Consultation, Ipswich, Massachusetts, 2011 by Phil Douglis

Phil Douglis | all galleries >> Galleries >> Gallery Six: Vantage Point makes the difference > Consultation, Ipswich, Massachusetts, 2011

previous | next


23-JUL-2011

Consultation, Ipswich, Massachusetts, 2011

I found this pair of cherubs deep in a consultation. They were partially hidden in the shrubs bordering a suburban Boston home. I shot straight down on them, in the process turning my viewers into eavesdroppers. If we let our imaginations roam, we might hear snippets of their conversation. They could be talking about the berries they seem to be picking, or that small monkey pulling at a cherubic leg.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5
1/800s f/8.0 at 5.1mm iso1600 hide exif

Full EXIF Info
Date/Time	23-Jul-2011 06:45:00
Make	Panasonic
Model	DMC-LX5
Flash Used	No
Focal Length	5.1 mm
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
Aperture	f/8
ISO Equivalent	1600
Exposure Bias
White Balance
Metering Mode	multi spot (3)
JPEG Quality
Exposure Program	program (2)
Focus Distance

other sizes: small medium large original auto

previous | next

Phil Douglis		30-Aug-2011 04:38
I am now off on a shoot in Ecuador for a month, but stopped by this image tonight to see if anyone else had joined in the discussion triggered by David Procter's comment back on August 19. I think David respects my approach to photographic education (based on previous comments), but I disagreed with what seemed to me to be a complete dismissal of this image as a photograph of value. I think he misjudges its purpose in this gallery as a teaching image, and condemns it out of hand as an non-substantive effort. Kal Kholgali and Dave Wyman, both of whom I know personally, and respect as both photographers and friends, have added immeasurably to the discussion here. The very fact that we can have such a visually literate discussion of this teaching image underscores its ultimate value for me. It is why I have compiled this cyberbook on photographic expression -- to create a forum for the exchange of ideas that will help other photographers learn how pictures are viewed, processed, and understood. That is exactly what both Kal and David have brought to this discussion, and I thank both of them for giving this image its due, "desperately ordinary" or not.

