Taking the call, Scottsdale, Arizona, 2003 by Phil Douglis

Phil Douglis | all galleries >> Galleries >> Gallery Ten: A Walk in the Park – only minutes away > Taking the call, Scottsdale, Arizona, 2003

previous | next


13-NOV-2003

Taking the call, Scottsdale, Arizona, 2003

Robert Indiana’s ubiquitous “Love” sculpture provides suitable context for this shot of a visitor taking a call while perched precisely at one end of a picnic table. I use my frame to abstract the sculpture – revealing only enough of it to identify the work. This picture is about contrast in scale. The towering trees that shade the park, and the huge letters of the sculpture, dwarf the distant figure at the picnic table. His legs rhythmically repeat the angles of the letter “V” in the sculpture – it was this geometry that initially drew my attention to what becomes an incongruous juxtaposition of man and sculpture.

Canon PowerShot G5
1/320s f/4.0 at 14.4mm full exif

other sizes: small medium large original auto

previous | next

Phil Douglis		11-Jul-2016 05:14
Thanks for this observation, Claudia. Glad you came to this photo -- it has been twelve years since the previous comment in 2004. Thanks for giving us your take -- as a Canadian -- on our upcoming election. I don't see "Bernie and the others" as anything more than politicians doing their thing -- the whole election spectacle has gone beyond embarrassing, yet at this writing, there is still more to come. "Love"itself is an entirely different concept. It is large, while the man at the table is small. He ignores the monumental sculpture to talk on the phone, yet his body language silently echoes the geometry of the art work. You might have wished to sit at its base, but he chooses to sit at a table, distancing himself from the art. As Carol Sandgren said back in 2003, they are worlds apart.

BleuEvanescence		10-Jul-2016 19:45
LOVE....so much more than just an emotion. But...who really knows what love is? In your race for presidential elections, i think only Bernie Sanders have a clue, the others are atrocious monsters... Love the graphic side of this picture and the "nonchalance" of the caller, enjoying a private moment in the shadow of the tree. Personally, if i had been there, i would have sat at the bottom of the letter "E" ;-)).

Phil Douglis		30-Nov-2004 23:13
What a wonderful suggestion, Vera. I agree with you entirely. The white sky adds nothing to this image. In my efforts to create a compact scale incongruity between man and sculpture, I had to remove the bulk of the sculpture from the frame anyway. What loss of meaning would occur if I took a little more off the top? The contrast in scale would remain virtually the same. But the distracting burned out sky in the corner of the picture would be removed! Your suggestion has greatly enhanced my image, and I am going to crop it as you suggested and repost it. You teach me much here, Vera. You teach me to become even bolder in my efforts to abstract my images. And you also remind me to practice what I am always urging my own students to do -- watch their edges. If I was not concentrating so hard on the scale relationship of that man to the sculpture, I would have cropped out that sky long ago. You have given me a new set of eyes here, Vera, and I thank you for such constructive criticism. It is always welcome!

Guest		23-Nov-2004 22:08
First, in response to Carol's observation... I didn't feel that he was talking to his wife -- but if he was, he was definitely not wholeheartedly engaged in the conversation, since his mind was also preoccupied with what he was writing on! Because of this, apart from the repetitive movement of his legs that mirrors the letter 'V' of the love sculpture, I don't see any similiarity that the man & the sculpture share, especially not the feeling of love. However, I do imagine that if that man sits there for a while longer and looks at the sculpture, then the idea of calling his wife may dawn on him. :-) I have a question, dear professor: You said you showed just enough of the sculpture to identify the work. But would you have changed your framing (to show less of the sculpture by, say, cropping the top part down to eliminate the white sky?) if this photo appeared in a gallery where you included another photo that clearly identifies the sculpture? I am wondering how the photo would look if we didn't see the sky and didn't see the whole height of the tree? or is it actually your intention to show the whole height of the tree, so as to add another degree of contrast in scale -- the sculpture dwarfs the tree that dwarfs the man? The reason I'm asking this is that I somehow get a little distracted by the presence of the little piece of white sky. Vera.

Phil Douglis		17-Nov-2003 18:05
Good eye, Carol. I divided the picture in half in three distinct ways: in space, in scale, and in color. That's the whole idea...to compare and contrast the tiny man and his phone to the huge sculpture. The bottom line is exactly as you called it: worlds apart. Phil

Carol E Sandgren		17-Nov-2003 06:16
Maybe the Love sculpture has reminded the man to call his wife?? Maybe not from his look of indifference. It's interesting that the image is divided almost exactly in half...the big bright love on the right and the cellphone engaged, disinterested man...close to each other in reality, but really worlds away from each other.

Type your message and click Add Comment

It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest. Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help	private comment

Type your message and click Add Comment

It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest. Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help	private comment