Art Con. Barcelona, 2009
For this week’s image I have chosen a street photography image from a few years back–2009, to be exact–made in the plaza in front of the Museu d’Art Contemporani de Barcelona.
And my standard call before I proceed: If you have been lurking about this web site and you’d like me to use your image for a Wednesday critique, just send me an e-mail (see Contact tab). That way, you can save me from critiquing my own images, which would be a welcome relief!
OK, back to the photo o’ the day…I have my critic’s hat on and I am pretending this is the first time I’ve ever seen this photograph…here we go…
The metadata: Nikon D70 (1.5x crop factor sensor) with Nikkor 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 zoom at 70mm, f/8, 1/1250, ISO200, handheld, outdoors with partly cloudy skies.
And following my 7-Step Critique Guide…
1) EXAMINE. The subject is obvious–the guy snoozing or whatever, along with the words “Art Con” on a wall, a theme also emphasized in the title. The building in the background, then, is most likely an art museum of some kind. I also see the shadow pattern of what could be a tower or perhaps a stairwell. So, we have five basic ingredients with no other real distractions: a young man, a wall, some large words, a building, and a shadow pattern.
2) EMOTIONAL RESPONSE. When I look at this, I chuckle a bit at the obvious message from the photographer–the idea that art can be a real con job sometimes. What is art, anyway? What works do modern museums present to viewers as quality art? Are we sometimes conned into thinking bad work is really high art? How much is the art world driven by galleries, gossip, auctions, fashion and fads? And…art can often be such a bore it can have you dozing off as is the man in the photograph. Plenty of food for thought here.
3) TECHNICAL POINTS. Not all black and white photographs need display the entire range of tones from pure white to pure black (although many should), but I think this is one in which that should be the case. I should see some pure white, but I’m not sure I do. There is a certain muddiness to the image. On the other hand, the blacks, especially in the man’s shirt, seem to be overdone to the point of being blocked–no details are apparent. So, I see an image that lacks contrast in some areas, but has been improperly processed (probably not underexposed) so as to lose detail in the shadows. Looking at the metadata, the photographer chose good overall settings–a shutter speed certainly fast enough to make up for any movement of the subject (not likely it seems!) or (more likely) any movement of the photographer’s hands or shutter finger. The f-stop is adequate for decent depth-of-field while also at least attempting to bringing out the best of a lens that is not exactly known for its exceptional sharpness (f/8 is its sweet spot aperture). Except for the post-processing, then, the image is technically acceptable.
4) ARTISTIC QUALITIES. This photograph was obviously created to make a statement, and that is fine. Nice job isolating the key words which spell out the message and, assuming it wasn’t staged, great job seeing the irony of the scene and capturing it in a nice composition. And, was it staged? I have a hard time telling as the young man doesn’t seem to be sitting in a perfectly natural or comfortable posture. [Ed. note: the photograph was actually not staged. The man was seen and captured in that position, apparently sleeping off a hangover.] I do like that there is what looks like feces or urine pouring down the wall below the man’s butt, adding fuel to the statement of “Con Art”. The image is balanced, with the weight of the shadow on the left equalizing the weight of the figure on the right. Good placement of the figure, with his head located near the “Guideline (not “Rule”!) of Thirds” point and with him facing into the space of the image as opposed to looking “out” of the image. I don’t have a problem with the wall splitting the image through the middle in this case (normally, splitting an image in half is not good practice unless you have a specific reason to do it). A bit of a nitpick, but I might have found a way to spare the letter “A” from being cut off on the bottom left. Overall, though, good composition and the editorial point is well made.
5. POSITIVE POINTS. I like the statement this image makes, which could fire up a good debate about the arts in general. It is well framed and composed. Black and white also was a good choice (an imperative even, to some street photog purists). The monochrome treatment does not let the viewers eye get distracted by color, color not being important to the point of the photograph.
6. IMPROVE. Technically, the post-processing needs work to give the image a bit more pop. It has a bit of a muddy look and, as mentioned before, the shadows (the shirt, especially) appear blocked.
7. OVERALL. Often, in street photography you can get away with some technical deficiencies (blurring, unusual exposures or lighting, crooked horizons, lack of sharpness, etc.) if the image has some value as social commentary or by telling/implying a story. Post-processing technical faults, however, can’t be excused as they are well within the photographer’s ability to control. Overall, though, I think it is an above average street photograph and kudos to the photographer for “seeing” this one and getting it down on the memory card.
Leave a reply