Posts
Andrew asks the very pertinant question about leaving in clues to reality vs. removing them and obtaining a very abstract image. I confess I had thought of removing that little triangle of lettering (after I'd posted the picture) but not the others - here's the version without any of the lettering on the left hand side of the ship (I didn't remove the other side lettering as it isn't nearly as important.
Thoughts?
And just to remind you, here's the original straight on colour shot that I produced months ago.
2 comments:
To my eyes (and for reasons I suspected would be true) this new image is significantly more powerful. In a sense, a "meaning" analog of the ole'Necker-cube "illusion"..i.e., because we "know" it is still representational, but now are given little or no real cues, the cognitive component of our "interpretative" apparatus keeps oscillating between concrete<->abstract, leaving the purely aesthetic to just bask in the overall beauty of the image. It'll probably make a stunning print, with what appears to be a vast range of tones. I really like this one! :-)
I prefer the new version. Removing the lettering is significantly more powerful, though not, in my opinion, because it removes visual clues. Scrolling down the page, and immediately upon seeing the top half of the image, I thought "ship bow." There wasn't any visual confusion, or oscillating going on for me--in contrast to some of your earlier images.
So why is the new version stronger? Because the lettering interferes with the curve and is so high contrast that there's a temptation to stay there when moving about the image. Not only is the new version more dynamic, but it's also more direct; there's no mistaking that this is an image about shape and tone.
Incidentally, I like the added contrast of the new version on balance, but prefer the more shimmering metallic tones in the bottom right of the old composition.
Post a Comment