Some initial thoughts:
- What is your relationship to the natural world?
- Where would you go to see a landscape?
- Why do people take pictures of nature?
- Can photographs help us to change the way we see things?
1. I'd like to think I'm pretty intertwined with the natural world. I've always had a love for nature and animals which is perhaps why I typically find my work is deeply rooted in nature and landscapes. Even when not taking photographs I still find it peaceful to immerse myself within the beauty of nature whether its going for a walk or even just sitting somewhere watching time pass by. Not to mention I find the natural world really fascinating, especially different types of flowers and how the passing of time affects the world around us.
2. Personally if I wanted to go see a landscape I think my choices on where to go would vary. However, most commonly, I think I'd either go somewhere busy like central London or in contrast perhaps go somewhere quiet like a forest. I think it's particularly interesting to however do both. I tend to look back on images and how they made me feel and compare the two and question as to why these feelings might be different.
3. People will take photos for a number of reasons. For example it can serve as a means of documentation in regards to specific factors such as wildlife and even the growth and development of nature. Some people will also take pictures as a means of preserving memory, whether that being specific events such as a wedding or even just a few silly pictures between friends. I also think pictures of nature can allow us to witness exquisite views and invoke feelings that words cannot.
4. In my opinion I believe that yes photos can heavily influence the way we see things, especially if its your first time looking into that particular subject. Photos can so easily be manipulated in any way the editor wants the image to be perceived, this is heavily recognised in political work where images can be used in favour of a particular side to portray them in either a positive or negative light
2. Personally if I wanted to go see a landscape I think my choices on where to go would vary. However, most commonly, I think I'd either go somewhere busy like central London or in contrast perhaps go somewhere quiet like a forest. I think it's particularly interesting to however do both. I tend to look back on images and how they made me feel and compare the two and question as to why these feelings might be different.
3. People will take photos for a number of reasons. For example it can serve as a means of documentation in regards to specific factors such as wildlife and even the growth and development of nature. Some people will also take pictures as a means of preserving memory, whether that being specific events such as a wedding or even just a few silly pictures between friends. I also think pictures of nature can allow us to witness exquisite views and invoke feelings that words cannot.
4. In my opinion I believe that yes photos can heavily influence the way we see things, especially if its your first time looking into that particular subject. Photos can so easily be manipulated in any way the editor wants the image to be perceived, this is heavily recognised in political work where images can be used in favour of a particular side to portray them in either a positive or negative light
"The idea of landscape" answers for "untitled( cowboy )" - Richard prince
"The idea of landscape" answers for "The valley of the shadow of death" - Roger Fenton
My landscape pictures:
Back to the future:
constructed seascapes
Gustave Le Gray - The Great Wave:
Dafna Talmor - From the Constructed Landscapes II series:
- Both could be described as landscape pictures. What kinds of landscapes do they describe?
- What similarities do you notice about these two pictures?
- What differences do you notice?
- What words/phrases best describe each of these landscapes?
- In which of these landscapes would you prefer to live?
1. Both landscapes can in fact be described as seascapes; They describe and capture the beauty and essence of the sea and the sky
2. Both images are taken with a horizontal viewpoint including the sea and sky
3. In Dafna Talmor's work the waves gently lap against the sandy shore where as in the other it shows the rough waves crashing against the rocks. The images also hold completely different atmospheres, when looking at Dafna Talmors work i feel as if a rather tranquil atmosphere is reflected however in comparison the other image emits a rather obnoxious, dangerous feeling.
4. horizontal, collage, traditional, sea, tranquil, daunting
5. Me personally id rather live in the image taken by dafna talmor as not only would the sea be interesting to hear and explore but the sand would also give me a place to sit and photograph. Not to mention it would also be interesting to see what washes up on the shore, E.g: seashells, sea glass, etc
2. Both images are taken with a horizontal viewpoint including the sea and sky
3. In Dafna Talmor's work the waves gently lap against the sandy shore where as in the other it shows the rough waves crashing against the rocks. The images also hold completely different atmospheres, when looking at Dafna Talmors work i feel as if a rather tranquil atmosphere is reflected however in comparison the other image emits a rather obnoxious, dangerous feeling.
4. horizontal, collage, traditional, sea, tranquil, daunting
5. Me personally id rather live in the image taken by dafna talmor as not only would the sea be interesting to hear and explore but the sand would also give me a place to sit and photograph. Not to mention it would also be interesting to see what washes up on the shore, E.g: seashells, sea glass, etc
Minimalist landscapes, what remains:
Prompts:
1. Describe what you can see and what might be missing from both of these landscape photos
2. Describe what you find surprising and/or unusual about each of them
3. Explain how you feel when you look at each of these pictures
4. Explain how you would attempt to make pictures like these
5. Suggest why you think each artist has removed parts of the landscape
6. Explain which of these landscapes you prefer and why
7. Experiment with several different techniques for creating landscape photographs in which parts of the image have been removed
2. Describe what you find surprising and/or unusual about each of them
3. Explain how you feel when you look at each of these pictures
4. Explain how you would attempt to make pictures like these
5. Suggest why you think each artist has removed parts of the landscape
6. Explain which of these landscapes you prefer and why
7. Experiment with several different techniques for creating landscape photographs in which parts of the image have been removed
The series sobras:
1. In the image i can see a tree which has been cut out and put against a black background. This image lacks colour and is missing a detailed background and foreground 2. Personally i find the lack of background pretty unusual and surprising as it makes the image feel rather empty and rather simple. 3. The image didn't really make me feel much, i personally don't like how oversimplified the image is and prefer an image with more detail 4. If i attempted to make an image like this i would print out one of my images in black and white and cut out what to me stood out as the most important feature and what best would help me portray a landscape. I i would then stick this image against black card. 5. I think the artist might have removed parts of the landscape to emphasise the centerpiece of his image ( in this case the tree ) and also draw attention to the fact that it isn't necessary to include loads of detail for us to be able to determine the picture as a landscape 6. I do not prefer this image due to its simplicity, i feel at least in the other image the artist took a more creative approach when depicting her landscape |
Gardening with you:
1. In this image i can see a tree and some branches cut out into white paper. This image also lacks colour and detail
2. In this image i find the way the detail has been captured as pretty unusual, in a way there is a background because it is filled by the white rather than being empty space like the other photo which is then contrasted against the black which allows for the main details of the image to appear 3. This image also didn't really make me feel too much, i definitely prefer it in comparison to the other photo however i still think the image is too simple in my opinion to really invoke any emotions 4. If i attempted to make this image i would start by cutting out the most prominent features of my image on black card. I would then stick this against white paper. |