I love the concept RD, may I just suggest something ? Just a few little things to keep in mind, these images are meant to send a initial sense of clumsiness to the mind and then there has to be something in the image which releases the tension of the visual. In music we call them playing tension notes with follow up soft tenor and etc. These images will mostly not work if the release points are not well defined, it's dual concentration of mind needed actually to enjoy these images to the fullest, sadly not many people even practice viewing these kind of images to train the mind. One part will create tension and the other part will release it, do you get what am trying to say. Not only isolating the birds well but their placement is very vital. This is a tested form in paintings too. You may wish to browse some abstract portrait paintings where this form is mostly used. The processing too needs to be very carefully done so as to balance the amount of networking along with the subjects releasing the tension. So basically it starts with framing it well. I would say very well tried and am sure very soon we will see something outstanding from you. Best wishes buddy.

See Vincent's image in this genre, most probably in the album called Day dreams, see how he composed the branches leading the eye and the mind to a point of tension and just at the right place a bird flies off releases the tension. You will enjoy it RD, just check his website

Nilanjan, I can sense what you are saying, but not completely I listen to music mostly carnatic and some hindustani classical. I donot sing, i donot play any instruments, i donot recognize ragas, but I surely enjoy a lot. Music has always kept my hypertension under control !

I look at this image in two ways, one with blacks as the highlight and the other with white.
Looking thru white, i can find faces with different expressions of animals, birds and a cartoon of a human face. Not sure if eveyone can understand my seeing, but it is art.
About Vincent's reference, can you provide the link?

Thanks for your words man.
-RD

Go to vincentmunier.com and see the two albums on the extreme left, he has made his website in such a way that I could not figure out how to single out an image and copy link for that image only , my limitations with the computer perhaps. Sacha Greenwood too has some work like that, I think I saw one post here in CNP too, if you browse his images you would see what I am saying. Not necessarily our ideas are working the same way on the same image but that is the power of creativity. What a forum we have man .

RD & Nilanjan, I like the discussion that is going on here.

Here goes mine - I think chaos part of the frame is controlled. However, visual anchors (birds) aren't getting enough punch in terms of separation from chaos (or being part of it).

I would like to hear Nirlep's critique of this one ! Nirlep, if you see this...

Hi Dinesh,
Your picture, Nilanjan's comment and Ganesh's invite brings me to one of my favorite topics, that of aesthetics and its hierarchy and politics. Reproduced below is a small piece I wrote sometime back. But first of all Dinesh's picture. To me art lies in his boldness to have picked a subject which does not have any order. He has tried to picture nature in all its randomness with two birds profiled on a side. Nilanjan has rightly brought in analogy of music and painting. To quote Nilanjan "sadly not many people even practice viewing these kind of images to train the mind" i'll say he's touched upon a vital point;that of practice in formation of an aesthetic. Randomness is an integral part of nature but slowly it has been taken out from the aesthetics of art in general and photography in particular. Such images and those of Sacha try to take on the established canons in their attempts to re-inform us about visual grace of the random. In this they deserve to be applauded.
Now on to what I wrote. Though it is about landscape it contains my anguish about the loss of grain in photography and consequently from real life. So here goes..
This landscape has no roughage. manicured like a golf green it is way too slick like an advertisement devoid of facts. nature's visual polemic in which elements are in constant dialogue of withering and regeneration does not figure anywhere. These small visual insignificances have been systemetically pruned away from the schema of visual art.. grass, fallen and mutilated leaves, pebbles, soil, puddles, shrubs, reeds are unwanted elements for they do not fit into "drawing room beauty" which is a talc(ed) incarnation of nature. This literate but not necessarily educated portrayal of landscape could occupy a covetous slot in demand and supply chain but it does not foreground fidelity of seeing. This exclusion is more like a tent at a party which hides incongruities which in fact form the bulwark of visual superstructure. The visually excluded masses make a silent exit from the canvas and by extension from life, branded with pejoratives as weed. In words of Vandana Shiva, one of the leading environment activists "half of world's bio diversity has been destroyed as weed".! Weed the diverse organic anthom is also exiled from the mindscape of the photographer who keeps pointing his glass towards visuals conforming to hierarchy of power and seduction. Only the majestic, the "spiritual" , and the ordered is included. The rest becomes a bokeh out of which visual demigods stand out as menequins for the window shopping voyeur. Interestingly it is the window shopping voyeur who is the real photographer. The picture taker runs an errand to turn about landscape into gladrags nature complete with a perk and a pout.
Landscape needs to be freed from this hypnosis. It needs to be liberated from a slick lounge look to its own realm of nubile urchin grass shrubs, puddles and myriad liliputian wildernesses. The job requires not just the eys but also knees! for such restoration requires bending. It may even require lying upside down for a downside to upward perspective. Natural flow of hierarchy would then commence immediately. Multitudes in the foreground. Monarchs at the back. facts first.
At CNP such perspectives are frequently seen and admired making it a organically creative space.
Nirlep

I knew you have a strong critique here Nirlep, hence the request. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts. Looks like I almost got what you are saying here ! I love your expressions and language (though often I need to read it twice - which I enjoy doing).

Not related to this particular image (pardon me RD for the deviation),

Nirlep, there is a scientific study conducted by George A Miller on Seven Plus or Minus Two which talks about basic cognitive limits of humans. I think root of some of the prunes that we are used to come from this limitation. Assuming such a cognitive limitation exists it then becomes photographers' task to bring an order into chaos if we tend to exceed that basic cognitive limit. I agree order can be brought without pruning too - photographer might prudently translate the chaos into an abstract order/experience perceivable only through mind and not eyes. But that is easier said than done.

More thoughts ?

Those are strong words Nirlep. This discusssion is bocoming a 'clutter of thoughts' i'm enjoying the reading. It did require a lot of time and lot of times of reading to get to a state 'i am beginning to understand' your words. Thanks for your thoughts.

'photographer might prudently translate the chaos into an abstract order/experience perceivable only through mind and not eyes' - is it required to train the mind to see what 'creator' sees? should it be left to the viewer to see what he/she wants to see rather than what the creator wants viewer's to see ?

not sure where this discussion is heading, but surely you have created a great forum for us Ganesh.
-RD

RD, I think it is not necessary to see what viewer sees - an awarding experience for the creator if it were same. I think if it grown in the minds of the viewer that is the success of the image - just my 2c..

I think involved honest discussions justifies our precious time spent here. Personally I hate those single word "Wow" comments - even when there are two hundred of them..