From: William Marsh (redcloud54@earthlink.net)
Date: 04/11/02-10:35:03 PM Z
Halvor wrote:
>
> on 11.04.02 21:48, shannon stoney at sstoney@pdq.net wrote:
>
> > Judy wrote:
> >
> >> "Media," which surround us, are a much more relevant topic than, say,
> >> trees.
> >
> >
> > I guess it depends on where you live. In Tennessee, where I live
> > most of the time, when I can escape from Houston, there are more
> > trees than media. The tv doesn't come in too good, and I don't watch
> > it anyway. I don't read newspapers because then i have to recycle
> > them. I don't listen to NPR much because I would rather listen to
> > the people that live with me. So, trees are a more relevant topic to
> > me than media.
> >
> > --shannon
>
> Since trees also is my main subject
>
> I have one self made rule for my photography; never include any man made
> object or reference to people. I am mainly photographing trees, which I find
> very relevant to my own understanding of life, the universe and everything,
> and not to forget, myself. Besides they are good for composition.
> I live in Tokyo, read newspapers, watch news, so on, I'm surrounded by
> media, I still prefer trees.
>
> Halvor
> Tree Photographer
> Tokyo
I was doing "pure" landscapes for the longest time, until I saw Robert
Adams' work about human impact on nature. It made alot of sense, and
sort of sucked right out of me the impulse to "edit out" of a scene
anything that was not natural (or nature, rather). I'm not sure I could
go back now.
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:29 AM Z CST