Nature is messy

[RobSaecker]

The world can be remarkably messy, and it seems to me that a lot of the time, photography is about finding a composition that minimizes or hides the messiness. But I’ve long been interested in the idea of including the mess,  to see if I can still make an interesting image. So far, however, I’ve been unable to convince my primary critic, i.e. my wife, that these images are any good. So, time to check with a broader audience. All comments welcome.

[Steve Weldon]

Do you feel the need to line up all the branches in a row and the leaves in neat little piles?   Do those curvy footpaths make your skin crawl?  Are the fluffy white clouds really just big disorganized differently shaped irritants that make you want to drive the car through the local mall during peak shopping times?  When the bears do what bears do in the woods, do you find yourself wanting to organize it into rows?  Is  your worst fear being made to watch worker bees fly here and there in seemingly random directions with no apparent reason or purpose?   Hmm.. just a touch of OCD?   

Sorry, couldn't resist.

However, I do agree your image is a good example of "messiness" but before this thread I might have thought of it more as random disorder. 

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I like the approach and am trying this kind of stuff myself.
You might want to see one attempt here.
What I try is to use local adjustments (dodging/burning), color shifts, selective sharpening etc.  to bring some sort of order into the chaos.
This requires looking at the image a lot, analyzing it and bringing out something what might be of interest.
The chaos itself is rather uninteresting - it is necessary to relate to it, understand it and then get that vision across - tough job when its very chaotic.

Concerning your image, you have desaturated it, which removes any color information to distinguish the images elements - this makes your job possibly harder.
What I see so far as possible objects of interest are:
- Reflections of Trees
- Ripples in the water
- A fallen tree
- some chaotic grass

You might want to try to make these elements distinguishable and work together somehow.
As it is I believe it needs some work.

Cheers
~Chris

[RobSaecker]

Do you feel the need to line up all the branches in a row and the leaves in neat little piles?...Hmm.. just a touch of OCD?    

Well, actually, yes, I do make relatively neat piles of the fallen branches in my yard.  

However, I do agree your image is a good example of "messiness" but before this thread I might have thought of it more as random disorder.  

So does it work better if you call it messiness rather than random disorder, or is it equally uninteresting either way?

Christoph,

thanks for the suggestions. I guess it’s really still in the “fuzzy concept” stage.

[wmchauncey]

I have a personal rule...if I like it as a background on my desktop, it's a keeper.  That image would very shortly drive me crazy.     

[AFairley]

The problem as I see it is that generally in a photographic composition (or drawing or whatever), there has to be some "coherence" for it to succeed.  It may be static or dynamic, balanced or unbalanced, settling or unsettling, sane or insane, but there has to be something compositionally for the mind to latch onto.  The problem with pure messiness is that it is incoherent.  So as an exercise in observationor self-exploration, the image  is fine, but as a work of art (there, I said it), not so much.  It's like in another branch of the arts, a bunch of random notes doesn't constitute music.

[Isaac]

fwiw I think it is kind-of interesting.

Nature's Chaos James Gleick, Eliot Porter.

[RobSaecker]

I have a personal rule...if I like it as a background on my desktop, it's a keeper.  That image would very shortly drive me crazy.     

I half agree with you, as a desktop image, it’d drive me crazy too. But for me, that criteria alone is too limiting; sometimes I’m in the mood for some quiet classical music, and sometimes I’m in the mood for some loud rock, or some weird African stuff. Any of them alone will bore me, eventually.

[Steve Weldon]

Well, actually, yes, I do make relatively neat piles of the fallen branches in my yard.  

So does it work better if you call it messiness rather than random disorder, or is it equally uninteresting either way?

Christoph,

thanks for the suggestions. I guess it’s really still in the “fuzzy concept” stage.

Random Disorder would provide an intellectual link to chaos theory (math) and other methods of thought which IMO adds interest.  "Messiness" dismisses too lightly one of natures most interesting conditions.. I think it was Ronald Regan who said dead foliage accounts for more methane production (heavily linked to global warming) than all of humankind.  He was laughed at them by the opposition and gazed dumbly at by his own party at the time.. The man was a head of his time.  Within years of his leaving office several major studies were released showing it to be true.  Of course we want to do something about humankind.. live cleaner and more efficiently.. but we really don't want to be bagging all the leaves of nature.. or cementing in forests.  Which incidentally generates oxygen as well.. It's a messy world out there..  

[RobSaecker]

fwiw I think it is kind-of interesting.
Nature's Chaos James Gleick, Eliot Porter.

Thanks for the suggestion, I’ll have to have a look at that.

[RobSaecker]

The problem as I see it is that generally in a photographic composition (or drawing or whatever), there has to be some "coherence" for it to succeed.  It may be static or dynamic, balanced or unbalanced, settling or unsettling, sane or insane, but there has to be something compositionally for the mind to latch onto.  The problem with pure messiness is that it is incoherent.  So as an exercise in observation or self-exploration, the image  is fine, but as a work of art (there, I said it), not so much.  It's like in another branch of the arts, a bunch of random notes doesn't constitute music.

