ChroniC said:
Then you disagree strongly with very clever people in the fields of philosphy and art. Its a known area you can study, "aesthetics", the why of how we perceive shape and meaning in art, and "representation" how we explain it.
You presume too much, firstly that your opinions are congruent with those of the very clever people, secondly that you have clearly expressed these in your earlier post, thirdly that I am blissfully unaware of the study of aesthetics and representation, not to mention philosophy, optics, neurophysiology history of art and semantics.
It in a nutshell says if we dont appreciate art for its creation we appreciate it for what it represents. A photo can only be representational because it is a carbon copy of something i.e it represents something real. So if we cannot associate with what is in the photo, and it does not fit a natural instinct (like you would a sunrise or a hot women) we must associate with how it is made or what it means.
Packing an awful lot into a very small nutshell! Actually not a bad overview, although semantically your use of absolutes such as "we must" verges on the inexcusable.
All the above has achieved little other than to make me feel condescended to and to demonstrate that you have at least a nodding acquaintance with the theoretical basis whose names you have dropped into the discourse.
But wait! From the general, we move to the particular!
Seeing as i have no interest in the corner of a building visually i must associate with how its made or what it means. I dont associate #1 building with anything so it may mean something to you but not me, i do like the shapes that the buildings make in #2, as that adds to he unique way its made, thats about it though, and on the scale of things considering the subject thats the best anyone could hope for. Which leads me to my first point, although having read it i may have been a little blunt and not given any constructive points.
Lo and behold, we discover after all this that the first picture does nothing for you - if does nothing for me either. As I stated before, the building itself has some merit but the photograph fails to convey this and is marred by the unintended converging verticals.
The next revelation is that you like the shapes in photo 2 - which (if you strip away my more emotive language) is exactly what I also said.
To sum up: The less attractive building has made the more interesting image!
(Just in case you are wondering, I am not normally so insufferably pompous
![Wink ;) ;)](/styles/default/xenforo/vbSmilies/Normal/wink.gif)
)