Grass seeds, Scott Creek Conservation Park, South Australia.
Negative split tone image.
“Nature is not conceptual, it’s real”, and “Photography is about the object”, and “Art is Beautiful”…all maxims of modern photography.
But think about this: if there was no grass seeds, there would be no wheat and no rice, in fact no grain crops at all. If there were no grain crops, there would be no cities supported by the crops. If there were no cities there would be no modern civilisation, and if there was no modern civilisation, there would be no Art.
It can therefore be said that grass seeds are a precondition for the existence of Art.
This statement is conceptual, and therefore the grass seed photo is conceptual, even though it is beautiful. Clearly the beauty is secondary to this meaning as the meaning affects so many more people, and therefore the photo is about meaning rather than the object.
Therefore the maxims of modern photography are all incorrect, or are they?:::
The aparent paradox is that I knew this before I took the photo, and that I framed, and composed it to speak this message: “The splendour (of both ideas and nature and art) in the grass”, noting of course that ideas and art are part of nature, as is everything else created by homo sapiens. But someone might say: “But isn’t it: the human idea: that partially makes it beautiful?”…and I’d have to respond in the affirmative.
I ask you all to think about this before commenting again.