I went to the graveyard this morning in search of white* and found, instead — blue, lavender, rose, dun, and periwinkle.
If one OPENS the aperture wide enough, a whitening occurs (an interesting metaphor for the heart), but even with a bleached-out composition, I find: blush, spring green, evergreen, gun metal grey, rose, silver, charcoal, brown, taupe, pale magenta, and blue.
So, I came home and placed an ewer on the snow (‘an ewer’?!!) Even having cropped out the purple shadow that extended off its lower right edge, look at how many shades of white and grey there are to appreciate!
White on white can mean that an object blends with its surround seamlessly. A joining of thing to ground.
White in all of its worn and buttery variations, above, can serve as a mat for a quilt-in-progress, where an ivory moon stakes a particular claim to purity.
And lastly, just in case you think I am taking myself too seriously, the Injuns that I periodically feature on this blog (and yes, when these plaster fellas were made, I’m sure they were ‘Injuns’) are a study in white, all in themselves, as they weather on the deck. Here they are, not in the most recent storm, but in the one before last.
I can’t help but think they are mocking me. In the nicest possible way, of course.
* This post responds to a query asked by Jude Hill in a class that I am taking online.
Back to the boards this morning. Garden not quite yet calling.
Sometimes the scale of these larger pieces overwhelms. Today I am liking the fact that progress is made piece by piece, section by section. There is nothing to do except to keep composing each section, viewing the recently-pieced area with the entirety, then tackling another section.
Day will be interrupted, as usual, with a doctor’s appt. Today’s involves a lot of driving. Next week is officially “No Appointment Week”!!
I’m taking a digital photography class and it is not only instructive, it is also provocative. Here are some questions raised by the last class:
Given the ease with which we can now crop photos in a graphics program (I use Photoshop Elements 3.0), is the old (film) requirement of composing a picture within the camera lens frame still relevant?
What about the idea that photos should be ‘found’ as opposed to ‘composed’? Along these lines, a famous photographer has stated that ‘70% of photography is moving the furniture’.
Why would moving stuff around PRIOR to taking a picture create a more legitimate photo than cropping a little AFTER taking a picture?
In deference to the idea that it might still somehow matter that a picture be composed at the moment of clicking, the three pictures in this post have been re-sized for the web, but not cropped or changed in any other way.
We had a snow day here in Newton. A good evening for kielbasa and potatoes! I had the white balance set to fluorescent for this picture. It was nighttime. The colors look pretty true.
This picture excites me because I actually managed to get the perforations in the colander in focus… this I could not do three weeks ago (my instructor actually said during this past week’s critique, “Do you wear your glasses when you take pictures?” A perfectly legitimate, information-seeking question). Now, it’s on to learning the Manual Focus!!
One last note. I am hoping to use picture-taking as an opportunity to pick apart notions of beauty. Must the gorgeous flowers have such ascendancy over the dirty dishes just because of what my mind says about each?