larry_bullis

If you want to experiment a bit, try this:

Bisect the image on the horizontal, and throw out the top half. This will give you a much diminished sky, which, in your original, is not contributing very much; in fact, it detracts. There are two reasons for this. One is that by using so much sky, it becomes something like a heat sink in that it dissipates the tremendous vertical energy provided by the figure. Second, since it becomes lighter and lighter toward the top of the frame, it allows "The Force" to leak out.

The dominant element in the image is the horizon, which provides a tremendous tension. The vertical figure loses its energy if the horizon is simply there. By bringing the top of the frame down so that the sky occupies not more than about 1/6 of the image, the edge of the frame, parallel to the horizon, reinforces it, making the horizon "count" for more; it becomes extremely powerful. Also, since the image will be terminated in the darker region of the sky before the part that gets progressively lighter, there is a sort of compaction; a closing down of the sky right on the horizon. This has the effect of not just containing the energy within the frame; it makes it nearly unbearable. The resulting high powered amplification of the horizon gives the opposition of the vertical figure real meaning, that is reflected back in or contained within the image.

There is often a temptation to provide imaginary support for a weakened image by making up stories that correspond to intellectual musings. I could see a rationalization for such a large area of sky in making it a model of infinity. This would be a rationalization though, not an effective VISUAL device. In removing most of the sky, that sense of infinity is actually increased. An effective image is a sort of partnership with the viewer. Our minds supply most of the real material meaning of the image, and we only weaken our images by attempting to add the literal or to overstate. An efficient image conveys the greatest power, and to achieve the greatest efficiency, it is best to remove everything that isn't necessary. The viewer's mind will add what is necessary, and by eliminating the extra, the mind has more options. A picture by itself is meaningless; unless it engages the viewer actively, it fails.

This is a wonderful image. Thanks.

but I'm sort of burned out on Chihuly. I grew up in Tacoma and I work there, two days a week (I teach in one of the local colleges, in the art dept - I teach photography, actually). When I heard last week about Tacoma's brand new celebration, "Chihuly Days," I nearly lost it. Ick. Are we looking at narcissism or not? There's this feeling in the pit of my stomach.

More to the point though: Is a pretty picture of something pretty enough, by itself, to make a significant image? Not for me. I want some angst, some struggle, something that actually shows this old man something he hasn't already seen. I suppose that is asking a lot. I know it is, and by saying so, I don't mean to belittle your effort, which is as good as any of my "A" students might do. But I'd like to ask you to stretch a little.

The photograph is plenty good enough as an organization of space and color. It is pleasing, and, as I say, the slight soft focus is no problem for me. Perfection is, by itself, boring. So, where can we go from there?

I'll try to be fair. What I'm saying is not an issue with you as much as it is with Dale Chihuly. He bought Tacoma, his home town, by presenting a town tired of a bitter controversy over public art with something they couldn't refuse and couldn't really argue about. Something that was totally immune to any controversy. Something pretty. VERY pretty.

I won't say he hasn't done some good for the home town, his and mine. He has. The Glass Museum is great. The school his influence has spawned is great, too. I just wish that the indigenous art community could have been a part of it. That could have happened; they could have been invited in instead of being isolated and excluded. They really aren't that bad!

So, this is not so much a critique of your photograph as it is about the implications that hide beneath the "of" of your image. Perhaps you can use that. Everything we see, every image we make, everything we say or do -- has implications of which we may not be conscious. What if we made it our aim to be as conscious as we can be? What if we were to go far beyond "composition"? A photograph is an opportunity to communicate. It is a canvas upon which ideas are expressed. The quality of the idea is what really makes or breaks the image in its communicative function. Without that, let's all just do calendars with puppies and kitties, and flowers. Don't get me wrong, I like puppies, kitties, and flowers.

I'm for the largest possible vision. I invite you. You have the eye. You can do it. Set the mind free. Do something that surprises even you and makes your friends wonder what they have been missing all these years.