|
|
Hing Wong
{K:2545} 9/8/2011
|
I loves the many wonderful works of yours. it's art.
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 1/8/2008
|
Oh yes, clearly we have that kind of wish to ask and to get answers, Visar - answers that we doubt about, and that we re-ask, and so on. The whole "system" of "good and evil" might also be the result of such answers accumulated over thousands of years. One funny thing to think of is then that the answers are given not by some "spirit" outside, but from our own minds. We seem to reconstruct the world in mind achieving some picture of the world that has to do much with reality perhaps, but that itself is not completely identical to reality - whatever the latter might be. And then, at some given point we review that system of "good and evil", or of "beautiful and ugly", or anything else - and we see that it is not existing for itself alone but only in conjunction with our minds much like a symbiont. Perhaps, if seen from this piunt of view, the artist does exactly this: Change the shape of that symbiont, change its "biology" - and so discover the own kind of expression or even "beauty" that was not known until now?
Cheers,
Nick
|
|
|
|
absynthius .
{K:20748} 1/7/2008
|
true, creative work is the work presented in a non cliche way- in a way unique, not presented alike beforehand. Something that comes fresh; and i guess that is that criteria for raising one on the level of an artist- someone that does not repeat a form already made but rather furthens it into a higher level.
that is that creativity;- America was discovered by the old world sometime in XV century, but not all it's beauty, or evil. you know!?
now what we do here is extend that beauty and evil-- mystery, or whatever by, of course, being creative in shapes and other means we use to bring forth an idea! like the idea of human evolution-- i believe we have evolved and whether for good or bad- i can only be subjective in it if i said, but the fact is many things have evolved and us, phisycally and mentally- but still a few things are the same- like they used to be before we began walking on two feet.
so that is that striving to make sense, to make our nature more appealing- 'possessable' as you say; but never enough not to question it- at least that's how i feel,
cheers,
v.
|
|
|
|
Elle Elle
{K:10958} 1/5/2008
|
awesome image,
love everything about it,
when you look at the large size it looks just like a painting,
very nice,bravo Visar,
all the best, mahassa
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 12/30/2007
|
Thanks a lot for the elaborate answer Visar, which I find very interesting, and in which I see much truth.
This is exactly what I was trying to put down in words by talking about those criteria that are only to be understood in a technical way. Which of course can be only the fundament but not the whole whole house of photography or any other arts. As you said, they must be considered as given - they are really necessary but not really sufficient.
I think too that the very idea of photography has a much longer history that reaches back to the ages when the first humans tried to depict something from out there - perhaps to make it understandable, or even "possessable"? The means for doing that did change of course but the idea of depiction remains.
And after the step of depicting something of "out there" we proceed to depicting something from "in there", which is where the real interesting things begin, I think. For that kind of creative work we can use quite anything, and even your scene with the three man can be then re-interpreted as something that we carry in mind. The image then is only the catalyst of the reaction, but the essence was already present before the image. Maybe this is why there can be also so many different views of one and the same image. And maybe this is also why almost any kind of depiction will surely generate something in the heads of many spectators.
As about creative work itself, well... hard to say. What can be that.. creative work? Whenever it comes to it I am able to describe some of its attitudes but not to really define it. Perhaps a small hint towards the impossibility to be creative outside any personal taste and habit? Your drunken dumpshow in a sea of alcohol seems to catch that very well.
Cheers,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
absynthius .
{K:20748} 12/27/2007
|
Seems like there was a minor misunderstanding or was I not clear. I do not believe to have ever brought up technical equipment as criteria in creativity.
Of course, one should know about the technical realisation of whatever form of art- it is something that 'should be there by default', it should not be mentioned as an issue/ criteria.
What I insist is that a photographer has to have a different approach on what he/ she creates. Because here we have a tool that creates in 1/+-500 of second. That moment that he captures, that only happens once, never to be repeated in the same pattern and many times by accident he/ she happens to be there and witness that....
... Here we should leave that aside, because they are all there- they should be all there; light, composition, colours or B&W tones, DOF etc- etc…
Here we talk about what is and how it is our theme/ subject treated-- or find that reason/ line of logic/ explanation of that photo, and dose it really convince us that that is what we see?
Here then we come onto another issue that has to deal with the perception of the world and its phenomena around us, and I do not see that as relevant.
Finally, having created a shot worth looking at it, the very fact that you stop in analysing that shot means that there's something you might possibly come up with. That is that search for logic- for explanation; ---for the photographer, to know what he has captured despite the fact of being unaware the moment he captured that shot.
On the rest of your comment I find flowing arguments that I have to absolutely agree with, I feel like someone is speaking my mind-- maybe that is that (as you said) "complicated thing since the discovery of the fact that we all *do* biologically possess the seed of that "standard" thinking - it's really chemistry and molecules. But if so, then how/ why did it evolve this way?"
