life in pictures # 6/6a ~ wild at heart
This past weekend, while I was in NYC, I spied this window display while I was driving by in my car. There was virtually no opportunity for parking so I wasn't able to picture it.
However, yesterday, while I was picking up a DVD at the mall, there it was again. So, while trying to blend into the background - the diminutive EP-1 helped but a nearly empty mall, people wise, did not - I was able to make a few life in pictures pictures.
As mentioned, there were very few passersby in the mall, which not only emphasized my presence and picture making activity, but also meant having to wait and wait and wait for people-presence in the picture. IMO, people-presence is a rather key element in life in pictures pictures. In any event, I came away with a small number of pictures, the best of which are presented above.
That said, I'll do something I rarely do - solicit opinions, re: your preference (and the reasons why) between the 2 pictures. I am on the fence, preference wise, for reasons that I won't express here in order to avoid tainting the jury pool (that's all of you).
I don't normally ask for much. So, come on, help me out here.
Reader Comments (7)
I like them both, but I like #2 more.
#1 has the little girl with mom, pointing up at the woman in the display, and mom appears to be smiling.
I like #2 because of the angle, it is closer and the couple have a different attitude as the man strolls by the display looking straight ahead and the woman glances at the camera. It appears their "Wild at Heart" years are over.
I think I like #2 as well. It's a matter of the passersby being somewhat engaged with the image in #1 while in #2 the advert is being ignored. From a philosphical point of view I like the idea of these ads being ignored. The engagement in #1 is an innocent one - the sex appeal of the model isn't what is drawing the child to the image - it's just a bright attractive woman to the young girl. The ad men would have expected the woman (and the man) to give it a glance but they didn't. Maybe that's your fault Mark - you were obviously worth looking at - rather than the image. But I still like #2 better.
Number one has me and two other people looking at the Wild at Heart photo. I like that. Number 2(and it's strength is its immediacy) just shows someone looking at me and not pleasantly. There are also fewer reflections in nr 1. So take it I prefer Number 1.
The one on the left. I'm completely focused on the staring pedestrian in the other one.
Number 1: has a more dimensional quality and a better contrast between the fantasy of the model and the real life of the passersby. Both the model image and the people feel more embedded in the space hence more dimensional.
From the point of view of a non-picturer, I prefer #1. The little girl, who is dressed in all pink, the innocent side of red, looks as if she is exited by the, let's say "wildness" of the grown up "Red" in the ad. It looks as if she is saying "LOOK MOMMY" and I detect a slight smile on the face of the mother, carrying a heavy load of pink as she fantasizes or remembers the days of "sexy". The plant in the for ground points out the irony of "Wild at Heart" being inside a mall.
If I had to choose, it would be #1, but only because the 2 people are obviously together. While the 2 in #2 could be a couple, it's not clear that they are. They could be total strangers. But for me, neither captures any kind of "decisive moment" (for lack of a better term). The image needs a genuine "couple", preferrably standing still, either looking toward the display or away from it. Even if it's only in the imagination of the viewer (of the photograph), the people in the image need to be seen as being "connected" to the display itself. There has to be something that links the people in the mall to the display. Otherwise I'm left to wonder whether I'm supposed to be looking at the people or the display. There has to be a connection.