Water Abstract 67

Comments appreciated on water abstract. Thanks.

This photo is different from most of your excellent portfolio. I like the color choices. I don't like the soft focus. I gaze across the photo and it lacks a center of interest, something to latch on to. For me, it is sort of like a background without a foreground subject. How simple is 'too simple'?

How differently we all see things. I gaze across the photo and the transition of colors and the movement of the texture are a visual treat without the distraction of a "center of interest". I also don't find this simple, subtle perhaps but not simple. My only minor quibble is the upper left corner which I find a bit dark relative to the rest of the canvas.

 

Doug, please don't think I'm challenging your observations. I'll admit I'm a bit partial to abstracts in general and especially water abstracts. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea.

 

Bob, here's one from this weekend. I had to take a break from shooting dogs.

I'm with Laurie. For a primer on center of interest in abstracts or the lack thereof, just look at Pollack.

nice color !

As this is clearly an abstract, the lack of specific foregrounds and backgrounds etc doesn't bother me. It allows me to focus on the etheral texture and colour play. In fact, I can kind of imagine looking both down and up from Earth - I see clouds and sky, yet also rolling hills and meadows beneath...

Doug, thanks for your comments, which I appreciate. While I don't entirely agree with your critique, I can understand your POV. This is very abstract and perhaps it is best-suited to be a background (which is what it will ending up being sold for as stock photography). I'm also hoping at some point to do a gallery show of this type of shots. Laurie, below, is the master at this type of shot.

 

Laurie, thanks for your comment. You are right about the top left corner: don't know how I missed it.

 

Mark, thanks for your comment and thanks for stopping by. . . .

 

Lucy, thanks for your comment: much appreicated.

On second thought, you all have a valid point about the lack of a central point of interest. It is an 'all-over' composition, not unlike Jackson Pollack. I think for this type of work to be successful or more effective, a large scale would be called for. A Pollack which is small- the size of my computer screen, is just not as powerful as a huge painting on a wall. I would like to see your work on gallery walls, printed very large, to affect us like Monet's large Water Lilies, or the large scale Rothko paintings. ...I stand corrected.