But, but, but: jazz.  I mean, a lot of jazz sounds to me like just a bunch of random notes, but some people love it. I, on the other hand, am fond of music in tunings that are odd enough to make some people cringe.

Which is not to dismiss your point about this image, BTW, I very much appreciate the feedback. And for the record, I have no problem with judging it as a work of art.

[RobSaecker]

Random Disorder would provide an intellectual link to chaos theory (math) and other methods of thought which IMO adds interest.  "Messiness" dismisses too lightly one of natures most interesting conditions...

I actually thought about using Static as the subject line, as in, when you’re listening to the radio on the edge of a station’s range, the interplay of static and signal can sometimes be interesting in and of itself. Assuming you’re not too intent on actually hearing what’s being broadcast, of course. Does that make it more interesting to you?

[Steve Weldon]

I actually thought about using Static as the subject line, as in, when you’re listening to the radio on the edge of a station’s range, the interplay of static and signal can sometimes be interesting in and of itself. Assuming you’re not too intent on actually hearing what’s being broadcast, of course. Does that make it more interesting to you?

If you would have titled it Static.. hmmm..  I'd probably have thought a scene that doesn't move.. as opposed to dynamic. And nature is forever on the move and each scene is changing.  Static Noise I think would work..  Noise is a engineering if not also a scientific term and when paired with static would fit the scene.

Some images stand on their own in their beauty.  This isn't one of them.  Or interest.  Or based on repetition, patterns, or one of the known photo school subjects we begin with. But some images just need context to create viewer interest.. at least imo.

With that said.. when digital and photo sites started I coined a term (at least I think so, you can never be sure) called "thumbnail art."  This relates to whatever it is that draws interest to a thumbnail (other than T&A) over others.  Why are some images clicked on 1000x more than others based only on a thumbnail.   I wrote about this and did a bunch of experiments.  I likened it to a magazine or paperback rack.. what makes you pick up one over the other based only on the cover?  I've done a bunch of CD/Book/Album covers and explaining this to a client is difficult.  They think you're nuts.  But getting someone to pick it up, or click on it, is a mandatory prerequisite to the purchase. (sans a recommendation).  So you should really be interested on why I clicked on your great image and not the other great images.. and took the time to leave a critique.  Pat yourself on the back for that one..  the image and your description were enough.  That's a lot.

[elliot_n]

Your picture ain't messy enough. Lee Friedlander is the master:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lee+friedlander+desert+seen&num=100&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=v5KgUpn2M6ar7AaU5IDQAg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1438&bih=720

[elliot_n]

Also Thomas Struth's Paradise series:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=thomas+struth+paradise&num=100&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=VZSgUr6hKKPB7AarvICwAg&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1438&bih=720

[Harald L]

The world can be remarkably messy, and it seems to me that a lot of the time, photography is about finding a composition that minimizes or hides the messiness. But I’ve long been interested in the idea of including the mess,  to see if I can still make an interesting image. So far, however, I’ve been unable to convince my primary critic, i.e. my wife, that these images are any good. So, time to check with a broader audience. All comments welcome.

Life can be so easy: Happy wife, happy life.

Harald

PS: Mostly they are right;-)

[RobSaecker]

Life can be so easy: Happy wife, happy life.

Harald

PS: Mostly they are right;-)

Harald,

after nearly 20 years, we’ve gotten to the point where we can make a joke out of most of our disagreements, which makes dealing with them much easier. 

elliot: yeah, Friedlander. Thanks for the reminder.

[RobSaecker]

With that said.. when digital and photo sites started I coined a term (at least I think so, you can never be sure) called "thumbnail art."  This relates to whatever it is that draws interest to a thumbnail (other than T&A) over others.  Why are some images clicked on 1000x more than others based only on a thumbnail.   I wrote about this and did a bunch of experiments.  I likened it to a magazine or paperback rack.. what makes you pick up one over the other based only on the cover?  I've done a bunch of CD/Book/Album covers and explaining this to a client is difficult.  They think you're nuts.  But getting someone to pick it up, or click on it, is a mandatory prerequisite to the purchase. (sans a recommendation).  So you should really be interested on why I clicked on your great image and not the other great images.. and took the time to leave a critique.  Pat yourself on the back for that one..  the image and your description were enough.  That's a lot.

Steve,

I wish I was in a position to hear you explaining that to a client.

And thanks again to taking the time...

[dhancock]

I have a personal rule...if I like it as a background on my desktop, it's a keeper.  That image would very shortly drive me crazy.     

Same here!

If you like organized chaos, the key is to find enough chaos that it looks like a textured background. For example, mulch is made out of many tiny pieces of weirdly shaped wood, but all you primarily notice is a blanket of color.