ku # 683 / civilized ku # 415 ~ it really is the way how you chew it
It has been "suggested" that my pictures here on The Landscapist are lacking in nuance. At least that's what I assume is the meaning of this comment from Paul Maxim (in response to my response to the linked entry):
I really don't care if someone takes a million pictures of dead leaves, grass, twigs, snow on the street or the neighbor's porch ... [B]ut please, please show me something that's got some shred of nuance to it.
Proceeding upon the assumption that Paul's definition of "nuance" is similar to my own (and that of the gang at Meriam-Webster) - 1: a subtle distinction or variation; 2: a subtle quality; 3: : sensibility to, awareness of, or ability to express delicate shadings (as of meaning, feeling, or value) - I find it rather odd that the oft-leveled criticism of my pictures - that I am way too nuanced/subtle for the room - has been turned on its head, re: Paul's opinion of my pictures.
However, no matter which way one does or doesn't see it, "nuance", picture making / viewing wise, is most often a matter of perception and opinion. Some might even venture that, seeing and perceiving wise, it's more a matter of the difference between "insightful" and "uncreative".
Some might be able to write a book or, at the very least, a lengthy, erudite, and informed critique of the above diptych. A critique which would discuss the nuanced qualities to be found in the diptych - the evidence in each individual picture of an awareness of the ability to capture and present delicate visual shadings; how that visual quality helps lead the viewer to discern the subtle variations of meaning and expressed values exhibited by the pictures; how the pictures subtly work in tandem to suggest the subtle distinctions and the subtle similarities between them.
Or, some might be inclined to just yawn and plead for pictures that got some shred of nuance / surprise to them.
Reader Comments (1)
Thanks, I needed that.