Narcissus

[FootLoose]

Comments are welcome but please DO NOT alter, revise or edit this image in any way.


Narcissus_84A7906-1

[xpatUSA]

Comments are welcome but please DO NOT alter, revise or edit this image in any way.


Narcissus_84A7906-1

The caption "Narcissus" is puzzling and I don't get it.

[Rufus]

The caption "Narcissus" is puzzling and I don't get it.

Nor do I, but perhaps the quotation after the image explains the perspective of the photographer? That said, I have always heard that any title should inform the viewer, rather than confuse.

Regardless of title, the image is striking and keeps my attention as I try to make sense of it, and I quite like it.

[Wavelength]

Is that a part of the yacht named "Narcissus"? I like it

[xpatUSA]

Is that a part of the yacht named "Narcissus"?

Could be ...



https://www.derbysulzers.com/shipnarcissus.html

Not sure though ...

[FootLoose]

Re Titles:
Ted, if you google Narcissus the top results link to the classical figure from mythology – Narcissus, who fell in love with his own reflection. That is where the words narcissist and narcissism come from.

Rufus, the idea that a title should correspond directly to a subject belongs to expressive realism. If you visited an exhibition of past masters and viewed a photograph that was labelled “untitled” by the curator, what would you make of it? Better still what would you make of Magritte’s famous painting, “The Treachery of Images”? https://publicdelivery.org/magritte-not-a-pipe/ A title might be conceptual, or it might refer to the creator’s feeling at the time, or it might have personal meaning only. The idea that a title should necessarily inform the viewer is passe.

I generally refrain from giving individual images titles because titles tend to have a prescriptive effect on the viewer. I prefer to allow the viewer to use their imagination and I am always interested in what people see in my work. For example, some people see the central shape in this image as a folded drape. Others see it as an upsurge of power. Some, perhaps taking a lead from the title, suggest it is a scream of someone having had their self-conception shattered by the reflection.

As to the question of what it is: It is lines, curves, shapes, light and shadow rendered in black and white.

Nandakumar, the source is architectural.

[Rufus]

Re Titles:

Rufus, the idea that a title should correspond directly to a subject belongs to expressive realism. If you visited an exhibition of past masters and viewed a photograph that was labelled “untitled” by the curator, what would you make of it? Better still what would you make of Magritte’s famous painting, “The Treachery of Images”? https://publicdelivery.org/magritte-not-a-pipe/ A title might be conceptual, or it might refer to the creator’s feeling at the time, or it might have personal meaning only. The idea that a title should necessarily inform the viewer is passe.

I generally refrain from giving individual images titles because titles tend to have a prescriptive effect on the viewer. I prefer to allow the viewer to use their imagination and I am always interested in what people see in my work. For example, some people see the central shape in this image as a folded drape. Others see it as an upsurge of power. Some, perhaps taking a lead from the title, suggest it is a scream of someone having had their self-conception shattered by the reflection.

"It is not where it is or what is that matters but how you see it". Saul Leiter. So says your signature line in the OP, and I rather like that as a guiding principle. Even a highly realistic image needs to invoke an emotional response in the viewer. For example, with a great realistic image of a speeding car the viewer percieves the speed, the danger, the conquering of man over machine etc.

If go to an art gallery I am usually not very interested in the title.

My comment was intended to draw attention to the quotation in order to broaden the discussion beyond "What is it?) What you say above, nicely distills the essence of what that broader discussion might have been and I actually agree with most of it.

[xpatUSA]

Re Titles:
Ted, if you google Narcissus the top results link to the classical figure from mythology – Narcissus, who fell in love with his own reflection. That is where the words narcissist and narcissism come from.

I am well aware of the mythology and still fail to see any connection at all with the posted image.

[Manfred M]

Greg - on top of an interesting image, you have brought up a number of points / thoughts that have no clear answer or even direction.

Let me start with the discussion on titles (and when it comes to a collection, an artist's / photographer's statement). Both are hard to do and even harder to do well. They do give the viewer some insight into what the photographer is attempting to do. They are possibly less important in the case of a well known photographer who is known for a particular genre, but even here, if someone who knows nothing about the photographer and their work, they can anchor the viewer. When I go to an exhibition, I always read the artist's / photographer's statement before heading in for a look and they do flavour my experience.

Getting to the image itself; it is technically very well executed. You have a full tonal range from black to pure white. Being such a high contrast work, it grabs my attention and I will spend some time having a closer look. There are some interesting textures, but because of the high contrast, even when I view the image in a totally dark room, I don't seem to lock into the image and all visual cues lead me out of the shot. The strong white diagonal pulls me out of the frame on the top and bottom. The small highlights on the left and right edges (along the bottom and lower sides of the image); they pull me out as well.

You caught my attention, but were not able to hold it. That is a shame, as there is a lot about this image the viewer needs to explore.

[Tronhard]

I have to agree with posts #8 and 9. The image was very interesting in its own right, but to put a title such as that, TO ME, confused and undermined the artistry displayed - comments were more about the confusing title than the merit of the image itself - which is a shame as I really like it. I think that trying to elevate the artistic value of an image, or make it more intriguing with an obscure title is not going to do it any favours, the image stands on its own merits without that.

I certainly do think an appropriate title can add a lot to an image, but choosing a title that is abstracted from the content is fraught with risk. The impression one might get from this title, and the explanation of it, could be of an attempt at artistic elitism, which I expect was not what Greg intended.

[FootLoose]

I think that trying to elevate the artistic value of an image, or make it more intriguing with an obscure title is not going to do it any favours, the image stands on its own merits without that.

I certainly agree with you about that, Trev, and I would be disappointed if my attempt at an explanation was seen as elitist in any way.

I would never have anticipated the title would become the focus of attention. I put little thought into it, for me it was an immediate association: reflection - Narcissus. Perhaps the flower photographers here might have been disappointed not to see a flower, but Narcissus, narcissism, narcissist are words in general circulation where I live. I guess whether or not Narcissus is seen as an obscure term depends on your personal socio-cultural baggage, but I think the same could be said of any title.

Back to the image: I accept your points Manfred. I had tried to maintain a balance between the bright curves in the lower left and their reflections on the diagonal element. Because those reflections are so bright – and I wanted to keep them really bright because that was what attracted me to the scene – I felt the source needed to be seen to be similarly bright.