This morning was a nice opportunity to work on images that “suggest” a feeling or thought, versus a literal description of a idea. We are seeing some of the effects of the Hurricane that is moving through Mexico, especially with the change in cloud cover and overcast morning, thus an unusal disfused light to work with. As a result, the shutter speeds were slower and what I had been photorgraphing on the freeway had a different appearance. With more motion blurr due to the longer exposures, the landscape was no longer sharp and well defined. I recognize that I had the ability to change that appearance by increasing my effective ISO and working with a wider aperture, but I liked the results that I was acheiving this morning.
So this morning, it was more about suggesting the landscape in a more abstract form that will evoke different feelings. Rather than accurate describing the landscape as I have created mostly to date. Part of my question is that can both of these means of interpting the same landscape co-exist in a body of work or the same series? At the moment, I think so, as I can not think of a good reason why it can’t. This probably will create more of a challange to a viewer when seeing multiple ways of a feeling being expressed in the context of a series. I think that what I am trying to avoid is creating confusion or mental mush. This is part of the creative risk I believe that I need to confront.
I believe that this is my fear of being classified in any one school of visual thought. This in of it self also creates limits as to what a person can create and imposes boundaries on development. Not sure that I am ready for boundaries just yet:- )
This means that I must be getting nearer to understanding and subsequently writing my artistic statement for my Freeway series!
Best regards, Doug