Blossom Time

[Struan Gray]

In the entire history of the medium, has anyone ever seen a single worthwhile photograph of cherry blossom?

Time for a Haiku:


The cherry blossom
In my neighbour's garden - Oh!
It looks really nice.


Wendy Cope


Serious answers on a picture postcard please....

[Ash]

*blank expression*

[GPS]

In the entire history of the medium, has anyone ever seen a single worthwhile photograph of cherry blossom?
...


Why such pessimism? Have a look at Japanese calenders - you can always find worthwhile pictures of sakura blossoms there. Certainly better that the cited haiku. If not it's not the fault of calenders...

[Bruce Watson]

In the entire history of the medium, has anyone ever seen a single worthwhile photograph of cherry blossom?

Like this (http://www.achromaticarts.com/big_image.php?path=flowers&img_num=1)?

[Colin Graham]

I figure most people shouldn't be held accountable for their flower snaps due to the exuberance of spring. I hope I'm not anyway! ;)

[paulr]

Like this (http://www.achromaticarts.com/big_image.php?path=flowers&img_num=1)?

I think this image is a fine example of what Struan is lamenting.

Colin, I wouldn't hold anyone accountable for their private pleasures with a camera. I also wouldn't expect most of my own (including snaps of my cat) to have much impact on the history of the medium!

[Bruce Watson]

I think this image is a fine example of what Struan is lamenting.

I guess what we need then is a definition of "worthwhile."

I wasn't trying to make any kind of statement beyond showing the simple beauty of cherry blossoms. I'm often impressed at how most everyone walks right past a blooming cherry tree without even looking at it. I think it worthwhile to show them what they are missing. Maybe they'll take a look at the next set of blooms.

I can understand that for some people beauty for beauty's sake isn't worthwhile. I just disagree.

[Ralph Barker]

To photograph them well, you must become one with the cherry blossom, Grasshopper. Only by understanding its inner desires and yearnings can one understand its true significance. ;)

[paulr]

I guess what we need then is a definition of "worthwhile."

I like Robert Adams' idea from "Beauty in Photography" ...

He observes that most of us would prefer a half hour's time spent looking at Hopper's painting "Sunday Morning" to a half hour spent standing on the street depicted. With the help of Hopper's vision, we see more.

This is as good a definition as I can find of a worthwhile piece of art. A pretty picture can be a pretty picture, but it will usually be a pale immitation of what it depicts. And often it will be a second hand depiction ... one that reminds us primarily of other similar, familiar pictures.

Look at one of the cherry blossom pictures in question. Ask yourself what you'd prefer ... a half hour with the picture, or a half hour hanging out among the cherry trees?

And after you walk away from the picture, think of the experience of looking at it ... was it a fresh experience, that allowed you to experience those blossoms in a new way? or did it blend with countless other similar experiences of looking at countless other similar pictures?

[Ted Harris]

I want Spring and after we have it I will answer:)

[Oren Grad]

Lee Friedlander's stuff. In 35mm monochrome.

[Bruce Watson]

Look at one of the cherry blossom pictures in question. Ask yourself what you'd prefer ... a half hour with the picture, or a half hour hanging out among the cherry trees?

I'm not a fan of Robert Adams work or philosophy. His book Beauty in Photography has slowly but surely migrated to the far end of the bookshelf. I'm also not a big Hopper fan. Doesn't mean I think either Adams or Hopper are bad, just that I'd probably fail that 30 minute test with both of them.

That said, I would almost always rather spend the time outside with the subjects in question. It doesn't matter whether it's one of Thomas Moran's huge canvases of the Grand Canyon (and I am a huge Moran fan), Monet's water lilies, or Adams' Clearing Winter Storm at Yosemite Valley. You can't smell the fragrances, feel the breeze, or hear the sounds from paintings or photographs.

