gdanmitchell
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
|
TripleYYY wrote:
Comments, critiques and thoughts always welcome on my photos.
Since I think this is an interesting question - and, no, I don't think that "landscapes" must be "realistic," whatever that means, a bit more about my reaction and reasons for posting my example. Some thoughts and questions:
1. The original image in this thread, regardless of what the original subject might have been, is a purely abstract image of shape and color. From my point of view I cannot see how it portrays a "landscape" in any way or even functions as a commentary on "a landscape."
2. Regardless of how it was produced, the original image is the equivalent of an image produced by purely non-photographic means. (And before you think that I object to that, per se, read on.) One could do something very close to if not indistinguishable from this by using permutations of the gradient tool in Photoshop.
3. While my image may not have begun life as a photograph of an actual landscape, as I created it I drew (literally and figuratively) upon my experience with actual landscapes as I placed different elements into it. I would argue that it is built as much upon actual and real landscapes (all of those that I have seen and photographed) as the original image in the thread.
4. Even if it had not been built upon actual landscapes, I think that the image I created is closer to having visible landscape roots than the original image. For example, if you presented both to a viewer and said, "one of these began as a photograph of a real landscape and then was deformed afterwards. Which is which?," I predict that my image would seem more landscape like to a viewer.
5. It seems odd to argue that my image is not landscape merely because the invisible original source was different than the invisible original source of the first image and when both images are largely the product of conceptually similar processes.
6. The "entirely in-camera" business strikes me as odd. Landscape photographers traditionally have not limited themselves to simply capturing images in-camera and then printing the capture. Even the most iconic landscape photographers have relied heavily on post-processing techniques to achieve the result they desired. (Yes, it should be obvious that this include practitioners such as A.A. and other similar photographers. For more extreme examples look at Caponegro's work, etc.) Even earlier photographers used non-photographic non-camera methods allied with photographic darkroom techniques - and photoshop is essentially the equivalent of the darkroom today.
7. Finally (for now, anyway... ;-) - why is it the case that a "landscape" must start with a photographic image? The history of producing landscapes obviously predates the invention of photography, and since that time photographic processes have been applied to the creation of visual art that did not begin with a click of a shutter.
In the end, I simply have a very hard time understanding why the original image would be regarded as a landscape, which is not to say whether or not I regard it as in interesting or valuable visual image.
Dan
BTW: I am actually a fan of various forms of minimalism in art - which may surprise anyone familiar with the examples of my photography I occasionally post in this forum. And I actually think the comment about "Why buy art when you can make your own?" is a wonderful statement of philosophy for all of us who... make art! :-)
|
But I like it, it makes me think and the colours are quite nice. I'm going to guess extreme out of focus on this one...
All you see is a rainbow of colour. If you can see objects......defocus more. I added contrast in pp to make the colours really pop.