This is a bit different for you. I really like this image. It is a bit suggestive and. voyeuristic because it does not show all. You are really not supposed to be taking that image because it is through a window, which indicates, a certain degree of hands off privacy. You are providing intimacy without access due to the window, which becomes a part of the image. It immediately reminds me of my image of Bridget Bardot called a red Shoes. Well done Tomasz.
Thank you, Robert, this is such a thoughtful reading of the photograph. I really like your point about intimacy without access, and I’m glad the window became such an important part of the image for you.
Truly an enigmatic image; simple enough at first glance but then so many questions arise. But no easy answers.
It reminds me, oddly enough, of the old H&H 'Automat' , that cafeteria-style restaurant where dishes of hot food were displayed behind glass windows: insert a few coins and the window would open.
Thank you, David. I really like that association. There is something about glass, distance, and not quite being able to enter that creates exactly that kind of tension.
I guess with you. I probably also look at my photos as you do. But from an outsider's point of view, it is too dark, and it makes you want to switch on the light to see what is there and how it is connected to Barbatti. Usually, a small comment from the author will shed light on what we see.
Thank you, Alexander — that is a very fair point. Sometimes I probably trust darkness and ambiguity a little too much, but I like your thought that a small note from the author can open the door just enough.
Actually, I don't always trust a photographer who doesn't name his works. I believe a photograph should have a title. When a photograph has no title or a brief comment, the author is essentially saying, "You could think what you want, and only I know what it is."
Sometimes a title will suggest itself, sometimes not. Then it's up to the viewer to think whatever they want. A little ambiguity never hurts. Probably. Maybe.
This is a bit different for you. I really like this image. It is a bit suggestive and. voyeuristic because it does not show all. You are really not supposed to be taking that image because it is through a window, which indicates, a certain degree of hands off privacy. You are providing intimacy without access due to the window, which becomes a part of the image. It immediately reminds me of my image of Bridget Bardot called a red Shoes. Well done Tomasz.
Thank you, Robert, this is such a thoughtful reading of the photograph. I really like your point about intimacy without access, and I’m glad the window became such an important part of the image for you.
It is an image that I identify with quite easily!!! It requests the attention of the viewer’s imagination.
Truly an enigmatic image; simple enough at first glance but then so many questions arise. But no easy answers.
It reminds me, oddly enough, of the old H&H 'Automat' , that cafeteria-style restaurant where dishes of hot food were displayed behind glass windows: insert a few coins and the window would open.
Thank you, David. I really like that association. There is something about glass, distance, and not quite being able to enter that creates exactly that kind of tension.
I guess with you. I probably also look at my photos as you do. But from an outsider's point of view, it is too dark, and it makes you want to switch on the light to see what is there and how it is connected to Barbatti. Usually, a small comment from the author will shed light on what we see.
Thank you, Alexander — that is a very fair point. Sometimes I probably trust darkness and ambiguity a little too much, but I like your thought that a small note from the author can open the door just enough.
Actually, I don't always trust a photographer who doesn't name his works. I believe a photograph should have a title. When a photograph has no title or a brief comment, the author is essentially saying, "You could think what you want, and only I know what it is."
Sometimes a title will suggest itself, sometimes not. Then it's up to the viewer to think whatever they want. A little ambiguity never hurts. Probably. Maybe.