photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
Canon DSLR Challenge | all galleries >> Challenge 91 - In the Style of Art (hosted by Traveller) >> Eligible > 9th Place~Warhol 2007~Jim H
previous | next
2007-APR-06 Jim H.

9th Place~Warhol 2007~Jim H


other sizes: small medium original auto
share
Canon DSLR Challenge15-Apr-2007 13:46
Unmistakable Warhol with a distinct twist. Lovely. Sam Attal
Canon DSLR Challenge15-Apr-2007 07:52
Jim, I think that your analysis is spot on...better than a straight Warhol immitation...this is. Nice clear write-up too. Best wishes, traveller
Canon DSLR Challenge15-Apr-2007 03:32
Clever and funny shot, well-done. --Melanie
jnconradie14-Apr-2007 14:46
Wow, Jim! I would never have thought this was from you. Except perhaps for the sense of humour... that you certainly have! Well done. Regards jnconradie
Canon DSLR Challenge14-Apr-2007 11:09
Well, actually, it's kind of a good thing to be able to reveal myself as it now frees me to post some thoughts which I figured would have given myself away, and thus I had held back before. I thought everyone would recognize me by my long posts, but now I can go ahead and post away :)

And that frees me to discuss things now.

Traveller's initial comments about the title were dead on. No need to beat the viewer over the head with a two-by-four. I like the new title much better. I think it adds to the work rather than detracting from it. I'm really glad to have gotten the prompting on that because it needed to be changed.

And Kiki's comment about the "graininess" touches on one of my problems with the treatment too. It's something I wasn't real happy about either. But I didn't have any time to mess with it more when I was doing it, and I have not had any time to work on it since.

Strangely, though, although I initially wanted the result to be more true the Warhol paintings upon which this is based, the longer I've had to look at it, the more I now prefer that this thing IS enough different that it stands out from those originals. So while it's also lazy of me to leave it as it stands, it's also grown on me because it looks more like exactly what it is: A modern photographic attempt at just getting the basic style the same while trying to comment on the changes that have occurred between then and now. The somewhat recognizable photographic look may actually add a useful element to that commentary.

I liked the pop-top on the can, and wanted to feature it prominently, and I also, of course, wanted the label to reflect the new obsession with "health", particularly in marketing to us. But initially, I would have been happier if the end result had been more "simplified" and thus looked more like his originals. However, as I say, I'm not sure that would have ended up being as good, really.

So as is often the case for me, my failure to get what I was initially shooting for may have ended up being better than what I had in mind. Or at least I've found a way to rationalize that failure.
Canon DSLR Challenge13-Apr-2007 23:15
As Posted in the main Challenge Thread:


..It has been more than a week since you posted this excellent image...time to reveal yourself and put your actual name on the image.

I suppose at some level I can understand this no-name bit in the sense that the Comments may be more honest untinged by past entries or what we may know about the person.

Okay, and fine, but both Michael Puff and myself can make more intelligent comments knowing that "Portrait of a Farmer," is by Melbob than we could if we didn't know the Artist.

I think that this is true in many instances...it is very nice to know that Brent did Monet Study #19...there are other images that I am curious, Who did this?

So, this is a Heads-up to the Warhol creator that I am thinking of moving your sterling work to Pending.

I don't really know if I'll actually do something that Cruel...but doing something like this would set a very visible example to other recalcitrant no-namers.

I would also note that the Challenge specifically says, "After a modest (!) period of time..." entries will carry the Artist's name.

I am, of course, being a reasonable person, open to contrary arguments on this question.

But you will have to speak up to defend this conscious decision on your part to...frustrate everyone...lol

Your position can be stated under Warhol 2007 in comments to keep your anonymity if you wish.

But speak to this question you must.

Or add your name.

Best Wishes, (the cruel and heartless)

Traveller
Canon DSLR Challenge11-Apr-2007 20:51
POP-ART lives! "98% Fat Free"... 30% Less Sodium..jeesh lol. Wonder what they replaced it with. I don't quite like the PP'ed grainyness on top of the box, would have lpreferred it shinyer there but the image as such is a terrific idea.. funny and a timely reminder.
-kiki2
Canon DSLR Challenge11-Apr-2007 14:31
This is great.. The choice of subject shows the humour side of the artist!!
Can it be Pops?
-Cat
Canon DSLR Challenge09-Apr-2007 23:57
Certainly has "Andy's" trademark with a little touch of our modern 'paranoia'. Good post. Regards Melbob.
Guest 09-Apr-2007 23:21
While I'm not a Warhol fan, this put a big smile on my face. I love humor in art. Great job with the post processing. -Michael
jnconradie09-Apr-2007 05:55
Excellently done. And I hate to confess that I have no clue at all about who the artist might be! Great humour! Regards jnconradie
Canon DSLR Challenge09-Apr-2007 02:51
This is cool, and a clever idea. I assume you got this effect by reducing the number of colors used?
~Brent
Canon DSLR Challenge07-Apr-2007 15:31
Wonderful interpretation and great PP! Did you use an action? CJ
Guest 07-Apr-2007 12:42
I love this! Anytime humor is added to the equation, I smile. Good job!
Debbi
Canon DSLR Challenge07-Apr-2007 07:45
This title is better. Thank you for the comments, I think you're correct. Artist
Canon DSLR Challenge07-Apr-2007 04:53
To me, much better, though the original may be okay with other people. Here's my point though, this is, all by itself, a fine piece of work...I get the back story and anyone that would have the capacity to enjoy this also has a lot of art references floating around in their head...it doesn't need a cute and flipe title...we get it, we appreciate it for all that it brings to the table. There was no need to go over the top with the title....it was almost as if the Artist was talking down to me....as if I couldn't enjoy the work without a title leading into what is contained and inherent in the work.

Subtlety and restrain is an undervalued commody in our current over the top culture.

I fully realize that a Title Hound like myself shouldn't be making such a criticism...but you know, this is very good...it is professional, it would sit proudly in any portfolio, it doesn't need, imho, anything else...the image is fully capable of standing on its own and the Artist should trust themself in this regard.

In fact, if you wanted to be sly about this, I often resort to extravagant titles....exactly because that work cannot individually stand on its own. Sure I love words and I am an acknowledged wordsmith....but when I have an image that can stand on its own...I go short.

Hummmmm

Best wishes, Traveller
Canon DSLR Challenge06-Apr-2007 23:36
Just wonderful, the treatment is spot on. But is the cute factor too cute? Would a standard can of Campbell's be better as a substitute? Or, conversely, is this really MORE reflective of our society as it is now, as was Warhol's when originally done?

What say the Artist?

My real objection may be solely to the title.

Best Wishes, Traveller
Canon DSLR Challenge06-Apr-2007 23:08
Hee Hee! I like this a lot.