bridge in fog

[Theo]

[aprilS]

In this image, I think your high-contrast approach shines to full effect.

I'm absolutely captivated by (what look to me like) the guardian figures on top of the spans. The harsh strength above, and nebulous passage below into...the unknown.

Also by the subtle street lights pointing forward, but suggesting there might not be a way back.

Very, very nice.

[Ted Byrne]

This subject has revealed your talent as strongly as you have revealed its mystery. The high key treatment creates the mysterious mood which many can achieve only in low key. Sweeeet!

[habakuk]

Oh yes, Theo. I think this is the most powerful image I've seen from you so far, and also one of the nicest photographs of a bridge. I love absolutely every aspect of this photograph! I am impressed and delighted. Thanks!

cheers
®

[eob]

Now, I hate to be a contrarian, especially when people like you three expressed their praise, but I do not like this image at all. To me it looks kitschy and tasteless - just like most sunsets and bees on flowers in macro. The fog is so overdone in post-processing that it looks artificial. I do not see mystery in it at all. Sorry, Theo...

[habakuk]

Oh well. I think it's a fine line to walk between a painterly processing and kitsch. To me, it's also close, especially since bridges in foggy atmosphere often are a subject matter for kitsch. I now wonder what makes the difference for me here... trying to answer these questions can bring me forward in my photographic skills.

cheers
®

[aprilS]

I now wonder what makes the difference for me here... trying to answer these questions can bring me forward in my photographic skills.

Yes. Though I've a common understanding of "kitsch"—with respect to porcelain figurines and similar—this discussion has led me to investigate the definition in terms of art.

One phrase that jumps out at me is: "The deliberate use of elements that may be thought of as cultural icons."

So...if we deliberately include iconic elements in our images, no matter how they are rendered, does that relegate them to "kitsch"? How about archetypal elements? (For me, those are more "kitschy" than the iconic!)

Perhaps, as Roland suggests, it's a fine line walked in the processing/intent: illustrative vs. illuminating?

[eob]

There is a fine line - of course... The icon can be presented in a new and creative way, or it can be the result of using themes and/or techniques that are overly-worn-out, overly sentimental, not very well thought out and not very well rendered technically. A kitsch usually contains more than one of those negative elements. At least, that's my own understanding. Of course, there may be other interpretations - perhaps more precise and to-the-point.