... Well, if we look in the essence, maybe we are not creating anything at all, as the photography was invented long- long ago as well as zillions of other form of expression—therefore, what we're doing is just drunken dumbshow in a sea of alcohol, or maybe a lighter metaphor would work better!?
This is the most logical way, I think,
V.
|
|
|
|
Michele Carlsen
{K:146013} 12/26/2007
|
Happy Holidays my dear V. I like the mystery of this image ..and the 'about ' that adds to it ! A very good shot that leads the mind to waunder ...which is the kind that I do like so much - The Black & white tones..seem to add to the mystery
Very nice shot my friend...
take care, and I wish you health & peace !
M~
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 12/25/2007
|
Always welcome, Visar! And I thank you for all your shared thoughts and communication.
I really wished there would be more of this in this forum.
Cheers,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 12/25/2007
|
The criteria you mentioned, Visar, (anything starting from shutter speeds, over apertures, up to light metering) are not thought as creative but as technical criteria. That means, provided one does *have* some kind of vision, intention, creative wish *priorly* to shooting a photo, those technical things will help one to turn into reality what was in mind. They are just small helpers - they are necessary but of course way not the real center of creativity.
It is much like playing music. If you know how to play some instrument, then evenetually you will be able to translate the music that you have in mind to the appropriate movement of fingers, plecks on the strings, etc. If no knowledge of how to play the instrument is available, then unfortunately the music you have in mind will never be heard by anybody else, and this would be so sad!
So this is the difference between "accidental" works, and works of conscience that are made in such a way that they really reflect the mental world of the maker.
But here we have another problem! Suppose for example that somebody posts some image that he/she claims to be exactly the intention/Vision/whatever. Can we really distinguish - can we somehow know that it was really intented this way, or that perhaps it was only diletantism? I'm afraid that at the end we can't. We just trust somebody up to some limit, the latter being sometimes wider and sometimes narrower.
And this has immediately the same quality like your question about sanity. Upon what should sanity be based? As you can see there has to be some set of axioms that we trust, *but* - here comes the great fat "but"! Even if the statements that are derived from these axioms are completely correct, they can only be correct *inside* the frame of the priorly accepted axiom set *and* of the formal logic that is used in order to derive the statements.
As mathematics has already proven, there is no absolute set of such axioms plus logic, that will ever reveal all truth and nothing but the truth. (Goedel, incompleteness theorem.)
So, wanting to check if one is sane or insane is at the end impossible. As you can see it was the academic world of mathematics that not only "smelled" that "danger", but also delivered a proof for that. And this is to me a blessing in disguise. We don't know if we are sane or insane - We just play with probabilities based on the opinions of other people... something like that.
I find it great this way!
Cheers,
Nick
|
|
|
|
a. gianfranco baccelli
{K:21379} 12/25/2007
|
How to make art whit a camera... Great!
|
|
|
|
|
absynthius .
{K:20748} 12/24/2007
|
As you can see I am more into the profane part opf it without any psychobabbles, but it might also turn out that there are reasons for that. I guess that knowing the reasons will at last explain many things including the most intriguing parts of thinking and of perception itself. And then could be perhaps able to say, for the first time, what is that that makes things intriguing and provoking.
i thank you for this part,
|
|
|
|
|
absynthius .
{K:20748} 12/24/2007
|
Right, where and on what do you base that sanity? that line we are not to cross? that line between genius and dumb? though it is sharply defined (in books) in my practice i do not really see and i do not care to see. now, maybe i am an anarchist, maybe a conformist, maybe anything that would fall under a wordly definition, but this practice of mine tells me there might only be persons who mind their business.
now, of course we cannot raise (as you say) every dilettantish approach to the level of art, and therefore we have to build up a few criteria. and this is where all shutters down. and this is the point we all have to choose. and right here i find the disappointment/ failure/ and the source of confusion- the interaction/ the criteria set! THE COMPROMISE.
i mean whatever those criteria are they are not much different with what one finds in the rules of Kur'an and Bible or whatever other 'Big Book'. only the latter are more sophisticated.
i see here the source of academic fear! that fear that will extinguish timeless deeds of a creative mind. that thing that would make a whatever artistic deed stand whatever bang- big or small;--- a true depiction of a human reflection needs no rule no compromise!
i think by bringing this up i am broadening the subject, but i find these elements being so tangledly-tied together. and it is strange spending time trying to figure out what that really is, and so forgetting about creation itself-- being so unconditioned by whatever on what you are creating and let world that you react for decide for it (not the critics).
thanks Nick for sharing your thought,
V.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 12/24/2007
|
Right on that Visar!
