A blog about my landscape image making. On landscape imaging in general, bits of history and related disciplines (Architecture, Geography, Neuro Science, Philosophy and whatever happens to get my attention)
I've been asking myself if it was the case to explain the reasons in subject choice, and subsequent picture choice (it's photographic fiction in the end). Mainly it is cause I've liked something I saw. For "liked" I am referring to a broad category of feelings. Maybe it could be appropriate to say that I like to feel. As much as in "I like industrial music". Than there is the mimetic question in photography but this is a far to large question to fit here. More, in this case there is a visual critique to architects (and landscape decision makers) focusing only on the "building". Architecture, as any other Art, is performed every day by ordinary people e not only by the great schoolmasters. Ideas in architecture travel across the time to reach the borders of common sense and necessity as much as any other idea. As for the picture I confess to not like very much the derive toward simplification in the approach of European (mostly German) "clean photography" (historically, 30 or 20 years ago, it had its merits and excellence though). To me it feels to much in assonance to the general dream of simplicity that I fear is (in part) at the base of our, continental wide, right derive. On the side of colors, and contrary to general demand, I still like the saturated ones by Turner and as rendered by kodachrome 25 (Velvia being a derivative, that I never liked at all, in my latter film time my preferences went to AgfaChrome mainly for the green palette). In this case however I've been really conservative in the amount of saturation. Certainly you will see a different yellow than the one I see (the numbers being the same) but it is pretty near to how it was out of the camera (daylight white).