I played a bit myself with the image (hope you do not mind). I am actually not sure if what I got is an improvement (and especially not if your rendering was quite deliberate), but it offers a bit more realistic alternative interpretation (again, only making sense if realistic was the goal to start with). Once again, the idea is not to compete (with your rendering), but to contribute to the discussion.
Thanks Slobodan - I do like your interpretation. The forest floor is much better. I was trying to re-crete the feeling of light from above that I experienced on the day, but I may have overdone it.
Is that a quotation or are you being ironic?
Yes, I'm quoting myself and no, it's not meant to be ironic. It is what it is.
I love subjects featuring images in fog, but don’t get this one.
Help me if you will. What, to you "reveals the art inherent in nature" here?
Wow - I can understand criticism of the photograph, but criticizing my raison d'être as an artist - OUCH! Mock me if you feel the need to, but this is where I'm at...
There's nothing "to get" – it is a "straight" photograph re-creating the beauty of nature as best as I can in two-dimensional photography.
I know it may be a conceptual reach in this anthropocentric ("it's all about me") world, but to me, "The art inherent in nature" is my way of saying Nature is, by itself, art – with as little of my interference as possible. In its most fundamental form, without the constraints and manipulations imposed by humans, nature is art. I don't need to add
my expression (or angst) to it to turn it into art. I am but an individual, and am only on this Earth for a short while compared to grand span of Nature. Who am I to improve upon nature? I've succeeded as an artist if I can reach people through Nature as it exists.
Many feel that "art" must come from within artists themselves and that's perfectly legitimate. After all, art is a medium of self-expression, and I totally get that. One can argue that without humans, there is no art, as art is a human construct. Believe it or not, I agree. I'm a huge fan of my own country's Tom Thomson, Emily Carr and the Group of Seven - amazingly artistic interpretations of Nature. But that's not where I'm coming from.
Where I diverge from this line of thinking, is when it comes to my own photography of nature: my goal is to let Nature speak for itself as much as I possible can (given that I'm pointing the camera, choosing the lens and aperture and composition). In doing so, I am trying to make myself and my manipulations "transparent" to the scene so that others can enjoy the scene for what it, in itself, expresses. I know it's impossible, but, for me, making "straight" photographs, allowing nature to express itself, is the closest I can get to re-creating the beauty inherent in nature.
I know I'm not the first one to think this way – it goes way back to the beginning of photography – but it's what I'm doing.
While I am working in the field, I am specifically thinking of those who may never have a chance to see the beauty I am experiencing – not just "shut-ins" but people who may never even conceive of leaving the comforts of their urban life to see a different side of the world, not to mention those who do, yet never manage to see nature for nature's sake.
In many ways, this photograph exemplifies what I'm trying to achieve, as I made it in a strip of forest in the middle of a urban area lived in by 500,000 people, the majority of whom would have no clue as to the existence of a scene like this because they would never go into the forest on a day like this or may never go in at all. It's not 100m from a golf course - the closest to "nature" many urbanites might ever get. For me, it is the ultimate compliment when, as in the case of this photo, family members who live only a few hundred metres from this scene, don't recognize it as being local then remark how they have never seen it like this. Yet, I know it's actually just a moment photographically captured as the scene really exists without any special manipulations.
Now, I'm not a total cretan here - I realize that I am "imposing" my will as an artist by choosing the lens, camera position, aperture, composition, time of day and all that. But I am trying my best to add as little of me and technology as I can so that people see the scene and not my manipulations/interpretations. For that reason, in presenting these images, I try to keep it simple and "transparent" by using matte paper (so there is no reflection or gloss of any kind) with simple white mats. I would prefer not to have glass in the frame, but galleries are a bit insistent on that for protection purposes. Perhaps "wall art" would be the best way to present these images.
One can argue that what I'm doing is, in itself, is a form a lying in that I'm trying hide my contributions behind the concept of straight photography. I look at it this way – Nature, by itself, has no advocate at a time when people are becoming more and more into themselves and their increasingly urban-technological lives. In my own way, I am attempting to counter this movement by showing people that the natural world is beautiful in and of itself and it is worth protecting. If my photographs can help in some small way to wake up the masses to the beauty that is all around them, then I have succeeded.
Okay, now swing away at me...
[BTW - definitely
not Barnett Newman]