Dave Wyman		29-Aug-2011 20:08
I think at best Kai and I will have to agree to disagree. From my perspective, this isn't the kind of photograph we're likely to find while randomly perusing photos on pbase. It's not a birthday party, a featureless, middle-of-the-day landscape, another pic of a bird on wing, or a dragonfly on a leaf, a head-on portrait of an "exotic" looking person, a steam locomotive in a museum, etc. Nor is it a combat photograph, or an image of the destructive power of a hurricane or a cholera epidemic. And this is not a photograph about cherubs. Plug "cherubs" into the phase search engine and look at a few thumbnail pages to see whaI think at best Kai and I will have to agree to disagree. From my perspective, this isn't the kind of photograph we're likely to find while randomly perusing photos on pbase. It's not a birthday party, a featureless, middle-of-the-day landscape, another pic of a bird on wing, or a dragonfly on a leaf, a head-on portrait of an "exotic" looking person, a steam locomotive in a museum, etc. Nor is it a combat photograph, or an image of the destructive power of a hurricane or a cholera epidemic. And this is not a photograph about cherubs. Plug "cherubs" into the phase search engine and look at a few thumbnail pages to see what real cherubs look like. Then note how uninspiring and downright banal most pictures of cherubs are. I can't read Kai's mind. I'm thinking, though, that Kai believes a sow's ear can't be turned into a silk purse, i.e. it's the subject matter itself that's lacking. For me, Phil's image is compelling, on a psychological as well as on an aesthetic level. For these cherubs are not adjectivally cherubic. They are the antithesis of what cherubs are supposed to be: innocent and angelic. These cherubs concern themselves with earthly, rather than heavenly delights. They eat grapes, sweet to the taste. They touch - that is, one cherub intimately touches the other. Lost in sensual delights, captivated by - to quote a line from Nabakov - "the tingle of misbehavior," two of the figures are oblivious to our presence. Only the third figure, which to me looks like a dog, rather than the monkey Phil sees, realizes the danger of discovery. And it's not a cuddly dog one might expect a cherub to associate with. The animal is at least a bit demonic in its appearance. If a dog is a man's best friend, here it's not easy to know just what the relationship is between the dog - or whatever it is - and the putative cherub. The dog's paw mirrors the female cherub's hand, yet the two touches are polar opposites in meaning. This little tableau that Phil has revealed for us expresses an ironic riff on what it means to be human, in a carnal sense. Therefore, except at first blush, neither the photograph of the scene, nor the scene itself, is about angelic cherubs. Had Phil gotten on his knees, or made his photograph from another angle, this would be more of a photograph about a small statue than about human desire. Phil's choice of perspective, however, makes us become, not eavesdroppers, but voyeurs, complicit participants in the story about two cherubs who are anything but cherubic. Beyond that, note another way Phil has composed the image: the surrounding shrubbery recapitulates the left-to-right shape of the statue. By simplifying and unifying the visual elements, it's another way we are pulled, through photography, into the underlying meaning of the scene. While at first blush the subject of the photograph may seem ordinary, it's not ordinary. And because of the way it's composed, including it's perspective, neither is this an ordinary photograph.t real cherubs look like. Then note how uninspiring and downright banal most pictures of cherubs are. I can't read Kai's mind. I'm thinking, though, that Kai believes a sow's ear can't be turned into a silk purse, i.e. it's the subject matter itself that's lacking. For me, Phil's image is compelling, on a psychological as well as on an aesthetic level. For these cherubs are not adjectivally cherubic. They are the antithesis of what cherubs are supposed to be: innocent and angelic. These cherubs concern themselves with earthly, rather than heavenly delights. They eat grapes, sweet to the taste,. They touch - that is, one cherub intimately touches the other. Lost in sensual delights, captivated by - to quote a line from Nabakov - "the tingle of misbehavior," two of the figures are oblivious to our presence. Only the third figure, which to me looks like a dog, rather than the monkey Phil sees, realizes the danger of discovery. And it's not a cuddly dog one might expect a cherub to associate with. The animal is at least a bit demonic in its appearance. If a dog is a man's best friend, here it's not easy to know just what the relationship is between the dog - or whatever it is - and the putative cherub. The dog's paw mirrors the female cherub's hand, yet the two touches are polar opposites in meaning. This little tableau that Phil has revealed for us expresses an ironic riff on what it means to be human, in a carnal sense. Therefore, except at first blush, neither the photograph of the scene, nor the scene itself, is about angelic cherubs. Had Phil gotten on his knees, or made his photograph from another angle, this would be more of a photograph about a small statue than about human desire. Phil's choice of perspective, however, makes us become, not eavesdroppers, but voyeurs, complicit participants in the story about two cherubs who are anything but cherubic. Beyond that, note another way Phil has composed the image: the surrounding shrubbery recapitulates the left-to-right shape of the statue. By simplifying and unifying the visual elements, it's another way we are pulled, through photography, into underlying meaning of the scene. While at first blush the subject of the photograph may seem ordinary, it's not ordinary. And because of the way it's composed, including it's perspective, neither is this an ordinary photograph.

Kal Khogali		27-Aug-2011 06:57
" I think Kal missed something, which is that perspective (I think he means an unusual perspective) doesn't per force make a photograph better, perspective CAN make a better photograph. So can all the other aesthetic choices – DOF, exposure, white balance, ISO, shutter speed, etc. – we make as photographers, whether we make them contemplatively or on the fly. " In fact that is exactly my point, so not missed. Here perspective is used as a lesson, but what about the absence of the other elements that contribute to the making of an image that is truly expressive. I strongl agree with David that this image is "ordinary". With the purpose of demonstrating/teaching the effect of perspective in these galleries I can understand, but to suggest it as expressive in itself is stretching the bounds of reality. There are many images in this gallery that are expressive that teach the same perspective lesson. Those images are inspiring, and should that not be the best material to teach. There is a danger that work will become lost for the sake of volume...for the sake of making just for makings sake.

