This one has been selected for a book with essays by Eberhard Straub about the education and its history and "usefulness" up to now in Germany. I didn't find this selection immediately understandable, and even less I can connect it with any of the contents of the chapter it was used for (The deadly sins of Mozart's and Da Ponte's "Don Giovanni"), though of course it can only be a suggestive way for assigning some image to a chapter of a book dealing with rather abstract contents.
So, of course I am curious to know what you think about it as an image, and then perhaps also as an image for such a content.
BTW, in case of interest: http://www.buchhandel.de/detailansicht.aspx?isbn=978-3-89574-690-1
There is nothing wrong with saying how the image makes one feel, Andre, but there is much too much wrong in raising that personal feeling to a measure of quality of an image, and further more to say that all these feelings are *content* of the image itself. This is wrong. Such things are only contents of the own mind. The image is only the catalyst. There is no "inherent meaning" of an image, though there is content. An image says a 1000 words, but these words are not like the words of a text. They are not absolutely defined. They change each time the spectator changes, and this is why an image says 1000 words.
So I also think that the reason for that is to tell about the own feelings, but by doing exclusively that the "commentator" raises the own character, soul, emotions, etc. to some kind of ultimate truth. It is the same as any guru does, who jumps on the table and tells me that the world was made in one week because his god told him so. And I then have to of course respect that because it is his god. ;-)
It boils down to the need to be acknowledged, to place the own being right in the center of the universe and be seen by everybody. This is one of the biggest mistakes that most wannabes do. They believe that any dealing with art is for acknowledgement rather than for just for the own fun without caring that much for "honors". And so you will alwas see that they get "insulted" when you don't share their emotions - how dare you?? ;-) But it is also much fun watching such reaktions.
BTW, all that overload of definitions about what one is actually doing when dealing with photography only contains such things like "creating", "playing around", "experiencing" and the like, but never "working" or "thinking". So you can see immediately that there is much too much pre-assumption of hymnes about the own thing, ey? I don't work, I create... woooohoohooo! ;-)
Nothing wrong with sticking mostly to technicalities in comments. Percentage wise, I bet the comments on technical issues in the images here is pretty low. The thing is, I think most people would rather discuss how an image makes them feel, rather than how it was made. So, they look for interpretations and meaning in images. Andre
Well, a small help for a humorous kind of understanding the reasons for the assignment was Ian's comment about the musical progression here. ;-)
But seriously, I don't get it either. Anyway, the suggestive mapping of images onto real entities is anything else but "understandable". And thus, all kind of trying to introduce "universal laws" in the sense of "this image tells this and that" are only individuall, as we can see. BTW, this is why I don't even care about "symbolical meanings" in photography - that's only a wishful thinking of the starter.
To make it even more funny, when I took that one with the pigeons, that stands now on the cover of the book, I only had fun to see that the pigeons just left their droppings on that monument in Florence that was supposed to be in honor of war heroes. I found the idea funny that nature doesn't even care about our narrowminded idea of heroism and bravehearts and the like. That was the only reason for that, and this is why I named it "The proper usage of the monument" ( http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=1411296 ) Now, the guys saw on this one... the students sitting at the desks of the amphitheatric hall of some university, listening to some lecture. Again, go figure!! ;-)
Any symbolical content can't exist for itself. It needs a human brain to be generated. Without it there is no "content" at all. So, I just lay back and watch with curiosity what else "symbolism" they will be finding on images, posting critiques about the very own impressions rather than the images themselves. ;-) This is also why I never bother so much to tell what "meaning" I see. I better stay on the technicalities even if they are not "artistic" enough. At least they are objective. ;-)
Congratulations once more Nick! I won't even pretend to understand why this image would be assigned to that chapter. Interestingly, the cover image has a similar theme, but with pigeons. (real not sculptures) Andre
After Ian's suggestion at least I have a clue for a possible association. And that was actually the most interesting thing of the whole process (images selection, assigning them to chapters, cropping, digital proof, etc.) It took two months to select the images out of my CDs, collect the photo series and finish the process, but most of the time they chose images of mine that I would rather reject, and vice versa. The guys selected almoste exclusively by suggestive and assosiative thinking but they were not really able to tell me how and why some given image "fits" a given chapter. For this one they seem to have connected the ants with "coming sins" or something similar. Ask me only what ants have to do with sins. ;-)
So, it was quite a small revelation, and it was also much fun to work for the photos of the book. Of course I am quite enthusiastic for the next one, but even after the first it is interesting to test the "associative reactions" of other people, in order to see if that kind of assumed "unambiguous" association is real or not. And most of the time, I see that it isn't. There is no unambiguous association that "everybocy can immediately see". Everybody has the own. This is also why I don't use my associations for critiques. They can never be objective and thus they can never be a "measure".
I'll be posting some more of the book in future, but I keep my own series categorization and so it will take time.
Oh, then you know already now your next experimental gear in Europe, Ian. A bowl and some sugar! ;-)
Seriously now, thank you very much for the nice comment, and even more for the idea of the "classical musical sense of progression"! The guys that chose the images didn't have that association for this one, but now I have some a-posteriori justification for its choise. If the ants are thought of as notes, then this is E-B-D, it's E7!!! Or of course also any transposition too. Thanks a lot for that, Ian!!!!
BTW, AC/DC's royalties would be too high! Perhaps next time. ;-)
Congratulations on having your image selected, Nick! As for the content, I'm not sure either, but I'm sure they have their reasons! I like your composition and again the sharp shadows you've captured. Dave.
Very strange association indeed. -Highway to hell? Maybe nice to reference ac-dc in a mozart essay! How nice to be published!! It's a scuplture of sorts surely. I am completely befuddled by these ants. I should have taken a closer look at the sugar bowls when I was in europe.
0 
