My intention here was to expose the antithesis between the natural and the artificial. Nature prefers the seemingly complex structures, which reveal themselves as the results of very easy underlying priciples. Artificial things (i.e. "Arts"!!) have a much stronger clarity of lines, which is generated by much more complicated underlying principles.
When we see some object similar to the depicted tree we immediately know that it is a product of nature. When we see some "regular" object, say a cylinder made of stone, we immediately know that it is artificially made. It didn't "grow" in a natural way, but some person made it.
This is the very distinction of "arts" from anything else, this is its definition. This, and not any limited personal opinion about the "beautiful", which turns any own personal opinion more important than any other. I hope that the seriously interested will have time and will to explore arts theory beyond the mental bounds of any personal taste.
To the image itself now. I "inverted" the perhaps "expected" focus on the clearly shaped artificial object for adding more tension. The artificial is fuzzy which corresponds not to its lookings but to the underlying principles that gave birth to it. As a consequence of this, the natural should be sharply in focus.
The whole composition bother me a bit - something seems to be wrong here. Is it the above mentioned "inversion of the expected focus", or is it something else? Any opinions would be very welcome.
Oh, Doyle, just for the record and to make it absolutely clear, *I* am the one with the distorted thinking here. OK? I mean, what the heck? I play the guitar with such a distorted sound that at the end the distortion intruded my mind! ;-)
Thank you very much for your nice comment, Doyle. I thought that those windows might be "outside" the idea of naturalartificial, but it seems that they do not *distort* it that much. ;-)
Talking about distortion, hmmm... what would be a lens that distorts the visual the way the overdrive distorts the sound of a guitar? Now let me think and inform the lens manufacturers. I am sure they'll send their people to "distort" me but I can't resist that idea! ;-)
Great observation . . . but inherently what I consider to be obvious. Then again . . . I suspect it's not so commonly known but known by people like you and I because one of us is educated and one of us has distorted thinking! LoL!
As to the image . . . . it's perfectly composed. I'm not bothered in the least by it! And the tree was a PERFECT choice to illustrate your point!
0 
