Stochastic I, II (Complex Forms 10 and 11)

[unpopular]

Well. I'm back out in the weeds again

I usually put these in Black and White, but our local library thinks that gallery is full of porno and has blocked it. They also seem to have a problem with SimCity, as they had blocked Simtropolis.org as well :/

Anyway, from my series Complex Forms in Nature, Stochastic I and II.

 

[johngpt]

I had seen your comment in the sunrise/sunset thread about "barfing a little," and so I clicked on your name and clicked to see your posts. I was prepared to dislike you, but have to say that I admire how often you actually post "images" rather than just commenting on threads. I like how you put your stuff out there. All too often I see members here with high post counts and as I scroll through their posts, nary an image is posted. Kudos to you. And I also have to say that I like the way you see the world around you. You've a keen eye for geometry, design, light and dark.

 

[Joel_W]

Sorry, but neither picture does much for me. They appear to be basically scrub brush on the ground. Maybe more contrast would help.

 

[unpopular]

I had seen your comment in the sunrise/sunset thread about "barfing a little," and so I clicked on your name and clicked to see your posts. I was prepared to dislike you, but have to say that I admire how often you actually post "images" rather than just commenting on threads. I like how you put your stuff out there. All too often I see members here with high post counts and as I scroll through their posts, nary an image is posted. Kudos to you. And I also have to say that I like the way you see the world around you. You've a keen eye for geometry, design, light and dark.

Thank you for the feedback, even if you don't appreciate my snarky sense of humor It's kind of hard for me to post a lot of my stuff, it's not always well recieved, but I figure that if I have no audience, I'll just be tooting my own horn and continue to dilute myself into thinking I'm some sort of artistic genius. I am glad you appreciate this series.

Sorry, but neither picture does much for me. They appear to be basically scrub brush on the ground. Maybe more contrast would help.

More contrast would plug the shadows and burn out the hilights. I apologize that the link above isn't working. These images are a part of a larger project which is concerned with complex forms and patterns found in nature, and seeks formal and tonal contrast between different species or materials. An ongoing approach I take is flattening of field, and a strong emphasis in tonal and chromatic composition, rather than formal juxtapositions.

I will admit that I have a hard time with criticism which deals with the objectively present subject matter. Whatever meaning to the forms that are present in an image doesn't really matter a whole lot to me; snapshots are just that, recordings of events, places or things without any specific meaning beyond their existence in time and space.

 

[Joel_W]

Thanks for the explanation of the what and the why of your two pictures. With that being said, posting pictures here you must expect, especially since you're not new to the ,that most of us (especially me) take what's presented at face value. I evaluated your two pictures as to what they are. Personally, I rarely follow links unless there is a specific reason to do so.

Your last paragraph is sort of confusing. I you have a hard time with criticism, then post that. You'll still get plenty of lookers, but no follow up posts.

 

[unpopular]

My point is that "the subject doesn't interest me" isn't criticism. Such satatements are not about the image as an object in itself, they about the critic's relationship with the subject.

 

[greybeard]

I followed the link but, I'm not sure if it took me to the proper place as the pictures there didn't seem to be part of an academic set. #1 doesn't have enough of a repeating pattern to convey any sort of feeling of texture to me. #2 with a little more contrast might do the trick.

Hope this helps.

 

[unpopular]

Thank you for the feedback. "texture" isn't really what I wanted to go for with these, more like "distribution". As for contrast, I'll take another look, but I feel that if any one form or tonal region dominates over another, I am afraid something will be lost. What interested me about these two subjects is the lack of directionality, movement or hierarchy, they are, especially the second, very still, stationary by virtue of evenly distributed information.

The correct URL is Complex Forms in Nature - a set on Flickr

 

[greybeard]

Thank you for the feedback. "texture" isn't really what I wanted to go for with these, more like "distribution". As for contrast, I'll take another look, but I feel that if any one form or tonal region dominates over another, I am afraid something will be lost. What interested me about these two subjects is the lack of directionality, movement or hierarchy, they are, especially the second, very still, stationary by virtue of evenly distributed information.

The correct URL is Complex Forms in Nature - a set on Flickr

Now that I have the proper link, I think I see what you are going for. I like several of the shots from the link though I don't know if I am getting what I am suppose to get.

 

[unpopular]

Whatever you get or don't get is good. We can't expect everyone to have the same interpretations. For me this series is very personal and spiritual. I can't and don't expect everyone to see what I see in them.

I also hope I don't come across as overly defensive. I think it's important to talk about your own work, express what you're trying to do with it, and really get a good feel for what others are saying before writing off an image. I like negative feedback, it really helps me solidify my own understanding, but only if there is a discussion involved.