Or, perhaps, a reply that is too strongly influenced by mathematics. You know, once you fall into that kind strange attractor you never get out again ;-)
The maturity of which you talked is indeed one of the main ingredients for work that does not only present a moment in time but contains much more for thinking and for discussion. Of course when starting with photography (or any other kung fu) it is the simpler studies that we all have to do. Much like learning the ABC prior to learning how to write good essays. But we should indeed continue to more subtle things beyond the mere capturing of "beautiful things".
This process pressumably has no end but this is very good! This way we have always much to learn, which keeps the whole process interesting and fascinating. Indeed, such discussions activate our abilities in a much higher degree than the simple comments about the nice colors of some petals of flowers ;-)
For the time being, Rina, you will not find much "ususual" stuff in my work, but soon I'll be posting the more subtle photos - and some of them are really... oh well, you will see for yourself.
Thank you for putting my thoughts in yet another direction - still thinking about the mere "delivery of chaos". What an interesting idea!
Let's hope that the family album mentality will not take all over ;-) But as long as people like Pan Giannakis keep on posting here, the above hope can be taken as a given fact.
I have yet to develop the skill - or maturity, if you will - in which I am able to communicate much more than merely 'a moment in time' in a photograph. Which is why I look to the unusual (and sometimes, the seemingly mundane) in an attempt to explore and in the process, learn.
I thank you for allowing me glimpse into your thought processes. It is through discussions like these that one can hope to transcend simply stock photography and family/holiday snapshots.
I shall look to you work as time permits, which unfortunately, is not often I'm afraid.
Hi Rina and so many thanks for the great comment and the detailed description of how you perceive the image.
For images that have abstract elements, there is pressumably an infite number of ways to "analyze" them because the interpretation is matter of the very personal way in which our perception works. It is very good to try to walk in the shoes of the photographer but still these shoes are not exactly the shoes of the photographer but rather what the spectator *thinks* them to be. And this is even better since it allows interpretations that even the photographer wouldn't think of. Exposing such interpretations is the start of exchange of views which seems to influence one another in a very fruitable way. Not only that a single photo contains as many images as the number of spectators but also these images interact with each other through exhange of interpretations - a multi-objective reality if you wish.
My strongest reason for capturing this was the special kind of chaos that appears quite often in nature and that we seem to "like" very much. Such views seem to generate in us the feeling of the "natural". A kind of chaos that is not only completely chaotic - if it were completely chaotic we would see here only a very homogenous distribution of wood in the air. Much more than this this kind of chaos gives birth to recognizable self-similar structures, fractals, one of the most fascinating domains of modern mathematics. Though there appears to be no special reason for a certain distribution of branches and though one would expect them to grow in some way that no recognizable pattern is generated, we still see that nature prefers to arrange things in a way that such self-similar things are generated. Another example of a self-similar structure would be a coastline, or the stripes on the skin of a zebra. So, the difficulty to analyze such an image might be connected to the question "Why on earth do we find such patterns interesting?" And an even more difficult question: "Why are such structures recognizable at all?" You see, there is not a single zebra skin pattern but each animal has its own, and still we can say "a zebra" when we see a single representative of such a pattern.
Still, it is the honest thoughts, as you say, that are best suited for exhanging minds in such matters. Now I have to ask myself - did I wish to deliver chaos, and if so why? Many thanks again for the initiation of yet another thread of thoughts in my mind!
When I look at images, I like to put myself behind the photographer's lens. To see what they see and maybe to try and feel a little of what they were feeling/thinking when they composed the shot. Putting myself in their shoes and imagining I took the shot. What do I want to say? Show? Make others feel? Think?
This image, by far, is the most difficult I've ever encountered to analyse. While a see the complex system of branches and the chaos, I cannot seem to make any other worthy personal connection.
But maybe I have made the connection. In the sense that I understand, perhaps, it was your intention to simply deliver the chaos and nothing more. And at least force the viewer to stop, think and maybe lend an honest thought.
Thanks a lot for the nice comment, Salvador, and the info about that opera. A nice connection!
Indeed there are many different chaotic systems. Those which we find appealing often possess what is called "self-similarity" in mathematics. The parts o which such systems consist are not exact but similar smaller copies of the system. The parts of the parts are similar tothe parts. And so on up to some certain degree of division.
Interesting to know that in mathematics there are self-similar objects that continue in this way... for ever. That is, you can zoom in as much as you like and you always see a more or less similar picture. As an example I attach a small journey through the Mandelbrot set. One could consider it to have some own kind of harmony....
Chaos, Nick, but with a "recondita armonía", as it is said in the opera Tosca (1th act), a chaotic armmony, or an armonic chaos. And overall a very suggesting image. Congratulations. Best regards, Salvador
0 