That we can't go there and experience the scene when we want to is part of what makes art interesting IMHO. Art can be a window that allows us to see without having to be there. It can further allow us to feel some small bit of what the artist was feeling when he/she was there making the photograph. If we're lucky and the work resonates with us, it can induce us to recall the smell of the cherry blossoms and the feel of the breeze in our faces.

For me, a better test than Robert Adams test of 30 mintes with the art, or 30 minutes on the scene, is this: Does the art make you care enough about the scene to want to visit it and experience it for yourself?

Part of what I wanted to show with those nasty cherry blossoms was the way they progress from buds to fully open blossoms. The image I have only looks like that for a few hours. The odds of anyone seeing it look like that are quite low. The impression I was hoping to make with the image was along the lines of "see how beautiful this is, and see what you missed." And I hope that next time cherry blossom season arrives people will be inspired to go out and experience the cherry trees for themselves.

Maybe it doesn't work for people. Maybe no one is inspired. That's the risk one takes in putting it out there for other people to see. But even if it fails to move anyone to want to experience cherry trees, does that mean it's not worthwhile?

[GPS]

That's a good point, Bruce. The more beauty I see in a picture the more I'd like to see it in the reality. If for nothing else at least to see if I could see it in the reality too...

[paulr]

I think of Weston's peppers. What would be a more profound experience ... looking at the photograph, or at the original vegetable (before it got tossed into the salad)? Or his picture of the dead flamingo? What about Strand's photos of shapes and shadows, or the great one of the crowds walking past the JP Morgan Bank? Walker Evans' pictures of people inside subway cars? Kertezs' picture of the man under water in the pool?

It seems that many the pictures that don't pass this test fall into the category that Weston mockingly called "ain't nature grand" photography ... a friendly jab aimed at his buddy Ansel. I think the observation highlights a weakness of the genre ... the great difficulty of the art actually succeeding at what art is supposed to do: transcend its subject matter.

[GPS]

Beauty transcends the subject matter.

[paulr]

Beauty transcends the subject matter.

I think so, too. It's something implicit in the Rob Adams idea cited above.

[tim atherton]

Beauty transcends the subject matter.

but there are plenty of times it fails to transcend the photograph

[GPS]

On the other hand, whatever the transcendence, I would rather be with the young nice girl than just looking 1/2 hr at her picture...

[GPS]

but there are plenty of times it fails to transcend the photograph

That's why to go there to see would be better...

[tim atherton]

and I'd have to agree:

http://www.photoeye.com/templates/mShowDetailsbycat.cfm?Catalog=DP595

along with Atget's (apple) blossoms

[Oren Grad]

Tim - thanks for posting that link. There are also a few samples in the Friedlander book in the Photo Poche series.

[GPS]

Oh, Japan! Nowhere can I see a nation more dedicated to the art of beauty.

[tim atherton]

Tim - thanks for posting that link. There are also a few samples in the Friedlander book in the Photo Poche series.

there was a 1970's? or so book of his which had a lot in, but that's hard to find and probably cost $800.00 or something now!

Fraenkel Gallery published this a year or two ago

It's a funky mix - neon covers, classic Friedlander limited scale b&w prints and it changes format - horizontal starting at one end vertical at the other - doesn't really have a back or a front

and of course most of the pictures are wonderful... (goes nicely with the book Apples & Olives I think it is)

[paulr]

On the other hand, whatever the transcendence, I would rather be with the young nice girl than just looking 1/2 hr at her picture...

Have you ever spent 30 minutes with a professional model?

Not to make rude generalizations, but I've met some women who had the uncanny ability to talk away some startlingly beautiful faces. Thankfully photography, unlike nature, is mute.

As far as the blossoms go, Mr. Friedlander decisively answers the original question. And yes, I'd rather have a half hour with his book than with any of the cherry trees I've ever strolled past.

[GPS]

Have you ever spent 30 minutes with a professional model?
...


It's most definitely not there that I would be looking for beauty..!

