2 out of 3 ain’t bad, especially when combining the two. Or, does that then make it one out of two, 50%? If so, I better get busy.
A lot of farm and art stuff here lately. Not much poker klatch. Oh, I’ve been playing, and I have a couple topics to table, but I have to get this other thing out of the way first.
It’s these pictures I’ve been taking. And it has something to do with the high country photos I haven’t gotten to yet, and won’t for a bit, not with this rain and all. Oh, and we get mold and mildew up this way. Real bad. Cool nights are good for sleeping but not for crops lying on the ground.
Anyway, about these photos: the last batch started to put me to sleep. Ho hum, patches of light and dark in a horizontal rectangle. Perhaps I’m being unfair to myself, but I know me, and I can do better, more, different, look closer, shake things up.
Occasionally a scene in the lowlands will suggest a different perspective, like this one:
But I can't go around taking pictures of borders again and again. Same trap. Photographing up in the hills might help with a more vertical approach... But until then, I decided to force the issue.
I went from this
to thisand this, another view of the same field.
AndSee, I'm more interested in the painterly aspects of these fields, and I think shifting the axis ninety degrees helps bring home this idea. The photos often remind me of painters like Clyfford Still and painting movements like Neo Geo. (I believe I have mentioned this before.)
This single gesture makes a significant difference; but is it enough? Will I grow bored with this as well? Maybe if I turn things completely on their heads?
You might want to enlarge this one to get the full effect.
Regardless of whether these changes are completely successful, at the very least they will set me to looking at the fields a bit differently in the future. And until the farmers start burning again, I've got some thinkin' to do. I'll get back to you.