talking about Sean Keating's Men of the South for nearly thirty years), but it needs to be serious amounts of time.

[Vernon Sims]

But I did not recognize the chair. Photomanipulation as I understand it is a process wherein a photo is processed with software to disguise, change, distort or simply change it.. And thus from an artist's viewpoint Sharon's description is a valid one.

I think that if all four views were combined around a central axis and if all 5 canvases were shown as a series it would be more apparent that she has a viable and interesting piece. Not knowing what the original was is a given in abstraction. There are two important terms which must be clearly defined when critiqung digital art - is it abstract or nonobjective. Abstract simply means that it is based on a real subject as is the case here, or is it nonobjective which simply means that the artist did not base it on something real. Klee and Kandinsky made these two definitions necessary. for modern criticism, along with Picasso and Braque. Although there are a great number of digital artists out there, and there are some xcritics I don't think there is a literature as of yet. So, orientation occurs foremost to a viewer if the object is recognizable. Sorry, I've gone on far too long.

[Sharon Passmore]

Hi guys - wow lots of points to think about and address here.

Vernon - "Do you mind if I subject it to some additional manipulation. What software version where you using?"

I am using Gimp in this instance. Do I mind if you mess with my piece......well yes, a little......but you do have permission since I have messed with people's images in this forum.

"I think that if all four views were combined around a central axis and if all 5 canvases were shown as a series it would be more apparent that she has a viable and interesting piece."

Well I either have a valid and interesting piece or I don't, no?

"There are two important terms which must be clearly defined when critiqung digital art - is it abstract or nonobjective. Abstract simply means that it is based on a real subject as is the case here, or is it nonobjective which simply means that the artist did not base it on something real."

"Abstract" means NOT based on a real subject. Since this is a photograph, it can't really be abstract can it? I have abstracted it a little by means of the filter, but I have changed nothing else. You have hit on something there because I love art that *looks* abstract but is, in fact, realism because it is a photo.

"Sorry, I've gone on far too long." - no not a bit - I'm having fun are you?

Christopher - "Why would you want an observer to take a minute to decipher the chair? If there is a shape there which is decipherable, shouldn't it be either obvious (obvious enough to force an orientation on the piece), or else really challenging?"

Because I personally enjoy art that reveals itself slowly. This invites the viewer to hang around a bit and have some discovery. Quilters call these "hidden surprises" I also create art from found objects and unlike most found object art, I do not like it to be obvious at first what the piece is made of. I want it to look like the subject and then after a moment these other layers become apparent. This is why I just don't like North at all. I like East and South but South is growing on me because it also feels like a cityscape.

As you can see, "East" is the original orientation, not forced. I was having a yard sale and the shadows interested me so I made a pile and started snapping pictures.




Here's another: