Breaking the Rules

Afraid it doesn't work for me

Does break some rules and it's an "almost" in my book. If the most interesting clouds weren't right behind the trees, i.e. higher in the frame, and if the trees were a bit further off center I think it would be a more effective shot.

Rich

I sure like the B&W with this. I also like how the trees are slipping out the bottom (or creeping up! ) Makes for a thought provoking image and one to study for a while. Not sure I like it, but will back to look at again!! Great to be experimenting with something different.

not working at all for me
the sky is flat , and the title too
sorry

I like this with some of the right side cropped. Almost to a square but not quite.

Jim, I like this. The clouds seem to be peeking out from behind the trees, as if they were hiding. I could see this working in a series of partially obscured clouds (or other subjects) behind trees or fences or ...

Jenny

on another forum i wrote...

jim,

i finding this image to be intriguing. like mary, i like the tension and discordant feeling. it makes me use other personal resources than those of my pleasure center.

you wrote - "I have been looking at this image for awhile trying to figure out what keeps me coming back." -

when i photograph in the state of "ku" (emptiness), I photograph what "interests" me at the time. the "interest" is as much ceribral as visual, although the visual is apparent at the time, the ceribral is much more subliminal/subconcious.

it is only after printing the photograph and looking at it for a while that i begin to figure out what keeps me coming back. what i usually figure out is this-

1. the visual- the photograph has interesting visual relationships among its visual elements on the flat 2 dimensional plane of the print. i'm talking shapes,textures, patterns, color relationships (things that i discussed in my field strategy article), not traditional photo elements - frgrnd, bkgrnd, leading lines, etc. it's not really important whether these relationships create a harmonious or a discordant feel - the important thing is that they create something to think about.

you have accomplished this in spades with this photograph.

2. the ceribral - once a photograph captures my visual attention, i usually don't have to think long and hard about my interests with the visual elements. i just know that i like/am interested in it and most often that's enough. (if called upon to produce a page of art-speak about a photograph, i can and will, but, believe it or not, that's not usually my wont).

what is my wont, is to take my thoughts beyond the specifics of the photograph and into the realm of the general. in my case, this usually means trying to understand what nature is telling me - gain a fuller understanding of my relationship to/with the natural world and how i can live my life in accordance with "natural" instincts and laws. in short, a greater understanding of and subsequent action in living of life of meaning.

this photograph takes me into that realm.

for me, this one-two sequence is what separates decorative art - art that illustrates - from "fine" art - art that illustrates and illuminates - and for me, this photograph is very "fine".

btw, it was the artist (painter) Fairfield Porter who wrote, " The artist doe not know what he knows generally,he only knows what he knows specifically. What he knows in general - or what can be known in general - only becomes apparent after he has put it down."

this seems appropriate to what you are experiencing. you responded photographically to the specific (sky, clouds, trees). now, after you have put it down, it seems to me that you are attempting to respond to the general (Truth? Knowledge? Wisdom? Instinct?).

perhaps you need to widen your thoughts beyond the specifics of this photograph to arrive at a place that speaks to your intuitive "in-general" that was at work (subconciously?) at the moment of its creation, and consequently, starting to understand "..what keeps" you "coming back."



on the same forum jim wrote...

Mark: Do I really need to answer this question to continue my quest? Or is the subconscious drive enough?


then i wrote...

jim

re: Do I really need to answer this question to continue my quest? Or is the subconscious drive enough?


seems to me that on some conscious level it is important to know what the "quest" is about.

as an example, i think that not only is there a difference between the quest for self-gratification and the quest for enlightment, but there is also a difference in how you will act in pursuit of either quest (specifically) and how you will consequently act in life (generally) as a result of either quest.

or...

you can just not think about it at all and let your subconscious drive you to some sort of photographic obsessive compulsive disorder - action/motion for action/motion's sake with no desired outcome.



btw, fyi, - for me, part of the intrigue of this photograph is not only the fact that i want to see what's behind the trees, but also to confront why i have that desire - am i not content with "what is"? must there always be "more"? can anything ever just be unknown? can i be content with the mysterious, the unexplained?

in the photograph, you have hinted at something (specific) unknown/unseen (and by extention, generally).

did you have any conscious thoughts about that when creating the photograph? i usually don't,and i thank my subconscious drive for that. i am,however, a much happier camper for continuing to answer "the question".


EDIT- it also occurs to me to point out that all "fine" art poses more questions than it answers. artists, with their art, open the door to questions to which the attuned and enlightened observers can seek/find their own answers as opposed to trying to divine those of the master.



just thought i'd float it by the nsn crowd

Mark,
I am glad you did.

I love the drama in the clouds offset by the tree but it does feel a bit cropped to me but hey this is art and if this is what you intended, then you accomplished it. I think its pretty cool actually thinking about it that way.