Dave Wyman		23-Aug-2011 19:46
After re-reading his comment a couple of times, I'm not what David means. Was it a knock, or a compliment? Or, perhaps unconsciously, both? Often, when gathering with other photographers to look at images we made during the day, someone will say to me, "I was standing next to you, and I didn't see what you did!" As I think you did here, I can sometimes take what is apparently "desperately ordinary" and make it become a compelling image. Part of the reason I can do that is because, over the years I've made photographs, I've trained myself – consciously and unconsciously - to home in on certain, structured ways of seeing. How did I train myself? Not just by pressing the shutter innumerable times, and scrutinizing the results. My training also came from looking at other people's photographs. In other words, my own success with photography, if I've had any, comes from a synthesis of my own efforts, and from the efforts of countless other photographers. Kal wrote: "if your students begin to believe that perspective makes for a better photograph, it will be true, but not a truly great one." I think Kal missed something, which is that perspective (I think he means an unusual perspective) doesn't per force make a photograph better, perspective CAN make a better photograph. So can all the other aesthetic choices – DOF, exposure, white balance, ISO, shutter speed, etc. – we make as photographers, whether we make them contemplatively or on the fly. Only by making formulaic images – i.e., by seeing and the repeating certain themes with our photographs – can we move beyond our comfort level and grow in a creative sense. So it is I continue to take pleasure in the kinds of photographs I like, photographs of nature where I often look for the same things: reflections, patterns, ironic juxtapositions, unusual perspectives, macro subjects, and on and on. A few weeks ago, in Yosemite, I looked at a mosquito cutting its way with its little saws into my the soft flesh on my wrist. My prior experience making close-up photographs let me think, for the first time, about turning my camera's lens on the little insect. My subsequent series of images, which satisfied my creative instincts, pictured the mosquito filling its translucent belly with a significant quantity of my blood. The skin on my wrist turned into a warm-colored patch of ground, the hair on my wrist was a dense, alien undergrowth, and the mosquito was a monster out of scariest-ever horror movie. I've made innumerable macro photographs. I'd never made a macro image of a mosquito. Without making all those prior close-ups of flowers and ice crystals and leaves and other insects, I wouldn't have been able to see, much less make, my mosquito photographs. Learning our "lessons," i.e. gaining experience, with perspective, DOF, exposure, etc. – is part of the creative, inward journey that lets us connect with the outer world around us. With this photograph, Phil demonstrates the lessons he's learned, which I know he can apply at a level below conscious thought. There are lessons about controlling perspective, about color, and the lack of color, about what to include and what not to include. Experience allowed Phil to make a "desperately ordinary photograph" that let's him – and us – connect in a new way with a quiet, small, hidden tableau of ambiguously innocent meaning.

