<<< o >>>saucy postcard 19 comments + add yours

Every now and then we have the "other people's art" discussion, where I post a photograph of a picture or drawing (and so on), and someone says something like "this has no value because it's simply a photograph of someone else's art". So, by way of explanation, I thought I'd post another, unprocessed shot of this scene to show you a) why I think this form of photography is valid, and b) what I was trying to achieve in the way that I photographed it:


You may disagree, but I do think that this sort of re-interpretation is worthwhile, and as always I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

And if you're interested, this can be found on Blackpool's Central Pier, and the original is probably about six feet wide.

Oh, and I should also mention that this was taken as I wandered around Blackpool with Jem (www.shutterjunkie.co.uk) who, after many months of not posting anything at all, has finally got around to updating her blog. I have some more shots from our trip that I'll be posting over the next few days.

shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
image quality
RAW converter
1.29pm on 18/9/07
Canon 5D
EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
aperture priority
C1 Pro
some transformation
3x2 + fylde coast
comment by nick at 07:36 PM (GMT) on 19 September, 2007

This one is for the black background

Omitting the tagline was very clever of you! :)

comment by Jennifer at 08:09 PM (GMT) on 19 September, 2007

This sort of shot doesn’t really float my boat. However I can appreciate the processing and understand why you might want to photograph something like this – it does shriek Blackpool :-)

comment by jelb at 08:09 PM (GMT) on 19 September, 2007

Good angle and colors..Bravo!

comment by Craig Judd (d7) at 08:53 PM (GMT) on 19 September, 2007

Its not always about the image being valid, but about the intent to shoot the subject and making a debate, and bothering to bring it to the table, and about having the time and inclination. For that alone the crop on the original subject should be applauded, in fact it should all be applauded. CJ

comment by Ronald at 09:14 PM (GMT) on 19 September, 2007

Well this is my cupatea definitely Dave.
An artistic registration of a temporary form of street-art...on which you pour your own artistic sauce...
As you can see, time is already nibbeling away on this humerous expression of somebodies thoughts...
This is a time-image...and therefore worth of archiving...

comment by Li at 11:36 PM (GMT) on 19 September, 2007

very nice postprocessing indeed, it is like you have made that paiting alive! great job.

BUT, speaking of other people's art, it is still other people's art. although it is a painting on the public wall, but the painter's initial intention wqs definitly not providing other photographer shooting materials, right? Imagine I donwload one of your photos, further postprocess it based on my aethetic view and post it on my website, what would you think? So I would say this is a great postprocessing job of a paiting, but not a great photographc work.

Well it is just my own opinion on "other people's art", you can of course post whatever you like, as long as it does not violate other people's copyright:)

comment by Matt Simpson at 02:09 AM (GMT) on 20 September, 2007

Um. Shouldn't the line of text on the photo read "...now, you're getting too much..."?

Or did i pick the wrong week to quit sniffin' glue?

comment by g at 02:34 AM (GMT) on 20 September, 2007

nice what you did with it.

as for the creator of the original - not to nit pick senselessly but why go to all the trouble of creating something like that and then botch it all up with poor grammar??

comment by Richard H at 04:37 AM (GMT) on 20 September, 2007

Photography is as much an art as the subject itself. VALID.
I really like how you captured this image; much more interesting than the flat, head-on version. It just goes to show you that when you SEE something... you can keep looking and rediscover.

comment by rhys at 08:57 AM (GMT) on 20 September, 2007

Well, no one creates from nothingness. We all have our influences- man-made, nature, beauty, ready-mades, spirituality or whatever. It takes a special kind of creativity to make over something so that it is new.

comment by Josef Renklint at 09:20 AM (GMT) on 20 September, 2007

I find the angle really cool.

comment by David Ruiz at 10:39 AM (GMT) on 20 September, 2007

The trick is to ask these other people claiming about someone else's art if they believe in God. If they do, then every photograph is over a God's art piece, and as God is someone, or something, or whatever, that property is inherent to photography.

If they are atheistic, change God by nature and do the same trick.

Photogaphy is supossed to be art derived from the world you see, and there is other people's art in that world, so I definetively think it's right to shot things. More than a plagium or a mere copy, it can serve as an enhancement or just another point of view from the original subject. Or just your point of view that can be quite valuable by itself.

About the picture itself, thanks for posting the straigh shot of the drawing, as soon as I saw the shot I thought to myself that I'd love to see the original stuff to apreciate the work around the colours. Damn good tuning there.

comment by alex at 11:01 AM (GMT) on 20 September, 2007

I was going to spout about the apostrophies, but then I saw someone else has already done so.

And it's somebody's art...

I like it, but I think the perspective transformation is if anything a bit too strong, as it doesn't let you make out the old guy, which would emphasise the sense of voyeurism (old guy behind the girl peeking from behind).

comment by Peter at 12:52 PM (GMT) on 20 September, 2007

A photographer wants you to see the word through their eyes, isn’t that what art is?

comment by Betsy Barron at 01:01 PM (GMT) on 20 September, 2007

Either way you cut it, you are appreciating (maybe improving?) on what someone else has created... I say it's art. Nicely done.

comment by Alice at 02:37 PM (GMT) on 20 September, 2007

Photographically speaking, it doesn't do much for me. Not like your other work always does. But it's still an interesting shot and a humorous subject.

comment by Jamey at 04:35 PM (GMT) on 20 September, 2007


Corking eye make-up there. Good styling.

comment by Richard T at 05:41 PM (GMT) on 20 September, 2007

Personally, in this instant, I would have let sleeping dogs lie. This style of art for seaside bawdiness worked wonderfully in the time that it was so popular. It's a fun thing to mess about with and has allowed you to use a few tricks of the trade (nothing wrong with that all). I don't think that it was much of a challenge for you personally ... and it's an idea that will stimulate some of us to fiddle about with for our own enjoyment. But saying that it is a provocative image and as acted as a catalyst for people to voice opinions. I guess that's what blogging is all about ...well it is for me.

comment by djn1 at 06:46 PM (GMT) on 20 September, 2007

Thanks all. And well done to those of you who spotted the grammatical error in the other version I linked to – I didn't notice.