civilized ku # 63 ~ I Luv NY
There is just something about 'pure' urban landscapes that I love. I'm pretty certain that it's the crazy-quilt 'mathematical' patterns of line and form that dominate a 'packed' urban landscape. Which, when I think about it, is very similar to what I like about my natural world landscapes as well - the crazy-quilt patterns of nature, although, in nature's case, less 'mathematical' and way more chaotic.
In either case, it's the complexity, which stands opposed to the conventional photo-wisdom of 'simplify', that I like. And, I suspect that it that complexity, which doesn't seem to have an obvious or easily identified 'subject', that oftens causes difficulty for some viewers - they usually want to know/ask what the picture is 'about'.
It's worth mentioning that that question - what's it about/what's the suject - is most often encountered on photo forums, i.e. from photographers, and far less (if at all) from the 'general' or 'non-photographer' public. Although, it's also worth mentioning that there is a similar divide in the photographer ranks along the lines of fine Art photographers and camera-clubists.
In both cases, I believe the difference is between those who cling to the 'rules' and those who don't, or, in the case of the general non-photographer public, those who don't even know about the 'rules'. Or, put another way, those who care more about how a picture makes them 'feel' than how the picture 'looks'.
Not that the two aren't connected, because they are - how a picture looks can greatly effect how how it makes you feel. It's just seems that some let how a picture looks stand in the way of connecting to its 'feel'.
All of which brings me to this point - I think one of the best prescriptions for taking/making good pictures came from the pen of Brooks Jensen of LensWork;
Real photography begins when we let go of what we have been told is a good photograph and start photographing what we see."
Reader Comments (1)
Mark...that photo on the right (both photos really but especially the one on the right) is incredible because of it's complexity and endless detail I think. I wouldn't want the focus to be on just the rooftop with lawn chair/yard...or have the trees removed for example, if that's what you mean by simplify, because you'd also be removing the entire experience of exploring this place visually over time through the artist.
Isn't it interesting to pay attention to how your eye moves from one area to the next and how even that can change your experience or the "subject" as you uncover details? The more of this the better as far as I am concerned...it's what I liked so much about your Lake George series with the pool. I also think the real challenge is showing more and still making it feel like less...in other words, this image doesn't scare me away with it's complexity, but shot differently it probably could.
Personally, I don't think I view an image from a technical/strictly visual standpoint anymore. I at times covet an artist's technical ability, but I prefer to focus on the story that unfolds as you spend time with the work itself. A certain level of complexity allows for this I think and moves us away from the quick "wow factor" that we've come to demand and then just as quickly forget about. It also respects your audience just a bit more, don't you think?
By the way, I haven't been ignoring the "truth" discussion...just still considering. It may be a while...feel like I'm running in circles.