Phil Douglis		20-Aug-2011 20:21
Thanks, Kal, for contributing this thoughtful commentary on the nature of teaching, learning, and above all, the essence of the photographer. I agree that photographs should, if possible, inspire the viewer, and also feel that they should give the viewer an insight that becomes part of their way of seeing. In the case of my own teaching galleries, I also hope that each image will add at least a fragment of knowledge that will help shape vision. If my exchange of views here with David triggered such thoughts in you, Kal, then this image, and indeed this entire gallery on vantage point, has done its job as a far as I'm concerned. Your comment also includes another important observation -- the nature of creativity itself. All of us have built our imagery on formulaic approaches -- I, too, often find myself repeating themes and techniques that I have used before. They have become part of my own style, and how I choose to use them affects what I am trying to express. Formulaic approaches are not bad or wrong -- they are simply building blocks that help us to make sense of what we see, and express how we feel about what we see. But the most important part of the creative process transcends formula and technique as you note so well here, Kal. You say here that "perspective makes for a better photograph, but not a truly great one" and you are absolutely correct. We do indeed need to put our own feelings, our own heart, our own passions, and most of all, our own souls, into our images. As a teacher of photographic expression, I have often told my students that we are what we photograph, and we photograph what we are. This particular image, which David has called "desperately ordinary" is, in my view, not ordinary at all -- it demonstrates a way of seeing that can alter the message, turning an hum-drum lawn statue into a commentary on gossip and eavesdropping. I don't consider it a great photograph, designed to inspire. It is merely part and parcel of a teaching gallery that could help any photographer reconsider their camera position in relationship to what they are trying to say. In that role, this image does its job quite well as a lesson in perspective. However, perspective can become an even stronger force as we use it to move an image to larger meanings, such as in my cattle drive example in this gallery (http://www.pbase.com/image/69232815 ). In that image, my shifting perspective is far more exaggerated and therefore far more incongruous, and as you note, it can move the image up a notch or two in terms of its ability to inspire and move the viewer's imagination, mind, and emotions. Thanks again, Kal, for spontaneously weighing in here. You do us all a great service in doing so. Phil

Kal Khogali		20-Aug-2011 03:37
I am going to chime in here, though that is now a very rare public event. Do however think that since these are teaching galleries, there can be no better forum. It is props Bly more an exorcism of my past relationship with photography and commentary on my journey to where I am. When I joined this forum you contributed hugely to my progress as a photographer, and the fact that David comes here as I do is testament to your influence on us. Over time, I have grown distant from formulaic solutions to creative problems. Every time I picked up a camera, I realised, I had taken this picture before. I was struck by the idea that to describe the soul of something is not a science but an art, it comes directly from the heart. That is true for everything, from explaining life, to create a photograph. I agree that the simple mechanics of perspective can alter the message, and that would have been altered here, say with a ground level straight composition. But the question is does that photograph deserve making? Even if it is a lesson? The danger is that the lesson becomes the outcome not the journey. I say this because photographs should be inspiring (I think of your wonderful cattle drive image in this very gallery...I implore everyone to take a look), and if your students begin to believe that perspective makes for a better photograph, it will be true, but not a truly great one. For that, they themselves need to feel the moment, and not get lost in the mechanics. I shiver when I take a photograph I know expresses what I feel...and that is even before I have developed the negative. Your teachings are incredibly valuable to those entering photography as a hobby, and this is no criticism of that, but I Gues what I want to say is that your students should not lose sight of their own soul...after all every photograph is an image of the photographer as much as the subject. I did not want to hijack this post, but David's and your communication touched a chord. With best regards, Kal

Phil Douglis		19-Aug-2011 19:04
Thanks, David, for letting me your feelings on this image. I made it, and included it here in my vantage point gallery, to make a point about how an overhead vantage point can make viewers feel as if they are eavesdroppers. You may not consider it to be a unique image in terms of its content, but I think it does an effective job of illuminating the idea I am trying to teach here. I would hope that my viewers will look at all of my images as a learning experience, and judge them in the context of the teaching galleries in which they appear. I did not intend for this image to be looked at and evaluated out of its teaching context.

david procter		19-Aug-2011 15:30
What a desperately ordinary photograph. Phil, you see better.

Phil Douglis		12-Aug-2011 19:55
Thanks, Atlantic Coast Line, for seeing a dog nipping at the leg. I still see the small creature as a monkey, but who knows -- perhaps it was indeed a dog? I agree with Carol -- if we imagine that we are seeing a monkey, both the sculpture itself, as well as my image, tend to convey a more whimsical feeling.

Carol E Sandgren		12-Aug-2011 18:51
Your downward view on these precious cherubs (and monkey) evoke a delightfully whimsical feeling for me.

virginiacoastline		11-Aug-2011 21:57
is that a monkey? I thought it was a dog O.o

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