[tvdtvdtvd]

Well, that image would be perfect as an album cover for an obscure experimental/noise/drone band. I've seen hundreds of similar album covers.

[Alex645]

Is it about "nothing", or I really can't see how special this image is? Should I develop my artistic vision somehow?

There are many ways you can appreciate or depreciate art.

The high road involves studying it, seeing the use of line, form/shape, negative space, balance, framing, juxtaposition, etc. And then considering contemporary values like irony, transformation, appropriation, the gaze, etc (Olivia Gude is highly regarded in this area).

Whenever we frame the world and capture a split second of it, and then print, post, share, exhibit it, the implication is that it has value to someone. The specific OP image is an image that can make you think twice about relationships, the animate and inanimate, and is abstract enough to bring the Rorschach riddle. One person sees nothing but a waste of 20MB on their memory card while another sees Rodin's The Thinker taking a dump on The Little Wall of insecurity.

Pop Art or what I would call Liked Art these days is not the same as what those in the rarified air of Sotheby's, Christie's, or the ivory towers of the art elite will sell for millions of dollars instead of millions of hits.

The low road is gratuitous and easy enough for everyone to 'like' or be wow'd at. For me, I take a middle road, or knowing enough to recognize something new, different, thought-provoking, and special, but not dismissing an aesthetic that attracts me just because how it affects how I feel.

Charles Schultz perhaps illustrates it perfectly here:

You Tube

You Tube

[rogerstg]

I wonder if the "famous photographer" didn't have a bet that some would love his culls, solely based on his reputation.

Or, there's a bit of "The Emperor's New Clothes" thing going on here.

Regardless, to me it looks like one of my accidental shots.

[Benz3ne]

Not to my eye. As others have mentioned, perhaps this invokes more feeling in the photographer or those who share their exact views. However, I'm in the Pentaxian majority in that I see nothing interesting about that image.

[TaoMaas]

I see some elements there that I like...the different shades and textures and their alignment...but overall it misses the mark for me. I'd be very curious to hear the explanation as to why this is a good photo. Honestly, I don't think that's asking too much of someone. The response of, "If you don't see it, I feel sorry for you" makes me want to say, "Oh...so you don't see it, either, eh?"

I did a right mouse click on the image and selected "Search Google for Image". It got into category "concrete". And there are a lot of other photographers images found much more interesting. Could this be this is the main purpose of it?

boy, that's the first time I ever thought of pictures (other than for commercial or political subjects) having a "purpose". When I take pictures, the purpose is to amuse myself, just because I like doing it.

Don't think. Feel.
It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don’t concentrate on the finger, or you will miss all that heavenly glory.

doubly profound observation. I've always maintained that the adulation, adoration, and worship of "spiritual masters" such as Jesus, Lao Tzu, or Gautama Buddha falls into that category. Such people are "fingers", to continue Yuzroz' metaphor, not destinations - but us humans are a lot like dogs in that respect, panting as we stare at the finger, and completely ignoring what the finger's pointing at.

[swanlefitte]

doubly profound observation. I've always maintained that the adulation, adoration, and worship of "spiritual masters" such as Jesus, Lao Tzu, or Gautama Buddha falls into that category.

That's bruce lee paraphrasing Shigetsu Roku condensing buddha.

[Bob 256]

Art can be most anything which "says" something to some individuals.

This doesn't say anything to me (what on earth is it??) but it might sing a sweet heavenly hymn to someone else.

Just means I would hit the delete button on this one (or not have taken it in the first place).

[monochrome]

When confronted with an artistic expression I don’t understand I sometimes try to start with a single word and work from there*

Nihilism comes to mind.



* technique taught in an undergraduate Art Appreciation course I took in 1974 to fill an area requirement for my degree. IIRC the course time and days fit my schedule and was Open, which - as a First Year - qualified its merit in my curriculum. How interesting that over forty years later I remember that.

[csa]

Art can be most anything which "says" something to some individuals.

This doesn't say anything to me (what on earth is it??) but it might sing a sweet heavenly hymn to someone else.

Just means I would hit the delete button on this one (or not have taken it in the first place).

I agree, to me it's simply a bad photograph, that I would not have taken in the first place. However, for those that like it, that's fine also.

[c.a.m]

What's exactly so special about this image?

The jarring juxtaposition of metal, concrete, and stone serves as a foil to the barely perceptible person, subtly hinting at the ongoing struggle that humans endure in the urban built environment.

The delicate balance of shadow and light in the lower third of the image projects a counter to the prominent black bricks in the upper third, which reinforces an impressionistic ideal.

The photograph hints of mystery -- perhaps the person is facing a personal crisis, or is heading to do the week's grocery shopping.

Or not. Perhaps it's just a snapshot.

Just kidding. Seriously, artistic impression is subjective. Take a look at the controversy that erupted in Canada when our National Gallery acquired the "Voice of Fire" for a cool $1.8 million in 1989: CBC Arts

Voice of Fire - Wikipedia

As of several years ago, the value of the painting had appreciated 20-fold. Yikes. At the time of the acquisition, many Canadians were hauling out the plywood sheets from the workshop, a couple of used cans of paint and a roller. I think a few facsimiles were erected along highways with "For Sale: $5,000." On the contrary, we never thought of the expression ourselves, and we're not famous. So, who can know for certain What is Art?

- Craig

[Apet-Sure]

Sometimes when my wife and I are watching Antiques Roadshow, the appraiser will be taking about a painting by famous artist so-and-so, and give it a valuation of $50,000.
We think 'Are you kidding? It looks like it was done by a kindergarden child in three minutes.' I guess I should spit on the sidewalk, photograph it, and sell the print for only $500.

[david94903]

So… from a purely academic point of view, if I was to look at this image from the “pure” aspect of design (say shape and form, since all color has been removed from the image), the first thing I’d look at is what is my eye doing… where is it going in this image (I won’t refer to it as a photo as photography is only the medium being used bythe maker). My eye goes immediately to the very dark (black) heavy abstract shape in the center, specifically the right side of the vertical “post.” From there it goes up to the top along that dark curved shape, then wanderers down tothe right side of the k-rail. The dark mass is so heavy that it overwhelms the remainder of the image. Other than that, is does nothing. Yeah, I see the other“elements.” I see the diagonal lines coming in from the left (though they’re not a strong enough diagonal to really impact the other shapes), I see the rhythm of the darker rectangles on the right side of the image that march from the top to the middle where there is a dark band that crosses the image along a 1/3rd line. Again, it’s not strong enough to counter the massive black blob in the middle left of the image. I see, the second diagonal of the curb, which really is more of a distraction from a design sense. It does not add to the image. Nor does the pedestrian shape in the upper left corner. The block texture of theprimary background surface could be interesting, but isn’t, as could the shadow from the k-rail, which is weak. After looking at this image from just a pure design form, for me, there is still nothing there. I’d say the maker is either not trying hard enough, or trying to hard (though I have no idea what they’re tryingto communicate), or “They're 'having a lend of you', Lana.” And I think it’s the third option that is most likely.

After my very thorough lunch break assessment, I conclude that the image is crap from both a photographic and pure design aspect. And I’m not talking about “Collectables Rare And Precious” kind of crap either 😊

And by the way, I think “having a lend of you’, Lana” is now my new favorite phrase, LOL!!!!

[THoog]

Response 1 (art snob): I would have to know the famous photographer's name to determine how good it is.

Response 2 (photo snob): I would have to see the original EXIF info and 100% corner crops to determine how good it is.

Response 3 (me): it didn't do anything for me, at least on a phone screen. It did not evoke an emotional response, it did not tell a story, it did not feel "fun" just to look at.