No New Yankee Stadium

[erikzen]

This photo is supposed to be making a statement.

[Didache]

This image raises an interesting question. With the title, the picture makes sense. Without the title, it doesn't. People fall into two camps here: some think that the picture should always stand on its own, pictorially speaking, while others believe the title is part of the presentation. Personally I fall in the first camp - if I had seen your image without a title, it would not have meant a lot to me (especially, not being American, I know nothing about whether or not the Yankees were hoping for a new stadium or not). That is not a criticism of the image itself, just my musings on it. Maybe it's just a picture that would mean something to a Yankees fan, but few others?

Cheers
Mike

[Greg McCary]

I agree with Mike that a none baseball fan may not get it without the title. But, I see where you are going and being a baseball fan I get it and I also like it. Maybe some more at the bottom with a little bit more of the stadium would help. I agree as well I wish they would keep the stadium.

[shootme]

Without reading the comments the title and picture doesn't say anything to me, sorry.

[erikzen]

Greg, thanks for your comments but you might be being a bit too kind for my own good, although I think we see eye to eye on the stadium.

Mike, you raise an interesting point about symbolism in general. Does symbolism still exist if only person creating the symbol understands it? I remember reading classic literature in school and having the teacher explain the symbolism and saying to myself "huh?". It doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy the book or that the symbolism wasn't valid after the teacher pointed it out. The point being that in literature as well as other artforms symbolism works if you let the audience determine it. In this case I did not have enough confidence in my work, and worse yet my audience, that I had to hit them over the head by adding a title. It's like a joke. If you have to explain the punchline it isn't funny.

Shootme, I'm afraid I have to agree with you. And in a way, the way I presented this shot has to do with my aforementioned lack of confidence in artist and audience. In the original shot, my idea was to juxtapose the old and the new, with the old obscuring the new and being part of the foreground. In actuality that shot would have allowed the viewer to draw more of his own conclusions, although they may have not been the ones I wanted them to draw.

I had a specific theme and message in mind when I first composed the image but I also found the original composition to be too busy, with too many conflicting lines. Maybe that conflict could have been considered an important element of the shot. The crop also eliminated some detail that really drove the "old" portion of the image home. Perhaps in the end it was just one of those shots that seemed like a good idea at the time but just didn't translate into a good photo.

[EOSThree]

The crop eliminated the horribly rusted beams. When I saw the title and then the photo, I wondered if a juxtaposition of the old vs new was what you were trying to show, but the crop removes the dramatic erosion of the beam. The crop also makes it difficult for a person not familiar with Yankee stadium to know what it is a photo of.

[Coastal Flyer]

erikzen,

Without diving into the discussion on titles vs. image, I much prefer your second post simply because it offers a more interesting photo. I like it, regardless. The wider perspective offers the angles and colors to work together more effectively.

CF

[shootme]

I too like the second shot and the concept of old & new as a picture combination is great, possibly romantic and sad at the same time. I'll keep it in mind when I walk the streets looking for moments in time. Thanks for sharing your shot and importantly your mind. S