Two For the Road
January 12, 2010 8:16 PM Subscribe
"Two for the road is an online editing experiment based on the aesthetic and composition of two photographs co-existing in the same space."
I don't get it.
posted by Ratio at 8:43 PM on January 12, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by Ratio at 8:43 PM on January 12, 2010 [2 favorites]
Photographs...with other photographs? BRILLIANT
posted by Roman Graves at 8:47 PM on January 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Roman Graves at 8:47 PM on January 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
Is this something I'd have to be an artist to understand?
posted by mrnutty at 9:12 PM on January 12, 2010
posted by mrnutty at 9:12 PM on January 12, 2010
Do you want a prize for not liking the site? Because I don't have any.
posted by chunking express at 9:24 PM on January 12, 2010 [8 favorites]
posted by chunking express at 9:24 PM on January 12, 2010 [8 favorites]
How about an explanation? Like, what does "aesthetic and composition of two photographs co-existing in the same space" mean? Two photographs that look alike?
And where does the "editing experiment" part come in?
posted by mrnutty at 9:35 PM on January 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
And where does the "editing experiment" part come in?
posted by mrnutty at 9:35 PM on January 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
I don't know that it's a not like thing. It's just that it takes a while to see the patterns emerge. Putting that contact sheet in there was, I think, a mistake because about the time I was seeing what he was doing, I thought I'd run out of site.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:52 PM on January 12, 2010
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:52 PM on January 12, 2010
This is pretty cool. The patterns are clearer once you see more images.
posted by uaudio at 9:58 PM on January 12, 2010
posted by uaudio at 9:58 PM on January 12, 2010
If you really like this, please use your words to explain it to those of us who don't get it.
There are two rules or levels of it, for me. The first is that there has to exist some sort of pattern (visual or thematic) in common. The second is that, given that we perceive this pattern, human consciousness tends to create meaning and significance where there is really none.
Two random, unrelated, photographs might produce a compelling version of the latter. But it's more likely to happen if we notice certain visual/thematic cues that are shared between the two images. I guess it's kind of like an optical illusion . . . the impression of meaning where there is really none.
posted by treepour at 10:53 PM on January 12, 2010
There are two rules or levels of it, for me. The first is that there has to exist some sort of pattern (visual or thematic) in common. The second is that, given that we perceive this pattern, human consciousness tends to create meaning and significance where there is really none.
Two random, unrelated, photographs might produce a compelling version of the latter. But it's more likely to happen if we notice certain visual/thematic cues that are shared between the two images. I guess it's kind of like an optical illusion . . . the impression of meaning where there is really none.
posted by treepour at 10:53 PM on January 12, 2010
There is always at least one element that's similar in the two photos, and it's not necessarily compositional. I think it's interesting, personally, and a worthwhile exercise to help become aware of every element in a photograph.
posted by jimmythefish at 11:37 PM on January 12, 2010
posted by jimmythefish at 11:37 PM on January 12, 2010
this is great! thanks!
it's like a gestalt pattern or selective Rorschaching.
i can feel my mind becoming happier with every newly viewed pairing.
posted by artof.mulata at 1:21 AM on January 13, 2010
it's like a gestalt pattern or selective Rorschaching.
i can feel my mind becoming happier with every newly viewed pairing.
posted by artof.mulata at 1:21 AM on January 13, 2010
I like this very much, but that's all I have to say about it.
posted by vbfg at 4:11 AM on January 13, 2010
posted by vbfg at 4:11 AM on January 13, 2010
From the Flickr group where the photos are submitted:
Two for the road is an experiment about how two images co-exist in the same space. Commonly found in print, images are paired up based on shared traits and published in a book or magazine. This way of presenting images is rarely found online where images are often presented as singles or as a series scrolling vertically/horizontally on the screen.
This group brings the two photo aesthetic to the online medium. The group pool will be edited in which two photos will be accepted at once in the pool with some of the most interesting pairs “published” on www.twofortheroad.tumblr.com. Members are welcome to submit photos in pairs, or as singles to possibly be conjoined with another members work.
