Photographs: Removed • Hacker News Board

Re: Photographs: Removed

#81

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 1:17 AM UTC

32bitkid wrote: post #73

zacharycohn wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're uh... aware that the photographer didn't sneak into their room without them knowing, right?

I guess what I'm trying to say is which is more depressing or sad: a couple ignoring each other, or a guy watching a couple ignore each other, or even, if I were to turn the lens on myself, a guy watching another guy watching a couple ignore each other.

> a couple ignoring each other

Being back to back in physical contact, even while also engaging in some other activity, is not necessarily (or, IME, even most likely) ignoring each other.

Re: Photographs: Removed

#82

Post by 32bitkid » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 1:29 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #81

32bitkid wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess what I'm trying to say is which is more depressing or sad: a couple ignoring each other, or a guy watching a couple ignore each other, or even, if I were to turn the lens on myself, a guy watching another guy watching a couple ignore each other.

> a couple ignoring each other Being back to back in physical contact, even while also engaging in some other activity, is not necessarily (or, IME, even most likely) ignoring each other.

I agree with what you are saying, in regards to a healthy relationship… But, I'm nearly positive that's not the message that is being conveyed by the artist/photographer in this image/collection of images. So, I'm not really sure where you are going with this.

Re: Photographs: Removed

#83

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 4:10 AM UTC

32bitkid wrote: post #82

dragonwriter wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a couple ignoring each other Being back to back in physical contact, even while also engaging in some other activity, is not necessarily (or, IME, even most likely) ignoring each other.

I agree with what you are saying, in regards to a healthy relationship… But, I'm nearly positive that's not the message that is being conveyed by the artist/photographer in this image/collection of images. So, I'm not really sure where you are going with this.

> But, I'm nearly positive that's not the message that is being conveyed by the artist/photographer in this image/collection of images. So, I'm not really sure where you are going with this.

I actually think it's very much part of the message of the particular image it concerns (at least, it's part of what I take from it because of how it resonates with my personal experience), to wit, the whole collection speaks to the pervasiveness of the smartphone in modern society, and the image in question speaks specifically into it's insertion into moments of casual intimacy.

Re: Photographs: Removed

#84

Post by NorthOf33rd » Fri, Dec 21, 2018, 11:02 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #55

NorthOf33rd wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say it takes away the impact? The black and white reads to me as a way to pull out the distractions, to focus only on the form.

To me it takes away all the life from the photo, makes everyone look dead. It's fine for landscapes, but not for people. It's you've ever seen a dead body, it's very pale, like a black and white photo. (It's understandable for old photos before color was possible, but there's really no reason to do it today.)

art.