Keith Laban , May 03, 2003; 04:08 p.m.
Had an e-mail a while back from a photographer who had visited my
website. One of his comments was "You bring order to a disordered
world". I have never thought of my work or nature photography in
general in this way before, but have to admit he has a point.
Much
of my work is shot in woodland, which by its very nature is fairly
chaotic and yet by looking at my work you would never know.
Am I,
by imposing order in this way and perhaps not depicting nature as it
really is, succeeding or failing as a nature photographer?
www.keithlaban.co.uk
Imposing order upon a disordered world
Stephen H , May 03, 2003; 04:27 p.m.
"Am I, by imposing order in this way and perhaps not depicting nature as it really is, succeeding or failing as a nature photographer?"
Neither. Nature is three dimensional, and ever changing. Anytime you point a camera and click the button, you have transformed it into something flat and unchanging, so you never "depict nature as it really is". But, hopefully, you depict nature as you perceive it. And if you enjoy nature, hopefully that enjoyment is passed on to viewers of your pictures, and if that is done, you have succeeded as a nature photographer.
Keep in mind also that there IS a tremendous amount of order in nature that is not brought out in photos. That tree is not just a random pile of atoms, but a very ordered structure on the microscopic level; otherwise, it could not function. Rearrange it ever so slightly (as with a chainsaw) and it will die. The blob-shaped rock you see is a collection of crystals, each with millions of atoms in perfect alignment.
Joe Elrod 
, May 03, 2003; 05:03 p.m.
Well, we all look at things differently. I have never thought of nature as chaotic, but rather orderly. The tree that gets blown over in a storm, is used up eventually as humus to build up the soil. Seeds are blown, or carried down to the earth and grow. The squirrel that is taken by the redtailed hawk, ends up nourishing the hawk, which is doing its part to weed out the weak, slow, and sickly, therefore ultimately strengthening the squirrel population. All happening as part of the order of nature, the birth, the living, and the dying, some parts being violent, some peaceful, but all a part of the order. Your beautiful image of the tree, with its fall colors blazing against the blue of the fall sky, nourishes those of us who see it, and builds our love of the outdoors, and grows our appreciation of nature and its many parts. And another part of the order completed. Whoa, didn't mean to go nuts, but just my take on it. Joe
David Senesac , May 03, 2003; 05:49 p.m.
Maybe the intention of his comment was to say that you have a talent for composing aesthetic images within the relatively bewildering type of landscapes you prefer to shoot. This is a common skill of many veteran landscape photographers though that skill varies among those photographers and would vary depending on the type of landscape. Finding the aesthetic within a tangle of branches is certainly not one of the more easy places to be successful. I have shot trees for many years and particularly like roaming within aspen groves during the fall. One may look for preferred geometries and structure when wandering about looking looking, but just letting your visual system slowly absorb the scenery until something jumps out and grabs you as aesthetic is a talent. And it is difficult to develop by anything more than having spent the time through a great many experiences in which one seeks what is beautiful therein. -David
Llewellyn Williams , May 03, 2003; 06:55 p.m.
". . . just letting your visual system slowly absorb the scenery until something jumpsout and grabs you as aesthetic is a talent."
David is right, of course, but how many times, regardless of our skills, have we failed to capture an image that evokes the same emotions as that which we encountered? The talent to be able to consistently convey it the way you envision it is a special talent indeed! I know my percentages are low, even if my enthusiasm is high!
Sean Depuydt , May 03, 2003; 09:08 p.m.
Bob Keefer , May 03, 2003; 10:15 p.m.
Art, it is sometimes said, teaches us how to see. If that be true, then it's the duty of the nature photographer to impose order on the natural world.
Bob Keefer
Keefer Photography
www.bkpix.com
Keith Laban , May 04, 2003; 05:33 a.m.
Having thought about the question a little more, I suppose it comes down to the intended purpose of a photograph. If the intention is to record the environment, then it would be important to record the world as it is, disorder included. If the intention is to show the beauty of the natural world, then imposing order on the disordered world is acceptable.
Does this make sense and what is *your* approach.
www.keithlaban.co.uk
Pontus Gustavsson , May 04, 2003; 08:06 a.m.
Emile Zola: "Art is nature as seen through a temperament"
Simon White , May 04, 2003; 10:43 a.m.
You could get very Taoist about all this but the answer is fairly simple if you want it to be. Nature is a paradox, both order within chaos and chaos within disorder. All the universe depends on this relationship of duality. Night, day, male, female, wet, dry, hot, cold etc. This is the quantum reality which is beautifully illustrated by Shroedingers Cat. It is our intereaction with an event or subject/object which changes that event or affects the outcome.
Prior to our arriving everything is possible and impossible, both order and chaos reside together in complete harmony but it is only our perception of these things which alters them; the thing itself remains outside of us both something and nothing, both beautiful and ugly, both ordered and chaotic. You make your photography whatever you make it and nothing more than that. After all it will be both what you think it is and what you think it isn't regardless of what you think both before you arrived and after you left.
Enjoy, Si
