Here are the results of what I captured through photography, and editing it into a collage through Photoshop! I will now be stating and discussing the similarities and differences between these two opposing images. These differences range from the colour, shape, exposure and so many more factors of the image but most importantly, the interaction between these white “things” and nature (plants to trees).
In the first image, we immediately see the difference – the branches of the tree and the white “object”, which in this case is not an object but a living thing – a dog. It is easy to forget that living things are a part of nature but it is up to our mindset whether we want to be one with nature or not. Therefore, it is up to the viewer to decide whether the dog in this image is deemed as “nature” or deemed as a “white object”. A question during week six was addressed – “Why can’t humans and animals be considered as “collective forces of moving matter while water, sky, and wind can?”. This was the reoccurring question that made me ask myself why I chose this dog as the “subject” – we all have different perspectives of what constitutes nature but from the interpretation of the artist (myself), I believe that this image is contradictory itself as I believe that animals are closest to nature. However, it still follows the criteria of being “white” and as mentioned in previous posts, it is rare to find white in nature but it isn’t non-existent or impossible to search for. I can say with confidence that these two images are comparable when it comes to the topic of nature. The only differences are the physical characteristics which are immediately apparent to the viewer.
In this image, there is almost little to no similarities between this comparison. Among a clock and a flower, there is really nothing you can point out to what is identical. Unlike the previous photo, this is a prime example of a contrasting image – I wanted to not only include an ambiguous comparison (like the first image) but also a collage that was strikingly different even from the first look. We can clearly tell that the clock is something that is part of humans. Nature has no concept of time or numbers and therefore, this object immediately contrasts against the blooming, pink flower. The clock’s hard, rigid features sets it apart from the delicateness of the cherry blossom. It is also with the camera’s settings that differentiates these two images – the depth of field. The cherry blossom’s shallow depth of field adds more to the smoothness of the image, it is as if you can almost feel the texture of the flower because of how close you can see it. Overall, the difference is the main theme of this collage, while the similarities are almost little to none.
The final collage is in the middle of the murky waters of ‘similarities and differences’. It is unique from the other two because it is not too similar nor is it too different from one another. There is a perfect balance of difference and similarity between these two images – they both exude a soft impression whilst the other still shows some degree of sharpness such as the branches of the cherry blossoms. The colours are also both neutral, with only the pink standing out. Despite that, the most important aspect is for myself and the audience to be able to separate the two characteristics of these images, with it being a “white object” and a “foliage”.
Through this experiment, I successfully answered the question of what it is I saw when I used photography as a means of noticing. I was able to fully understand the differences between the white object versus the foliage and has especially helped me with understanding the two mediums of photography of videography.
The question that will shape my final experiment is,
What are the similarities between video and photography in the aspects of our world that you have noticed?
Lyreca.