I also think that individualism has suffered more than enough already because of all those "widely accepted forms and norms". Of course we can't raise each any every diletantish approach to the level of fine arts, but the thing is that too much conformism can and also will break the wings of any vision that denies to be conform.
Speaking about being "conform", the question that jumps into my mind is: Being conform to what? And what for? Translating this general question into matters and interests of arts, I suspect that the "thin line" between genius and insanity never really existed as a thin but still well defined sharp line. Rather some vague, diffuse, gradual transition, I guess.
And translating the same question into matters of logic, I have to think about logic itself first. It is a formal system based on axioms that seem to work well - but they work well according to what standards? Sanity? Perhaps getting used to it all? Or perhaps accordingly to those "widely accepted" things we take for granted? It is more than complicated since the discovery of the fact that we all *do* biologically possess the seed of that "standard" thinking - it's really chemistry and molecules. But if so, then how/why did it evolve this way?
As you can see I am more into the profane part opf it without any psychobabbles, but it might also turn out that there are reasons for that. I guess that knowing the reasons will at last explain many things including the most intriguing parts of thinking and of perception itself. And then could be perhaps able to say, for the first time, what is that that makes things intriguing and provoking.
Just thoughts on yet another christmas eve or whatever they call it! ;-)
Cheers,
Nick
|
|
|
|
Edlira Voges
{K:6410} 12/24/2007
|
Ok I have to say this shot is just something you need to be proud of. just great concept & interpretation.
I love the "pointlessness" of this shot.
great work dear Visar
a absolute 7 from me.
take care
p.s. yeah Im alive..LOL.. been away on long vacation..a great one I must say. here is sunny South Africa lots to enjoy this time of the year.
cheers friend
E
|
|
|
|
|
absynthius .
{K:20748} 12/24/2007
|
but that's a very intriguing part of it, isn't it? how else one would be provoked?
i mean, that's that thin line that generates individuals-- that part that generates psychopaths, and whatever else labels psychologists have produced! beside, i sincearly believe, that all the reference points are invented for moralistic purposes and submitting to that, you'll fall a prey. a conformist, a person that makes sense of things prior to experiencing them, even if questioning those thing there's no point-- i mean what would you ask about something you do not really know?
i belive much in dedactic approach on things- and with it manufacturing prototypes instead of those that take things for granted!-
I mean one does not have to be too smart to make sense of things- especially not now/ or wear a logic around that artictic momentary reaction! ;)
i at least feel that way,
regards Nick,
V.
|
|
|
|
luis pereira
{K:26013} 12/24/2007
|
What a great image and that woman has got to be stopped.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 12/22/2007
|
You are very welcome and just keep them coming, Visar!
And yes, the very prossess of suggestion, abstraction, or even "seeing" things that were not intented to be seen this way, seems to be an essential part of our brain. It's perhaps trying to interpret the uninterpretable and to still put it into some kind of an "ordered" picture of the world, even if it simply won't fit there?
Cheers,
Nick
|
|
|
|
Srna Stankovic
{K:172232} 12/21/2007
|
Pametan, senzibilan i intigantan ... hej V. pricamo o istom, samo svako na svoj osobeni nacin ... ispravi me ako gresim ... topao pozdrav, Srna
|
|
|
|
|
absynthius .
{K:20748} 12/21/2007
|
dear Nick,
thanks for this thorough description of your understanding on this shot. i am so glad to hear your comments, always- with a certain understanding. that makes me feel good for bringing forth something brain tickling- whether or not presenting something; that is not as important as the mere fact of being provoked of a that thing-- many times we happen just to react, and only afterwards find words/ make sense out of it.
all the best,
V.
|
|
|
|
|
absynthius .
{K:20748} 12/21/2007
|
each and everyone of us finds him/ herself through maditation/ contemplation/ reflection of the things that one has gone through, until a certain time when you put yourself into action. there's no other way, or otherwise you go on just cursing on the impossibility to act and react- and that's ignorance swollowing you!
to me the only reason of an artist to create is make sense of senseless thing. because many times all of us feel like empty boxes floating over a surface of an endless sea/ we just find ourselves over that surface completely unaware of any logical reason of being there! and to be and accept that state of being i guess requires skills and practice-- it is like living without regret,
best wishes and thanks for sharing your thought on this Srna,
V.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 12/21/2007
|
This one has some kind of a very strange atmosphere - surreal and abstruse at the same time. Though the background is standing in such a great focus, the foregound seems to be moving, if one looks not very carefully. But then, if one wants to discover the source of that movement and looks once again, the foreground will not reveal that source. Perhaps because the three persons are almost black, as if their depictions would be standing in front of the image and not on the image itself! This gets further enhanced by the fact that your focus turned the tree to look almost painted on some canvas, in front of which the three persons stand. (Or move??)
Together with your story it goes even more pointless - and of course then the brain *has* to search for some point even more.