[GPS]

...
As far as the blossoms go, Mr. Friedlander decisively answers the original question. And yes, I'd rather have a half hour with his book than with any of the cherry trees I've ever strolled past.

Why? Are you unable to see what he saw in the cherry trees? But then - look more at the trees than at the book.

[tim atherton]

Why? Are you unable to see what he saw in the cherry trees? But then - look more at the trees than at the book.

art transcends the object

[GPS]

art transcends the object

Only because the beauty transcends it.

[GPS]

In the entire history of the medium, has anyone ever seen a single worthwhile photograph of cherry blossom?
...


And that of any blossom? Have you?

[paulr]

Why? Are you unable to see what he saw in the cherry trees? But then - look more at the trees than at the book.

I do see what he saw in the cherry trees. I see it with the help of his photographic vision.

His photographs aren't copies of the trees; they're new creations, formed and ordered by a remarkable convergence of the phtographic language and Friedlander's unique sensibility and visual wit.

This is why someone with a vision like Friedlander's can go so far beyond the cheap imitations of nature so common in calendars and postcards.

My own time with the cherry trees would likely be pleasant, but unless I found myself curious enough about them to start exploring with my own camera, bringing my own vision to bear, the experience would be a simple, passive pleasure. Nothing wrong with that .. in fact i'll take it any day over being chained to this computer ... but looking at something and saying "wow, that's pretty!" usually doesn't stretch me as far as looking at collection of great art.

On a related note, when I'm in natural settings that move me powerfully (great mountains, the desert, etc.) I'm more inclined to experience them without a camera. These are places that I'm not usually compelled to photograph. I can't bring anything to them ... they are already complete and they already invite contemplation. I tend to photograph places where the beauty is less apparent ... places that require some work on my part to find my place within them. In a sense I don't feel up to the task of photographing the grandeur of nature. I don't want to just add to the endless piles of redundant postcards.

[GPS]

One doesn't exclude the other - we are looking there where we see the source of the beauty. Happy are those who see it around themselves even without a picture. And happy are those who can show it with their pictures.

[Bruce Watson]

I think of Weston's peppers. What would be a more profound experience ... looking at the photograph, or at the original vegetable (before it got tossed into the salad)? Or his picture of the dead flamingo? What about Strand's photos of shapes and shadows, or the great one of the crowds walking past the JP Morgan Bank? Walker Evans' pictures of people inside subway cars? Kertezs' picture of the man under water in the pool?

It seems that many of the pictures that don't pass this test fall into the category that Weston mockingly called "ain't nature grand" photography ... a friendly jab aimed at his buddy Ansel. I think the observation highlights a weakness of the genre ... the great difficulty of the art actually succeeding at what art is supposed to do: transcend its subject matter.

We've gone from "worthwhile" to "fine art" which is a whole different discussion.

If you want to shift the discussion to "what is art," I think it should be noted that what constitutes art is still in the eye of the beholder. What some consider art, others do not. This is the same in all forms of art and isn't limited to just photography, although photography seems especially plagued by this, for lack of a better word, divisiveness. Perhaps it is because photography in general tends to be hyper representational. I don't know.

It occurs to me that one reason Weston's peppers succeeded as well as they did is because he abstracted them out of their context. He was overtly looking at peppers as "art objects." This isn't possible when the photograph is of the context, such as Ansel's Clearing Winter Storm. This makes me think that perhaps one of Weston's objections to Adams work was that it just wasn't abstract enough for him; that it was too anchored in reality. Just my speculation.

For me, much of Adams' work does manage to transcend it's subjects. I find much of it to be art. I have more problems with some of Weston's work. His dead bird for one. But that's just me, it doesn't say anything about what is art and what is not.

[Struan Gray]

Bruce, I like your blossom, but as blossom, not as a photograph.

I posted because I have been thinking about cliches, kitsch and the way great art makes you think again. Also because my day job currently involves churning out a great deal of Brussels Bullshit and I needed a break.

