It appears that this should be a kind of a "ritual", since there are some religious symbols/objects around the subject. But I miss the really point in here, the shelf with mortar, candle and stuff... well, yep.
As mentioned, there is some emptiness in here... the subject isn't connected with one of the stuff around her in a direct way. And the "Buddha"-Face isn't related to sacrifice people or any other "naked", "painful" stuff... well, yes it is, but not that way, so I take that as a little offense against Buddhism.
Well, maybe because I don't get it, but there isn't anything original in here, at least in my point of few. To speak it barely, a naked female in a painful pose surrounded by things on the ground. There are no logical reason to harm yourself like that, the religion isn't used to cause pain, much more discipline and respect... and nudity is unrelated anyway, but that's another topic here.
I'm not that specialist in Photography and I always say "A photographer is not an artist who create something, a photographer know the little differences in the normal world and know how to show 'em on pictures." Honestly, in my opinion there are no "grades" of photographer, just 3 sorts,
Well, a really pretty girl which you want to lay next to her and console her... and a desire awakes that she'll hug you... that's a feeling that appears in my mind. As a girl too! Just getting lost into two souls feelings. That is an erotic feeling, and a appreciated feeling of mine. That's something I miss almost all of the deviant-art matured content deviations.
You show greatness if you accept a bad critique too, and I hope you accept all usable critiques... to publish the people who take that time to write that amount of words.
I saw your critique and I wanted to play 'devils advocate' and ask some questions... more to help me understand other areas of art, because until recently I always thought art was a waste of time, and modern art was totally and utterly pointless.
I prefer photography a bit more than other forms of art, so I just wanted to ask the questions to get another perspective. Please do not take this as an attempt to cause an argument, it really is just for an alternative view point.
Some classic nude paintings and sculptures show people in a state on undress, sometimes draped over items of furniture in unnatural positions. Why would they be considered art, but this not? Is it the because of choice of medium used? ie: canvas/clay versus camera and print.
Quite a few classic pieces that are worth a fair bit of money are basically unoriginal works. People in various places/poses or landscapes/scenes of daily life, that have simply been painted. Some in almost the same way. A lot of nudity is unnecessary in paintings. What makes this any less original?
You say "a photographer is not an artist". If a photographer envisions a scene and sets it up with various enhancements (props, lighting, positioning), how is that any less artistic than say a 'modern' artist doing some squiggles with 2 or 3 colours on a canvas? Why is photography less artistic than, for example, a cow in formaldehyde (as displayed in London's Tate Modern, and raved about by a few critics)? Or, another example, a solid black canvas that sold for 10's of thousands of dollars?
You seem to have picked up quite a bit from the visual impact of the piece, but on the flip-side I'm not entirely sure I 'get' this one. To me it is a nice visual piece that has some artistic quality to it.
Again, I am just asking to help me understand someone elses point of view on art.
At luck there is no heavy question asked.
Well, there are some weird sculptures and stuff, which are called art... Art in my definition is more like a desire to give the audience the chance to dive into their world via their painting, photos, etc...
Wooden sculptures of deformed men aren't mine either... Photographer got the problem that their only point of few is the real world... And everyone lives on it, that means that you're challenged to take a photo of something barely known with no public presence (like media & stuff)... Example: To take a photo of an dieing tree in a city, ruins with grown plants all-over, a smilin' guy within a crowd of stereotype-banker,... To focus a/the message and give the image a meaning is much more challenging than nudity art (simply 'cause sex sells) and photography (photography got one big advantage... You do not have to deal with the grade of detail... The background works pretty ralistic with the object/subject - an drawer/painter must master colors, shadings, dynamics (anatomy - if realism is in it) and must master backgrounds, objects and subjects which are way different to handle, pretty challenging to handle and heavy to compose 'em to one piece of art... Failing in one of those topics may ruin the whole image...
But I've to say, i do not defend our art in our museums, since 90% are just dumb and pointless as a spoon glued on a table (this was also called 'art' - at least by some - so stupid)...
As you see, the topic and impact are the most important things to me, nudity is the cheapest way to improve the impact and most of the people do not need anything else to *like* a image.
Guess with the one explanation i answered most of your question.
Well, lightning is always here, as a photographer you can use daylight, or any light-sources but you can edit the light-properties terribly fast (as long as you've the materials to do so), so less knowledge is needed as to draw something. example: a photo within a cave viewing its entry/exit - take couple photos and toy with camera properties (except you know what you migh need) / an artist has to know how the light is coming, has to draw every rock with right lighting (with outfading brightness -- important is, that a single wrong colored rock may ruin the impact if it is too eye-catchy) and have to think about all the shadows all the time... So you've to concentrate all the time.
The impact thing you mentioned... Well, guess i made my point not clear enough.
I appreciate all kinds of art...