Critique Desired: Flooded Field

Found a flooded field this morning about half an hour before dawn in North Central Illinois -


The farmer harvested the corn (maize) at this section early, probably because it was an area prone to flooding.

It is, however, a frame full of nothing much at all. The emptiness and silence of the place was rather stunning, and the intention was to capture some essence of this. I like it one moment, and then think it's trash a little later; guess it depends on which hemisphere of the old noodle is in charge at the moment.

Suggestions and opinions are very welcome, and will be considered before I chase this idea any further.

Tom Robbins said:

Found a flooded field this morning about half an hour before dawn in North Central Illinois - The farmer harvested the corn (maize) at this section early, probably because it was an area prone to flooding.

It is, however, a frame full of nothing much at all. The emptiness and silence of the place was rather stunning, and the intention was to capture some essence of this. I like it one moment, and then think it's trash a little later; guess it depends on which hemisphere of the old noodle is in charge at the moment.

Suggestions and opinions are very welcome, and will be considered before I chase this idea any further.

Click to expand...

Tom,

You have a knack for stopping long enough to realize the beauty in the rusty pylons, the tattered knot and here the flooded fields. Many artists show plowed earth and, in the distance, the expected farm building. You've shown a naked version beyond this with nature arguing back, flooded and a red bar in the sky recapitulated across the wet runways in the flooded field. I am impressed with the concept and enjoy spending time with this photograph.

I'm considering the weight of the sky to the earth. How much sky should there be and what of the fields is sufficient.

Asher

I think I understand what your after. It works for me much better with a pano-crop. I did it by manipulating my browser window.

I scrolled down to where the pure blue sky was almost gone and then brought the bottom up until the horizon was dead-center.

Ok, THIS is what I aspire to: Taking mundane, everyday scenes and showing the beauty in them. Love it.

I strongly believe that pictures often might need to be built to convey ideas we have of them. In considering the weight of the sky to the earth, I asked in my first comment above, "How much sky should there be and what of the fields is sufficient?"

To me, it seems that the hard gradient of sky to deep violet-blue pulls us away from the land. The foreground with little detail also is does not appear to contribute much. (Still this introduction zone is one which, perhaps, can be even increased in detailed with further planning with a much wider lens).

Thanks for your permission to work with your photograph and explore a possible version with only the extent of sky and land required for the concept being delivered, so it hopefully this now shows through without distraction.


This presentation, is just another approach and not any claim to be better, just designed and intended to achieve the following:

• Bring the blue color lower in the frame and crop away the upper strong sky
  
  
• Soften the foreground edge so we can gently enter into the picture.
  
  
• Develop the structure of the furrowed fields and the reflection of the fiery sunset.
  
  
• Bring out the presence of the tiny skyline
  
  
• Allow the right side of the picture to suggest the flooding is perhaps abating a little so the eye is not pulled out of the frame
  
  
• Suggest an oval of distance interest that gives some partial symmetry across and asymmetrical scene
  
  
• Remove the blank darkness on the left side as it serves no compositional purpose and makes the right side flood more difficult to manage

So first here's the image just after simple cropping:





The picture appears flat and both the right side and skyline are still weak. Applying the ideas listed above, here's the new version:






I hope this much smaller picture still conveys the original intent and is more satisfying.

Asher

Hi,

Lovely picture Tom. I think Asher's edits are an improvement on the original posted image - but personally I'd like to see the 50/50 land/sky split more like 40/60 or something.

With such a 'pure' sky (no clouds etc), I think the smooth sky gradient plays a more important role in the overall aesthetic than it would otherwise, and I'd like to see a bit more of it on Asher's edit.

The crop of the bottom and left of the picture do enhance it for me, as does the added definition to the skyline.


Regards,

Andrew Stannard said:

Hi,

Lovely picture Tom. I think Asher's edits are an improvement on the original posted image - but personally I'd like to see the 50/50 land/sky split more like 40/60 or something.

Click to expand...

Andrew,

Thanks for the comment on my edits. I had intended to also do the other version but ran out of steam, LOL!

Asher

I like Asher's crop. The scene is more "seen" this way. Less literal. High saturation is not enough. Format is necessary here.

Tom Robbins said:

...

It is, however, a frame full of nothing much at all. The emptiness and silence of the place was rather stunning, and the intention was to capture some essence of this. I like it one moment, and then think it's trash a little later; guess it depends on which hemisphere of the old noodle is in charge at the moment.

Suggestions and opinions are very welcome, and will be considered before I chase this idea any further.

Click to expand...

As a point of general perspective, the weight of images such as this rely almost entirely on their context of presentation. As a 1-off snap it's "pretty". But in the context of a body of work, say on farming or even on incidental landscape abstracts, it becomes a weightier work.

For example, consider this image by the late Art Sinsabaugh:


He used a very large banquet camera to create this panorama of an Illinois farm. The actual print, which is actually quite small, features remarkable detail. Interesting, eh?

