Sven W used the term "semi-abstract" landscapes for some of my recent photographs. I started to think about this, and the term seems to fit.
I have been feeling a kind of aversion to "big" landscapes recently, and often I have gravitated towards subject which much smaller scale, though not all the way to macro photography. Terms like "intermediate scale landscape" have been grossing my mind.
But I think the term semi-abstract landscape fits better what I have been searching for: a sort of middle place between the big and the small, the concrete and the abstract, the beautiful and the ugly.
Sometimes I have a feeling that naming a thing may destroy it in the end, by fixing it in place, by not allowing it to change any more. But maybe this term is vague enough to have plenty of space for exploration.
In any case, today was a wet day, good for taking photographs, though a bit dark for the photographer.
Posts
Pine Coppices
28 minutes ago
2 comments:
I have 3 ways of categorising landscapes: vista, intimate and semi-abstract.
[There might be more, but that will do for now.]
Most of the images in this post I would categorise as "intimate" landscapes or even "nature" shots i.e the ferns and mushrooms.
The "floating" image is more of a semi-abstract ... it's not about the leaves or the water but the feeling of floating.
@Sven W: An useful categorization.
However, for some reason I have always felt bad about any attempts at defining strict categories. (I don't know whether studying physics and mathematics is related to this aversion, or counterproof.)
Anyway, I mean categorization such as "men play ice-hockey, women read books".
So I immediately started thinking about semi-abstract intimate vistas...
But I think the ideas you put forward are interesting, and worth exploring.
Post a Comment