Stills

For me the inclusion of the non-sculpture pieces help to give a little scale to the subject though I do find myself wanting to see more of it. It kind of reminds me of a shot I have of one of the sections of Saddam's "giant gun" project. There's something about vast pieces of machined metal..........
 

I wanted to comment within a few minutes of this hitting the site but held back. I found the top right inclusion of background most troubling. However, with the passing of time I have mellowed and quite like the way the top right interacts with the other shard of background this photo allows the viewer to see. The overall cropping is very tight which also adds to the strong edges of the subject sculpture. Not sure the shot works on its own and would perhaps be better in a series of other sculptures found in the museum. However, I'm sure if I allow some more time it will grow even more on me. IMHO, photography of other art forms is mighty difficult to execute well. So I think you've done very well with your interpretation of this subject.
 

This sculpture looks an awful lot like the inversion of one that I used to walk past everyday on my way to work. I'd be curious to see what the rest of it looks like.

As far as the photo goes, it doesn't do anything for me. Photographing sculpture is a lot like photographing paintings; it's really hard to add something of your own vision.
 

I don't agree that photographing sculptures is like photographing paintings.

Paintings are 2D, photos are 2D, sculptures are 3D and intended by the sculptor to be seen in 3D. Therefore to capture the sculptor's message in a 2D picture is difficult (impossible for me).

Picking out a part of a sculpture and making an image or an abstract is something that I enjoy.

The full sculpture comprises at least another three pieces which I have excluded for my abstraction. The sculpture is black, very black but I have positioned myself to obtain the beautiful colouration from the adjacent vegetation, this was not part of the sculptors concept (I think, he is dead so I cannot ask him)

So I feel I have created my own image, I just happen to have used part of a sculpture.

Does the phrase "Photographing sculpture is a lot like photographing paintings" also become "Photographing architecture is a lot like photographing paintings"? In defence of photographing sculpture (on one of my images)someone pointed out that some claim everything on earth is the work of one being, therefore everything you photograph is someone else’s work. This is not an argument I support!
 

(I think. He is dead so I cannot ask him)
 

There is quite a big difference between photographing a sculpture and a painting. Yes, a sculpture is 3D but there is also the fact that, if situated outside in either an urban or rural environment, it may not be seen by many people. And when it is seen, each individual may only view it from a limited number of angles and, of course, in differing weather conditions. A sculpture is both complete and yet full of potential for representation and interpretation in a way that a painting can never be. One may also cite the fact that Andy Goldsworthy's sculptures, made in ephemeral materials or conditions, only exist on film.
 

Both Elliot Erwitt and Robert Doisneau have done some very good work photographing paintings. How about this one?
 

Ahh.

I don't think I would say that is a photograph of a painting.

In your example the painting is a part of the image (probably 99% of my image is Roy's sculpture)and the photographer's input for me is the juxtaposition and the humour.

I was taken in by a 100% photograph of a painting, I thought it was clever piece of PP/PS work. It was only later the photographer revealed it was a painting. I was very cross about that!
 

If I had moved to an equivalent position on the right (possibly a bit lower)of the centre line of this sculpture then the sculpture would have reflected a very grey sky. It would have been a completely different image.
 

Can we see it - the grey sky one?!!

On the subject of Doisneau's picture - one is tempted to ask whether he 'planted' the picture there and then how long did he have to wait?! Almost too good to be true but, as Rex says, not a picture of a painting; street photography with a vengeance. Did he use a Leica?!!
 

Doisneau knew the gallery owner and placed himself inside the shop for a day or so. There are a number of different shots in this series but the one I linked to is the most famous.

I can highly recommend the Robert Doisneau Paris book published by Flammarion. His first camera was a Rolliflex. His later work was shot on Leica (and I think he even used Pentax but don't quote me on that). I have a picture of him with what looks like a Leica SLR cradled in his hand.

You can see a couple of Erwitt's photographs of paintings at the Magnum in Motion website.

Both Doisneau's and Erwitt's work are big inspirations to me.
 

I think the Doisneau photo is one using a painting in the same way that Rex's photo is one using a sculpture. Neither are of the original artwork.

As to your photo, Rex, I've mellowed into it. I love the illusion of 3Dness that it gives and also the Escher like qualities. Which plane is the nearest to me.....I can just about convince myself that any of them (except the foliage) are.

This would look great on Silver Rag. I think the texture in the yellows would suit that paper very well.
 

Akikana, thanks for the Magnum site. I have been too lazy to go out and find the source of Magnum, being content to let a slow procession of Magnum photographers cross the pages of colour supplements. We even had an exhibition of the 'girls' in Aberystwyth recently (Arnold, Meiselas etc). Yes, Erwitt is good and very humorous on top of being observant.