4 ms·
>In the first shot, a smiling Murs stands in a relaxed posture, against a gym backdrop. He’s carrying a few extra pounds but looks within normal range, and well
by dogleash 1y ago
>In the first shot, a smiling Murs stands in a relaxed posture, against a gym backdrop. He’s carrying a few extra pounds but looks within normal range, and well-muscled underneath. He seems as though he’s mid-workout; it could have been a candid snap made in passing, between sets. In the second, by contrast, Murs stands in a pair of iddy biddy shorts, under stark lighting in a changing room, weighing scales visible in-shot. The background connotes not action but self-reflexive activities such as dressing, examining one’s reflection, watching one’s weight. Murs faces the camera, tense, flexing his muscles to show off the definition. In relation to the photographer he is not acting; he is appearing.
This is what too much analysis class does to a person. These two photographs are the same photograph. Stanly Kubrick did not labor over the composition of these shots for weeks. Some dude was regularly training and over time got a couple progress pics taken.
- dooglius 1y agoYou might need an analysis class to verbalize things like that, but is it such a stretch to think that a typical woman might go notice these things implicitly/non-verbally?
- dogleash 1y agoNo, I think everyone always interprets composition. That's why directors labor over it in the first place. Regardless of how consciously tuned in or trained in the visual language any particular viewer is. I just made that little j to point out the absurdity of picking apart progress pics like this. Of course every shot is deliberately planned. Perhaps progress pics doubly so. But that idea can be a tarpit. The thin edge of the wedge where we forget the intent of two progress pics taken at the gym is the same, the only deliberate difference is the physique, every other difference is incidental.
- IAmBroom 1y agoIf those two photographs are the same to you, you lack perception. One is a casual "Hey!", albeit shirtless in the gym. The other is quite intentionally posed. One is in scruffy gym shorts; the other a near-naked Speedo. They are not the same. And having the intellectual ability to dissect what a trained genius like Kubrick can do quickly is not a liability. You also dismiss the literal decades of study that Kubrick undertook to "not labor" over the composition of his shots (which, in fact, he labored fastidiously). Are you buying into the myth of the talented artist, wholly untrained but a natural genius? They don't exist.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- dogleash 1y agoThe guy on the left would be wearing nut huggers if he had the body for it. And he wouldn’t wear them onto the weight room floor, causing an equally deliberate photo to seem less casual.