Originally posted by micromacro You saw something I obviously can't. How long did it take you see that? I mean, the texture, the angle of light and the shadows? I've been starring for quite of time to find nothing.
I totally agree with you that observation and openness to the world is important in photography, perhaps it's even one of the principals in photographic art.
I hardly agree that his intentions are all about to show the things that many of us may miss. I feel like he intentionally brings "something in nothing" as a concept, most likely the emotional response to nothing. Like when you think deeply about something, or you are dreaming while starring at some point in space around, it does not matter what spot, you just rest your eyes on it. I may see that concept in prints at exhibition. By other words, this image may be the part of such conceptual image series in a single exhibition room.
I don't do prints often, and I don't have any experience with printing at home. Can it be a reason of limited vision?
---------- Post added 07-09-19 at 08:08 PM ----------
I'm not a big fan of Warhol, and it also makes me thinking that my artistic vision is underdeveloped. Instead of thinking that simply I'm not his fan, and it's totally fine
I have no idea what the author's "intent" was, or even whether he had any specific intention at all. When I saw the picture, I thought it was interesting. It was interesting in the same way that I thought the random nature of the pits on the surface of a concrete curb were interesting when I was a kid sitting on that curb in front of my house. Or the way the little green hulls show up on the sidewalk under a Lombardy Poplar. See, I'm actually a seven-year-old trapped in the body of a fat old geezer. I'm endlessly fascinated by the orderly randomness of the physical universe. Can't say that I'd spend a lot of time meditating on that one image; the fact that I find it interesting doesn't mean I think it's worth keeping. And someone said something about the lack of color, but being color-blind, I didn't even notice that fact until it was pointed out; it triggers a pet-peeve, though - conversion of a color image to monochrome doesn't make it the equal of a print made from real black-and-white film.
I have the impression, from looking at hundreds or thousands of pictures on this website, that lots and lots are simply reflective of the author's observation and capture of something that struck him as "interesting". Such pictures aren't generally "of" something in particular, but more about how the light falls on a piece of open-grained wood, for example. Or the way a brass faucet valve is bright in some places and tarnished in others. Frankly, I like those pictures a lot better than those that simply record visual facts. I really admire the pictures of birds and insects, but don't do much of that kind of photography, myself. The way a bug looks is merely a fact, and not all that interesting to the non-entomologically inclined. I really take such pictures just because I like to experiment with the lenses; I admire the techniques and composition, not the subjects, so much. A few folks have made an analogy to Rohrschach tests, which makes perfect sense to me, because it's what my imagination brings to the picture that's rewarding for me; the content is merely a vehicle for my own contemplative flights of fancy.
As to "how long", I figure something you see is either interesting or it isn't - something one would know right off the bat. If you find yourself looking at a picture and thinking about finding something else to look at, that picture isn't worth spending time with, a purely subjective criterion.