i i i i i i i

I agree with Lannie that the lower portion implies motion. Like Lannie, I also don't view it just the way I would view other flower photos. On the other hand, instead of feeling chaotic to me, it feels messy . . . negatively so. It's a photo and, interpretation aside, I find areas of it visually unsightly.

A case could certainly be made for simple messiness, Fred, although I like to try to read purposeful chaos into it (if "purposeful chaos" is not a complete oxymoron).

HERE is another by Art that shows his apparent proclivity for little bits that come into focus out of an OOF background.

I also notice that these and similar photos are in a folder called "Flower portraits." That is an interesting label to me--implying a possibly different way of looking at flower photos, and not merely a personification of flowers.

As for "chaos," I found this somewhat interesting LINK.

--Lannie

Lannie, good points. I much prefer the photo you linked to because it is visually more organic and feels right to me. Intention may indeed play a role here. I admire and respect Art for fulfilling this kind of vision and going after something. I think you're right that Art is intentionally playing with things coming in and out of focus and background coming forward in spurts in some instances. If that's what you mean by "chaos," I'm there with you at least that far. But when something looks messy (as I see that lower quadrant in the current POTW), that's different from the "chaos" you're talking about. The current photo also has that sense of focus interplay and foreground/background changes. But the good aspects of what you call chaos, to me, are overwhelmed in areas by the unsightliness that I find bothersome. It is certainly possible that Art intended what I'm calling the unsightly area to look just as it does. That means he didn't do it mistakenly. But it doesn't mean I like it any more or think it works any better. If that's the case, I'd say he's achieved his goal and I'd question that goal . . . at least in part.

*I put chaos in quotes because that wouldn't be my first choice of words to use, though I can understand seeing it that way. For me, it's not formless or void-like. It's tricky and perhaps a bit contrapuntal. It plays with focus.

While I see numerous beautiful images in Art's gallery, this one just doesn't do it for me. I don't even get to the point of considering a huge enlargement which seems to be quite a conversation here. The large hot spots just kill this image for me. I see some pretty colors and some nice details but I don't see a coherent composition worth discussing. I don't see the movement and activity that some of you are seeing, at least to a degree worth mentioning. Sorry, Art, I like many of your images otherwise, and I still congratulate you for being chosen here.

I like it. See it as a fantasy environment that invites immersion and as such does not need a "subject".
Should be printed as big as possible.

What a good lesson on complementary colours! Well seen Art!

Thank you to the Elves for selecting the picture, this is a great honor. And thank you to all for the very interesting comments. It is really very helpful to have such thoughtful feedback on a given photograph, it helps seeing things that were not obvious when composing the picture in the first place.
As they were discussed, here are some technical data on the photograph and processing: 1/20s, f/2.8 (max aperture for the lens), tripod and natural light only, from a window on the right side. The photo was processed (raw file) in LR with the following settings: contrast +37, clarity +13, saturation +23. No local dodge/burning was applied.
I have tried many different settings to capture these (picturally) very interesting flowers (this is an albizia flower BTW). I was looking for a more abstract representation and tried to avoid a too descriptive picture. For this, opening the lens at max aperture (together with close macro distance) gave the best results, somewhat ethereal and out of this world. Closing the lens does not bring a nice effect in general, at least to my eyes. In fact, a small change in composition, distance and aperture can change the picture dramatically. I have some other pictures of the same flower taken in different sessions, which I feel are closer to the kind of effect/impression I was looking for ('Elfin' and 'The Will-o-the-Wisp').
In this shot, the large white area was a way to oppose the great details with void space (and color), or chaos as discussed, to make it less 'classical' for this kind of shot and have the eye catched by the imbalance.
Thanks again for all the comments.
Art