But when you discover it as part of a larger body of work it permanently occupies a new position in your mind. You can never see it in the same inconsequential manner again. This is true for many, many significant photographic works across many genres. (BTW, you can still get a copy of Art Sinsaaugh's "American Horizons". It's a wonderful catalog of a posthumous exhibit of his work from 2004.)

Snapshots are fine as interesting eye candy. But bodies of work created under a contiguous creative or intellectual concept are much more significant and, of course, much more difficult.

All,

Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. The words written here are clear and concise, and the ideas are deep and worth some considerable pondering.

You've pointed in some interesting directions Asher, as usual. Your efforts are much appreciated, and will be studied.

Rachel, thanks! You identified my simple objective. The Midwest generally doesn't have the well known opportunities of other US regions; one sort of resorts to conjure mode almost by default.

Ken, point taken and understood. Just ordered "American Horizons" - thank you very much for the recommendation. Unless I'm mistaken, Plowden's "Vanishing Point" is another collection where the theme is more than the sum of its individual images. I noticed the subtle beauty of the rural Midwest only recently, so photographic efforts are in nascent stages.

Alain, appreciate your thoughts. Not sure, but this might be the first time you've commented on one of my photos. The idea of "seen" as opposed to literal is new to me. Given a little time, I may noodle this out on my own. However, if you have the notion, I'd appreciate another hint or two.

Tom Robbins said:

Alain, the idea of "seen" as opposed to literal is new to me.

Click to expand...

Hi Tom,

Since "seeing vs literal" is new to you, my first question then must be: what is your goal when you take a photograph? There is little point going into the difference between the two without first knowing what kind of photographs you are interested in.

Hi Alain,

Thank you very much for taking some time to help me out with my question.

My goal, when taking a photograph, has changed through the years. This is probably typical for anyone seriously pursuing an artistic endeavor. In my case, however, it has evolved to this: to provide the viewer with a sense of richness of commonly overlooked, "mundane" outdoor subjects. Most folks are destination oriented, and as a result, don't even notice the most remarkable things during the journey.

Small things tend to be overlooked, so the near-macro realm predominates much of the time. There are overlooked landscapes as well - rain falling on the mud puddles of a rural gravel road, for example. There is absolutely no reason to care about such scenes given today's priority-driven concerns, yet the appreciation of them are the very things that make getting out of bed in the morning worthwhile. Or so it seems to me.


Please let me know if this answers your question. I would like to know more about your seeing vs literal concept.

Hi Tom,

Here is an excerpt from an essay I am working on. It is titled "What is Fine Art Photography?" I believe that it answers your question in regards to my earlier comment. The only difference is in the terminology I use. Here I use the word "vision" instead of the word "seeing" and the word "documentation" instead of the word "literal," otherwise my point is the same.

In case you are not familiar with my work, I need to mention that my work focuses on the creation and sale of Fine Art Photographs.

This essay is one of the chapters in my third book which is due to come out end of next year. This excerpt is copyright © Alain Briot 2009. It is part of Section 2: the Artistic Aspects of Fine Art Photography. Art is one of the three aspects of Fine Art Photography. Each of these three aspects has several characteristics. This is characteristic D:

D - The photograph cannot be just documentary
Documentation is favored in certain types of photography, such as scientific and forensic recording for example. In these fields, the purpose of taking a photograph is to record the scene or the subject in the most literal manner possible, so that what the photograph shows is as close as can be to what the witnesses, researchers and investigators saw. The purpose is to prevent the personality and the opinions of the photographer from becoming part of the photograph. The person who took the photograph must be totally absent from the photograph. Their personal beliefs, views and opinions should in no way be present or expressed in the photograph. It is as if this person never existed, and as if the camera took the photograph by itself.

Fine Art Photography is the exact opposite. In fact, we can take each of the statements above, write exactly opposite statements, and have excellent guidelines for the creation of Fine Art Photographs. Let’s give it a try: the purpose of a Fine Art Photograph is to record a scene or a subject so as to share personal views on this scene or subject. The photograph needs to be different from what observers present when the photograph was taken saw. The purpose of the photograph is to share the personality and the vision of the photographer and have these visually present in the image. The person who took the photograph must be present in the image, metaphorically speaking. Their personal beliefs, views and opinions must be present and expressed in this image. It is as if the photograph can never be separated from the person who created it, as if this photograph could never be created by the camera alone.

This is because art is the opposite of documentation. Art is the expression of the artist's personality, vision and inspiration. As such, a Fine Art Photograph is a vehicle through which the artist shares his vision with his audience. Therefore, to be considered Fine Art a photograph can in no way be purely documentary. Instead, it must primarily be expressive. This expression must reflect the artist’s personality, inspiration, vision and personal style, as well as the artist’s emotional response to the subject.

In other words, the artist has to be "present" in the work by making his personality and style visible through the facture (the rendering) of the piece. The work cannot simply represent what was in front of the camera. It must also represent what the photographer thought, saw and felt.

Alain Briot
Vistancia, Arizona
November 2009
Copyright © Alain Briot 2009

Documental Photographs might, indeed, be Fine works of Art!

