Rx: unlimited refills

[aprilS]

Rx: A Teaspoon of Sunflower



View large.

Rx: A Spoonful of Gerbera



View large.

[eob]

Well, this is an illustration to what I always think and say when I look at a banal subject representative of things commonly considered as beautiful masterpieces of nature. No matter how well you photograph such a thing, you will always come up short in comparison with nature. Unless...

The "unless" part is usually hard to put into words, but generally means to me inspiration, creativity, new way of seeing things, etc. That's what I see in these two shots: the attempt to surpass (or simply bypass) the "normal" way of seeing the beauty of flowers, the attempt to prove that our preconceptions have little use in art. No matter how deeply our sense of beauty is ingrained in our experience, there is always room for new and different perceptions. And that's exactly what makes these two shots work for me (unlike countless other images of sunsets and flowers that flood internet photo-fora).

It is a strange coincidence that on the same day I see two posts of completely different images posing to me the same question: what is that mysterious ingredient that makes our creations works of art or mere craft? And I don't mean inspiration, creativity and new ways of seeing things. Those are prerequisites. I would like to know what are the concrete elements of specific compositions and techniques that work for these specific images, that may not necessarily work for some similar endeavors. And how do you decide to choose them for a specific idea in your mind? I know that may be a rhetoric question, one without an answer - perhaps even one that doesn't need any answer. Anyone feeling like taking the bait? 

[habakuk]

What strikes me most here is the playfullness of the pictures. I need more time (and some sleep before... it's almost three in the morning), but I fell in love with the effect of these pictures and I just wanted to say that right now.

cheers
®

[habakuk]

Ok, so here I am back for the umptiest time... and each time I start to smile. This, imho, is one of the best thing a picture can bring up. The pictures work on so many levels and they do that at once and seemingly without any effort. What speaks to me is the way I get quickly beamed back several decades, when I was a kid and was exploring the world around me.

It is that "multi-level fascination" that does the magic to beam me back in time. There's fascination in the distortion, in the color, in the flowers itself, in the spoon, in the light... and I feel that urge to touch the spoon and move it around so the distortion of the flower picture changes.

So, not really trying to answer the excellent question posed by eob, I think I can point to something that might go into that direction. When I started to study the physiological and psychological nature of perception and image interpretation, it soon became obvious that there are several chains of actions and reactions that lead us to "seeing a picture". That isn't new... ... but what was new to me is the combination of my experience in Miksang and that concept of the psycho-physiological sequence of perception.

There's the theory/teaching (and my personal experience) that there exists a more direct way for a picture to act upon our mind than through the formal pattern analysis and subsequent associations and reactions to those associations. There is a kind of a primary action of visual stimuli that reaches our brain without going through the formal dissection in recognizable elements. And whenever this kind of direct impact happens, we feel connected to what we see. This "feeling connected" is not based on conscious logic, judging, liking. It has a much more direct link to our emotions and subconscious levels.

I feel these two pictures have this quality to me. They reach me much more directly than I can afterwards explain through analysis of formal elements.

This all of course isn't *the* answer. It might be part of one of the answers... and there are several concepts on how to achieve this kind of effect in photography. Studying these concepts might get us closer to the answer eob is seeking.

cheers
®

[aprilS]

These comments and questions create so many trains of thought, it's rather overwhelming.

While I posted one response to "Inferno in Red", another keeps coming to mind here which has to do with the idea of play. I think Roland nailed it in this instance.

Again referencing Free Play: Improvisation in Life and Art, and quoting from the prologue:

"There is an old Sanskrit word, lîla, which means play. Richer than our word, it means divine play, the play of creation, destruction, and re-creation, the folding and unfolding of the cosmos. Lîla may be the simplest thing there is—spontaneous, childish, disarming. But as we grow and experience the complexities of life, it may also be the most difficult and hard-won achievement imaginable..."

Roland, your comments also put me in mind of Ted's concept of "resonance" -- of direct experience perhaps. I am learning that when my images are most successful, they are also ones that initially resonate with me. Not as "cool" or "ooh, ooh". But, instead, as something I want to investigate further during post-processing (or through additional sessions with the camera).

[eob]

Now, this quote is more convincing than the one that April posted with the "Inferno In Red", but still, it pertains to a prerequisite of a concept, idea, inspiration rather than the choice of means of execution. I know, the question is tough and kind of muddy, so let us find the answer in our individual intuition and our particular sets of skills. Sometimes trying to explain things we understand intuitively is a very difficult task...

[Theo]

I really love both of the images the color and composition is right non your still always put me in awe april!

[aprilS]

Thank you, Theo.

[habakuk]

Well, April, now one of the big questions that's coming up is: how do we heighten the sensitivity towards this resonance? How do we train that? Which "organ" do we need to sensibilize? Because whenever I consciously try to get into that state of heightened ability to resonate, I fail miserably. 

cheers
®

[Ernest]

My english is too poor to describe exactly what i think about these two photographs, but i just say, that these are really good examples of different seeing of the simple things, like flowers or spoons. I like how intense the color of the flowers is + some metallic details, on that black background. It all fits great together.
Great stuff!

[aprilS]

I like how intense the color of the flowers is + some metallic details, on that black background.

Oh, heck. I just ordered some small prints of the series for display in a local gallery. But reading your comment, realize I should also try on metallic paper!

Thank you, Ernest.


[Follow-up edit: Metallic prints were definitely right for these images! I'll be delighted to show them this way. Not because of an "oh-ah" factor, but because the medium is so appropriate for the subject.]

[habakuk]

April, I visited your series and must say, the two shots you shown here are by far the best imho. The others are good and pretty cleverly done, but they are too "expected", too "logic". The shots you have shown here have that special element, that strong effect which is so hard to define.

The first one strongly resembles me of a speculum... not really what I would want on a card. The 2nd and 3rd are nice but feel like good stock photos. The fourth comes closer but lacks the strong effect that probably comes from the more adventurous crop in the #5 and 6.

Interesting to see the whole series. Thank you.

cheers
®

[aprilS]

strongly resembles me of a speculum...

Ack! I didn't mind the sensuality, but something was bothering me about that image; now I know exactly what it was. Curiously, its a favorite of both my mother and sister...?!

Too, it's interesting that the series seems to devolve, instead of develop for you, in the order they were shot. (They're displayed from newest to oldest in the set.)

Thank you for taking the time to view them all, and to comment so honestly.

[habakuk]

April. I am not really surprised by the fact I like the first two shots best and then see them "devolve". First, all shots stay in the "excellent" range - but not all of them have the same impact on me. And we touched already the question what it takes to really make a shot standing out. Now, let me put out a theory here: I feel, we see how there was playful, child-like spontanity, fascination and pure joy at work in the first two shots. And then, the conceptual mind kicks in. You noticed how these shots have potential to be "good" and then you extended the series by "mechanical/conceptual/conscious" development.

Personally, I think this process so very often loses the touch to the very first idea, the subconscious resonance and resulting quality. Maybe this is what keeps me vibrating and in love with the first two shots, and then I get a colder relation to the "clever" but "calculated" shots.

I think this is a most interesting issue to think about. Thank you!

cheers
®

[aprilS]

An interesting issue, indeed! Thank you for taking the time to articulate your thoughts.

And reading a novel about an art dealer today, this phrase struck me as an echo:

"...I was back to pushing work that I didn't fully believe in, lots of cleverness and allusiveness that now rang hollow."

It's true that at some point the series became "work" rather than spontaneous play. Yet I can't quite let go of the idea that pushing a series, and running up against a wall, can lead to a completely new and unexpected direction...