[deaning]

This guy won a photo comp:
UNCOVER 2014: Winner announced[UNIQID
He was asked the reason for his entry and what was behind the image and replied:
"I'm always happy to talk about my work. The series is largely concerned with the semiotics of photography and the relationship between the physical surface and the image. And in particular the process of looking at photographs and our reading of photographic images as representations of depth on a flat surface.
“To look at a photograph beyond a certain period of time is to court a frustration; the image which on first looking gave pleasure has by degrees become a veil behind which we now desire to see.”
- Victor Burgin (1982)
There is an inherent conflict between the two aspects of the photographic object: the image, a two-dimensional representation as a stand-in for the three-dimensional object/referent, giving presence to an absence; and the physical object itself, a presence which is always meant to be concealed/removed from our perception of the image. To see the reality/truth of the image requires looking beyond/behind the material surface that bears the image (the photograph as a window onto the world). But the nature of photographs frustrates this desire. The silent, stillness of the photographic image, flattened by monocular geometry, frustrates our attempt to see beyond/behind the surface. We cannot command the perspective of the image, or move beyond the edge of the frame, or into the space depicted, and thus become alienated from the gaze of the image/camera.
The two realms of the object and the image are always in confict. And this conflict is particular to the photographic object, because of its silence and stillness (in opposition to moving film) and because of the inherently indexical link to 'reality' (the photograph must always be 'of' something (in opposition to painting, which has been successful in the modernist quest to remove the sign from the surface".

Am I missing something?

[pearsaab]

This guy won a photo comp:
UNCOVER 2014: Winner announced[UNIQID
He was asked the reason for his entry and what was behind the image and replied:
"I'm always happy to talk about my work. The series is largely concerned with the semiotics of photography and the relationship between the physical surface and the image. And in particular the process of looking at photographs and our reading of photographic images as representations of depth on a flat surface.
“To look at a photograph beyond a certain period of time is to court a frustration; the image which on first looking gave pleasure has by degrees become a veil behind which we now desire to see.”
- Victor Burgin (1982)
There is an inherent conflict between the two aspects of the photographic object: the image, a two-dimensional representation as a stand-in for the three-dimensional object/referent, giving presence to an absence; and the physical object itself, a presence which is always meant to be concealed/removed from our perception of the image. To see the reality/truth of the image requires looking beyond/behind the material surface that bears the image (the photograph as a window onto the world). But the nature of photographs frustrates this desire. The silent, stillness of the photographic image, flattened by monocular geometry, frustrates our attempt to see beyond/behind the surface. We cannot command the perspective of the image, or move beyond the edge of the frame, or into the space depicted, and thus become alienated from the gaze of the image/camera.
The two realms of the object and the image are always in confict. And this conflict is particular to the photographic object, because of its silence and stillness (in opposition to moving film) and because of the inherently indexical link to 'reality' (the photograph must always be 'of' something (in opposition to painting, which has been successful in the modernist quest to remove the sign from the surface".

Am I missing something?

i don't get it...what i saw was a pretty boring non impressive picture but i must not have the eye to art that some people have..you know the ones that look at a white wall and see all kinds of things and can stare at it for hours

[Undot]

Just proves once more, that a good great deal of what is declared art, or sucsessfully sold as art is the ability of someone to talk out of his, err... well, you know.
But I do give the photographer credit because the cutout is irritating.

I've seen the winning picture of a digital art contest once, which was a print with just a white, pixelated Pi on black ground. Maybe with a resolution of 50x50 pixels. Absolutely unimpressive, but the deep thoughts and explanation of the artist would have filled a small book = win.

[VoiceOfReason]

I don't get it. I like interesting things though, so the winner isn't for me.

[deaning]

I had to look up semiotics!

[Miguel]

Well, the image moved all of you enough to post an opinion about it. Some attention is better than nothing, so thanks OP for the link.

M

[Undot]

I had to look up semiotics!

Which is exactly the reason you disqualify as artist. Maybe a connoisseur at best.

Hm, he possibly had some jam drip off his morning scone on the day of entry and, after removing that proof, had to make up a story for the missing bit in his photo.

Well, the image moved all of you enough to post an opinion about it. Some attention is better than nothing, so thanks OP for the link.

It is what art is for, to be talked about. Even by the uninformed or misguided. So, yes, I suppose it fulfilled its purpose. And it being an "uncover winner" there may just be something to it after all. Just not for me.

[deaning]

I just wonder why? There is a yellow circle plopped on the image...there is no option to enlarge but if you drag into PS you will get the fullsize 5500 px image. Not trying to be a smartarse, just wondering if I am missing the artistic merit in an image that holds nothing for me aesthetically at all.

[Miguel]

I just wonder why? There is a yellow circle plopped on the image...there is no option to enlarge but if you drag into PS you will get the fullsize 5500 px image. Not trying to be a smartarse, just wondering if I am missing the artistic merit in an image that holds nothing for me aesthetically at all.

It seems to me like the image is less about imparting visual pleasure and more about triggering cognitive dissonance. And from your comments, this objective appears to be successful. If I was the curator, I'd be smiling.

M

[AquaDome]

He's saying that a photograph is a window you look at instead of through.

[Na Horuk]

Ive seen so many photo contests that made nonsensical choices, I honestly wonder how many of them are rigged and how many are just suckers. So often a photo wins, not by being a good photograph, by telling a story, but by a story behind the photo. And it has to be a cliche, like something sad, a struggle, and reaffirmation of the ideological notions the jury has.

[VisualDarkness]

Is it a nice photo to look at? No.
Is it effective in what it tries to do? Yes.

I can't see beyond that blob no matter how hard I try and it annoys me in the most sublime way. As an visual experiment it's interesting. Though at the same time its almost too simple in what it tries to do, dust or similar can have the same effect.

[johnmflores]

It's not a yellow circle plopped on the image, it's a circle cut out of the photographic paper revealing a yellow surface beneath. He's trying to remind the viewer that this photo, which is supposed to represent a 3D space, is actually a flat 2D surface.

Is it esoteric? Most certainly. Is it "beautiful" or a "great photo"? Not really. But the photographer is bringing to light an interesting point, which somewhere down the road may influence someone else which may eventually influence how we all view photography.

I look at stuff like this as highly experimental, like scientists at a university experimenting with different things without an end goal or commercial application in mind. Some of this stuff is never seen again, but some of it is seen by an engineer who incorporates it into a marketable product.

Take the hardened Gorilla Glass popular in smartphones. It probably started with scientists saying, "We want to see how hard we can make glass, just because we're intellectually curious." So they played and played with stuff and at some point an engineer said, "Hey, we can use this for something."

Or take Hockney's "Joiner" photography. You could take a "better" photo with a good wide angle lens, but I bet that his work inspired research into stitching and eventually Google Street View.

[Na Horuk]

Right, but if someone else would show the same photo, they would just say "hey, this print is damaged, we don't accept this" - but the artist got attention, explained it, framed it in a nice narrative, about how confused we are and that photography is all a big lie, but ultimately its alright and we should keep taking photos if it pleases us, but just to remember this tiny little bit, even though the implication that we didn't know it is probably not true for many photographers, if not most of the serious ones.

[VisualDarkness]

Yes, it's clever and utterly simplistic at the same time. The clash between the 3D illusion that a photograph is and its 2D reality being exposed creates an effective provoking effect. It's effective but very simple at the same time.