While I realize flickr has become a dumping ground for various groups revolving around very similar themes, I hope this group explores something fresh and new
posted by Atreides at 5:30 AM on January 13, 2010
Two for the road is an experiment about how two images co-exist in the same space. Commonly found in print, images are paired up based on shared traits and published in a book or magazine. This way of presenting images is rarely found online where images are often presented as singles or as a series scrolling vertically/horizontally on the screen.
This group brings the two photo aesthetic to the online medium. The group pool will be edited in which two photos will be accepted at once in the pool with some of the most interesting pairs “published” on www.twofortheroad.tumblr.com. Members are welcome to submit photos in pairs, or as singles to possibly be conjoined with another members work.
While I realize flickr has become a dumping ground for various groups revolving around very similar themes, I hope this group explores something fresh and new
posted by Atreides at 5:30 AM on January 13, 2010
How about an explanation?
There are less obnoxious ways to ask for an explanation. Though, it looks like you got a very good one. I was going to make an FPP post about all of these photography tumblr blogs I've stumbled on recently, but this one stood out in that it had a clear goal in mind and wasn't simply a showcase of awesome images. There are a bunch of great pairs here. It doesn't hurt that the images taken by themselves are, for the most part, quite good.
posted by chunking express at 6:40 AM on January 13, 2010
There are less obnoxious ways to ask for an explanation. Though, it looks like you got a very good one. I was going to make an FPP post about all of these photography tumblr blogs I've stumbled on recently, but this one stood out in that it had a clear goal in mind and wasn't simply a showcase of awesome images. There are a bunch of great pairs here. It doesn't hurt that the images taken by themselves are, for the most part, quite good.
posted by chunking express at 6:40 AM on January 13, 2010
There are less obnoxious ways to ask for an explanation.
There are also less obnoxious ways to give one.
posted by travis08 at 6:59 AM on January 13, 2010 [4 favorites]
There are also less obnoxious ways to give one.
posted by travis08 at 6:59 AM on January 13, 2010 [4 favorites]
Seems like a reduction of Soviet montage theory to its absolute minimum.
posted by rusty at 7:18 AM on January 13, 2010
posted by rusty at 7:18 AM on January 13, 2010
very good - its also true about the linearity of photos online - even photos on your own computer - everything is so virtual now that it seems odd to print themn and put them next to each other. I guess this why my tutors are banging on about getting it all printed and put next to each other on a big mess on a table. These photos are absolute killers (in that hipstery - shoot film - ryan mcginley is the chosen one - type way).
posted by sgt.serenity at 10:39 AM on January 13, 2010
posted by sgt.serenity at 10:39 AM on January 13, 2010
This way of presenting images is rarely found online
I've actually seen quite a bit of it online, and I'm a big fan of this sort of "found" or impromptu diptych thing.
But I misunderstood the description at first, and expected that the images would literally occupy the same space - or in other words, be layered, one atop the other, with the top layer at 50% opacity, say. So I was a tiny bit disappointed (I especially wanted to see some sort of online editing experiment, where users could play around with compositing the photos and submitting pleasing combinations), though I actually like the duets.
Anyway I did three of the very first ones myself as layered images, just as a bit of proof-of-concept thing for myself. The middle one is especially cool.
posted by taz at 11:27 AM on January 13, 2010
I've actually seen quite a bit of it online, and I'm a big fan of this sort of "found" or impromptu diptych thing.
But I misunderstood the description at first, and expected that the images would literally occupy the same space - or in other words, be layered, one atop the other, with the top layer at 50% opacity, say. So I was a tiny bit disappointed (I especially wanted to see some sort of online editing experiment, where users could play around with compositing the photos and submitting pleasing combinations), though I actually like the duets.
Anyway I did three of the very first ones myself as layered images, just as a bit of proof-of-concept thing for myself. The middle one is especially cool.
posted by taz at 11:27 AM on January 13, 2010
oops. Photobucket smallified it. Here's the regular size.
posted by taz at 11:33 AM on January 13, 2010
posted by taz at 11:33 AM on January 13, 2010
They're not in the same space; they're next to each other. Pauli Exclusion Principle FAIL.
posted by Eideteker at 8:01 AM on January 14, 2010
posted by Eideteker at 8:01 AM on January 14, 2010
« Older TED? Head(hunters) | "We're all temps now." Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by chunking express at 8:17 PM on January 12, 2010