by Ganesh H Shankar on Thu Nov 24, 2016 10:33 am
Raj, I love the image. Very unique - the 'subject' which lies outside the frame and superimposed on a photograph!! I think the empty frame with trace of the leaves (may be over exposed by a stop) with only leaf "on the frame" would have further added in my view.
Now to your questions, I think life is often lived somewhere between yes and no. The generalising this to either end of it is over simplification and unrealistic. That said, here are my thoughts and further questions.
Which is important intent or content ?
I think intent without the content is introspection.
In nature photography is nature the artist or the photographer ?
What is art? Who is an artist? Does it need to be only one of them?
We have two different frames of references here. Unfortunately we are limited by our knowledge about the meaning of nature itself. I am referring to the word nature as synonym for "Srishti"/"Universe". What is it? How it came to being? Where is it going? I have no doubt that nature is the great artist. Life is one its magnificent work of art. Coming to photographers (or artists who paint), we do a very different kinds of 'art' (like for example 'cubism'/abstract art/poetry/music etc which can't be compared to nature's work of art. The comparing these two different works of art is silly at best.
Is photography art of choosing the seeing ?
May be choosing is the seeing?!
Do we fill objects in our frame or remove emptiness ?
What if it (art) lies beyond such physical characterisations? Is tear drop a sign of happiness or sorrow?
Again, loved your image and questions, Raj. Thanks for sharing this.
--
Ganesh H. Shankar
Wishing you best light,
Fine Art Nature Photography
» Last edited by
Ganesh H Shankar on Thu Nov 24, 2016 7:13 pm; edited 10 times in total