Alain Briot said:

D - The photograph cannot be just documentary
Documentation is favored in certain types of photography, such as scientific and forensic recording for example. In these fields, the purpose of taking a photograph is to record the scene or the subject in the most literal manner possible, so that what the photograph shows is as close as can be to what the witnesses, researchers and investigators saw. The purpose is to prevent the personality and the opinions of the photographer from becoming part of the photograph. The person who took the photograph must be totally absent from the photograph. Their personal beliefs, views and opinions should in no way be present or expressed in the photograph. It is as if this person never existed, and as if the camera took the photograph by itself.

Fine Art Photography is the exact opposite. In fact, we can take each of the statements above, write exactly opposite statements, and have excellent guidelines for the creation of Fine Art Photographs. Let’s give it a try: the purpose of a Fine Art Photograph is to record a scene or a subject so as to share personal views on this scene or subject. The photograph needs to be different from what observers present when the photograph was taken saw. The purpose of the photograph is to share the personality and the vision of the photographer and have these visually present in the image. The person who took the photograph must be present in the image, metaphorically speaking. Their personal beliefs, views and opinions must be present and expressed in this image. It is as if the photograph can never be separated from the person who created it, as if this photograph could never be created by the camera alone.

This is because art is the opposite of documentation. Art is the expression of the artist's personality, vision and inspiration. As such, a Fine Art Photograph is a vehicle through which the artist shares his vision with his audience. Therefore, to be considered Fine Art a photograph can in no way be purely documentary. Instead, it must primarily be expressive. This expression must reflect the artist’s personality, inspiration, vision and personal style, as well as the artist’s emotional response to the subject.

In other words, the artist has to be "present" in the work by making his personality and style visible through the facture (the rendering) of the piece. The work cannot simply represent what was in front of the camera. It must also represent what the photographer thought, saw and felt.

Click to expand...

Alain,

The distinctions made have been well described before and your delineations are great too. They can work well for much art but might, perhaps, also exclude some fine art. This idea of opposites can serve as a rough and ready guide to much or even all of what photographers might seek to accomplish. It's not, in my view, a complete or sufficient description of what art is or might be. I will address this important assertion down the road, but for now, I want to put this idea of a small and modest sliver of protest that reserved for a future discussion.

Asher

Mmm...sticky topic that erupts on photo forums like acne on teens' foreheads.

I have the pleasure of occasionally spending time with some very prominent, world-renown photographic artists. I don't think I've ever heard one of them use the term "fine art photography". Nor do I hear it from prominent dealers. It's just "photography" to them. As it should be.

Alain has given much thought to construct a working definition of "fine art photography" which suits him. That's fine with me. I'll not contradict it or argue over terms. But there is no universally accepted definition for "fine art photography" or, for that matter, for "art".

My personal conceptual distinction is very simple: Documentary photography presents images of things. Art photography presents images of thoughts.

For example, this image by Doug Aitken could document busses in a foggy lot...but that's not Aitken's intention.

In the final analysis, however, it's not productive to spend much time considering the subject.

Tom,

We can enjoy your work and give feedback. You're already on a path of finding satisfaction and pleasure in making pictures that are interesting and have a uniqueness one would want to come back to , perhaps. I've taken the liberty to use this picture here to examine your work further. Of course, I'm sticking my neck out, but then, I'm hoping you or others might correct me where I'm significantly wrong.

Asher

Ken Tanaka said:

I have the pleasure of occasionally spending time with some very prominent, world-renown photographic artists. I don't think I've ever heard one of them use the term "fine art photography". Nor do I hear it from prominent dealers. It's just "photography" to them.

Click to expand...

That's a very important point. I talk about it in the same chapter. It's also important to know that this approach to terminology is commonly used by art practitioners working in all mediums.

Ken Tanaka said:

My personal conceptual distinction is very simple: Documentary photography presents images of things. Art photography presents images of thoughts.

For example, this image by Doug Aitken could document busses in a foggy lot...but that's not Aitken's intention.

Click to expand...

This example, firmly underlines my assertion that one cannot divide art a person appreciates into "things" v. "thoughts". After all, we have no control of how any one will experience the work! Each person coming to the work can view it as "an image of things", "as an image of thoughts" or any combination of the two.

Ken Tanaka said:

In the final analysis, however, it's not productive to spend much time considering the subject.

Click to expand...

Considering what art is, what it might be and how one enjoys it, could possibly help us in out efforts to create and refine our own work. We will not become "masters" but we may get sufficient humility to examine what we do. Then we could try to build our new work with some better imagined concept in mind other than almost always pointing the camera at pretty, important or agreeable things.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

This example, firmly underlines my assertion that one cannot divide art a person appreciates into "things" v. "thoughts".

Click to expand...

I find it more insightful to use terms that define goals and purpose rather than facts. Purpose is open to imagination. Facts are cut and dry.

Alain Briot said:

I find it more insightful to use terms that define goals and purpose rather than facts. Purpose is open to imagination. Facts are cut and dry.

Click to expand...

Alain,

Goals and purpose for whom?

Asher

Photographers in this specific instance. Otherwise the intended audience.