Cody White
Member
Just wondering how this works?
Just wondering how this works?
In art, often less is more. However, sometimes, far less is far more .... In this case Ken is on the right path but I'd go further and suggest that most of the explosion is cropped out so that we have a constructed image instead of an accidental snapshot:
I think the biggest difference between Alain's crop and mine is the type, and amount, of mystery appetite we each had at the moment. We both eliminated scale cues by taking away grass and that nozzle. My initial inclination was similar to Alain's, specifically I tried to find a square frame in the traces. But I just couldn't find one that was satisfying. So I left the flare and traces in a long frame, leaving it to the viewer to decide what was causing the commotion below the frame.
Alain, ever the artist, leaned more toward mining geometric beauty from that original image, and he came up with some very nice gold. Leaving a bit of flare in that L.L. corner also preserved some mystery.
But neither of us was able to get rid of that tell-tale chain link fence in the background...ugh!
As Asher notes, there are sometimes stronger possibilities within a frame by reducing it or, sometimes, even tilting it. I do not recommend using a 14mm fishing net in hopes of landing a "decisive moment" through simple probability. But searching for a good image within an image can be a very productive educational exercise that might help some people see possibilities more clearly.
Mentalist and drain pipes direct water....
this is a document of an expolsion - cropping is strange - follow some links ....
http://www.awe.co.uk/aboutus/Our_History_f77a4.html
**** beauty because its in the image on the left.. and the whole...
Control is a poor man’s whip - it makes you slaves to the image ...
cheers
Control is a poor man’s whip - it makes you slaves to the image ...
cheers
When I was in a school of arts, the professors payed more attention on the 300 pages books that some students provided more than the work itself. It was some kind of fashion at a time. No need to mention that because of my legendary shyness, talking about my drawings were far more difficult than the drawing itself. No need to mention as well that I didn't last too long (I was not the only one, and some far more talented than me). I think it makes things more difficult to understand for the "average" people. And nobody wants his work to be known only by the "philosophers of art", I suppose. Just my 2 cents.
The problem there, is :
Is it strictly documentary, so maybe we need more explanation "INSIDE THE PHOTO"
or is it "art" (I'd be careful with Ken with this attempt ) and maybe we need less explanations (in fact we don't need explanation at all). Again just my words.
I recall one day when I was a youngster in elementary school a teacher wagging her finger in my face in response to my skepticism of the value of diagramming sentence structure.
"Mr. Tanaka", she snarled, "if you can't say what you mean you certainly won't mean what you say!".
This old chestnut applies as aptly in art and photography as it does in language. People who are not interested in seeing variations and understanding the cognitive possibilities of their images are camera owners, just as someone only interested in playing "Chopsticks" and "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" on their piano is merely a piano owner.