Much like some particular scene that could fit 1000 movies - this is the way I look to this image.
All the best and keep it up!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Burim Luta
{K:5255} 12/21/2007
|
I think you already know my comment on this one but I have not seen it on it's final stage. But this is definitely something very "YOU" and I love each and every detail of it along with the story
Regards
B.L.
|
|
|
|
Erin Kelley
{K:1603} 12/20/2007
|
Very sombering words! I really like your think black border, it frams the photos and brings to focus the characters. Nice composition, the three men and the lone treat. 
Erin
|
|
|
|
|
Srna Stankovic
{K:172232} 12/20/2007
|
What ever you do Visar you do not do it just and simply pointless ... what ever and you do know that while you are searching for yourself !!! :)))
Just listen what your deepest heart is whispering you, you are on a wonderful journey and your personality is beautiful !!!
That is in few words what I have meant ... and I was not wrong ... your replay confirmed me that ! :)
Thank you, hug
Srna
|
|
|
|
mimoza veliu
{K:481} 12/20/2007
|
fantastic..
|
|
|
|
Gianes Ma
{K:26069} 12/20/2007
|
The photography is history also... and any history is emotion... immage and emotion...
This ia a true and very hard story dear visar...
You as told in a comic, almost...
Congratulations, my friend!
G.
|
|
|
|
|
gianna piano
{K:15530} 12/20/2007
|
you have so good eye! Timeless shot.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
absynthius .
{K:20748} 12/20/2007
|
i am not quite sure of what you are implying to when saying part of my personality, cause i really cannot say who or what i am--- and if there were not a few emotions that i have 'rationalised' towards a few things in my life i would certainly consider myself a stranger to me! however, i know there are a few untamed wild irrational/ illogical/ spontaneous/ kind of dadaistic cats residing in me totally independent-- and many times they are set loose at their will...
and sensibly speaking i never intend to get hold on them!
you know, it is just a tengled and mangeled complexity of things bumping in my head, trying to rationalise that is pure headache-- all it is no logic involved!
lol, i think i have confused you dear Srna-- but i know one thing, for sure, that my heart pours love-- and i never get as much fulfilment as when rewarded with that feeling!
thanks a lot,
V.
|
|
|
|
|
absynthius .
{K:20748} 12/20/2007
|
hey Kaveh,
Tarkovsky!! hehe, well thanks-- could not think of a more desireable comparison! :)
but, what there's in common here, I guess, is just the spontanety-- of the things being- the way the are, without any point--- i mean does there have to be a point!!?
these three, kind of criminal looking, blokes seem to be in action, but what action-- shooting at that tree? i do not think they would! :)
regards mr. pipeman,
V.
|
|
|
|
|
Srna Stankovic
{K:172232} 12/20/2007
|
Intriguing V. but is this a part of your personality ?!
Do not think so !!!
Hug
Srna
|
|
|
|
John Hatz
{K:156973} 12/20/2007
|
Very nice... the silhouettes in black of the three humen with the huts and the tree...empty of leafs, in the right point of the image (not blended shapes with the humen) makes a great fealling for the watchers, perfect frame my friend...
be well Visar!
|
|
|
|
Kaveh H.
{K:1165} 12/19/2007
|
Tarkovsky!
|
|
|
|
H L
{K:11377} 12/19/2007
|
Very interesting composition frame, also like the way
It’s showing of dialoging, Visar, life and paradox are always life!
Excellent work
|
|
|
|
Mahmoud Baha Sadri
{K:19634} 12/19/2007
|
Fantastic silhouette..
baha
|
|
|
|
Ivona Lozic
{K:6799} 12/19/2007
|
Nice photo, interesting story... ;)
|
|
|
|
Pablo Dylan
{K:63918} 12/19/2007
|
Great composition with strange about.
We must react to boredom and suffering.
Dear Visar i love the photography Because photography speaks of ourselves.
Pablo
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 12/19/2007
|
Oh I know such times, they come and pass again, dear Greeneye. Here is a big warm embrace for you XXXXX
|
|
|
|
biljana mitrovic
{K:48110} 12/19/2007
|
So dark !!!!!
So dark and depressed....:(
big hug my friend
biljana
|
|
|
|
|
absynthius .
{K:20748} 12/19/2007
|
just a boring one Anne, too hot inside and too f*** cold outside, and i feel like paralysed.
as for my head, well it is still over my shoulder my eyes helping it read and see and analyse many different stupid/ pointless deeds, of others of course-- and as if it were not for people like you, i would sit back and play an autist.
regards,
V.
|
|
|
|
|
Annemette Rosenborg Eriksen
{K:55244} 12/19/2007
|
Having a bad day?;-) I´m glad to know that your head is still where it should be...more or less;-))Intriguing work and words not at least, dear Greeneye.
|
|
0 
