Re: trees rule

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Halvor (halvorb@mac.com)
Date: 04/11/02-11:39:49 PM Z


on 12.04.02 13:35, William Marsh at redcloud54@earthlink.net wrote:

>
>
> 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

One work with a subject untill finished or new development comes around, I
will check out R. Adams if I can find some of his work (thanks), but after 5
yrs as a press photographer I got rather fed up with humans, and "work about
human impact on nature" smells of documentary, unless you are trying to
reach a "higher" truth about human nature here. (read art :)
    I don't see pure landscapes as "editing out" anything. I choose to make
the picture in a particular way, controlling as far as photography itself,
and a normal lens, will alow me to, what is in the picture. My subject
matter deals with the human part through the "precense of abcense"(did I
spell that right). In the end what you include (or not, set up against the
expectations for the subject matter) in the picture, is what the picture is
about (or at least the first building blocks before you choose developer and
so on), and until I know that I have to keep on with my trees.

To make pictures is a learning process, and self imposed (or technological)
rules or limitations can serve to simplifiy the process.

Stopping to make pure landscapes you have either reached a "higher" level in
your picture making process than me, or our processes goes in opposite
directions :)

Halvor


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:29 AM Z CST