There are some subjects which are so pre-packaged, so predictable in the response they engender, that it takes a Friedlander to make you look again. The challenge, for those of us who are not Friedlander, is to think about ways of making cherry blossom personal. To make the photograph worth more than its title.

Like Paul, I can't see ways to make Grand Nature photographically interesting. It's cherry blossom writ large. I wish I could, and I think the struggle to do so tells me interesting things about myself and the world I live in. I would settle for beauty, but all I get is pretty.

[paulr]

We've gone from "worthwhile" to "fine art" which is a whole different discussion.

No, I haven't made any leap of subject. I'm talking about what's worthwhile. For me this has to do with whether or not an image contributes some way to how I see or feel things, rather than just adding to the vast, redundant piles of similar images. What makes something "fine art" is indeed a different conversation, but what makes something a worthwile piece off fine art is the same as far as i'm concerned.



It occurs to me that one reason Weston's peppers succeeded as well as they did is because he abstracted them out of their context. He was overtly looking at peppers as "art objects." This isn't possible when the photograph is of the context, such as Ansel's Clearing Winter Storm. This makes me think that perhaps one of Weston's objections to Adams work was that it just wasn't abstract enough for him; that it was too anchored in reality. Just my speculation.

I don't think this is it at all. For one thing, those peppers were clearly peppers, even while standing as shining examples of abstraction. In Weston's own words, "A pepper, but more than a pepper ...". And for another thing, look at Weston's own evolution. He steadily moved away from close, tight, formal modernist abstractions to landscape. His later landscapes in many cases are less formal and abstract than Clearing Winter Storm (which I think is actually a very strong image from the standpoint of formal abstraction--take a couple of steps back from it).

Weston was commenting on images that were about drama, and little else. A shallow well to draw on, from his perspective (and from mine as well). This doesn't describe all of Ansel's work, but rather work from some of his periods, including some of his most popular.



For me, much of Adams' work does manage to transcend it's subjects.

I agree. Weston's comment was about the pictures that weren't so sucessful. And I suspect he'd say similar things about pictures of cherry blossoms that succeed at illustration, drama, or prettiness, but not much else.

[Bruce Watson]

No, I haven't made any leap of subject. I'm talking about what's worthwhile. For me this has to do with whether or not an image contributes some way to how I see or feel things, ...

The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. -- Dorothea Lange

I made that photograph of cherry blossoms because it helped me to actually see the cherry blossoms for what they are. It helped me get past just the pretty picture phase and obtain a better understanding of the cherry. This is very worthwhile.

I'm using the Webster definition of the term since you won't supply a definition. That is: "being worth the time or effort spent." Nowhere does it make any connection with fine art.

It's not just splitting hairs. If the OP had asked for world class fine art, I would surely not have posted. I have never intended nor claimed to be an artist of the calibre of Friedlander. If that's the yardstick, then I fail. But so do you. So do we all, except for a handful of exceptional artists. So what? That doesn't invalidate any of our attempts.


I don't think this is it at all. For one thing, those peppers were clearly peppers, even while standing as shining examples of abstraction.

I disagree. Some of the lesser peppers are clearly peppers, but the more successful ones invoke nudes, dance, and other things depending on the individual viewer. I don't see them as clearly peppers. So for me, some of Weston's peppers transcend the subject more than for you.


...look at Weston's own evolution. He steadily moved away from close, tight, formal modernist abstractions to landscape.

I see Weston as being on a steady path to post-modernism. He went from seeing the beauty of nature to seeing the ugliness of what humans do to nature. Not a path I'm interested in, but it was the path he was interested in.


His later landscapes in many cases are less formal and abstract than Clearing Winter Storm (which I think is actually a very strong image from the standpoint of formal abstraction -- take a couple of steps back from it).

Gosh, thanks teach.

It's clear at this stage that you and I don't see the same way and aren't trying to accomplish the same things. We don't even share the same definitions. And I wouldn't have it any other way. Diversity of opinion can only be good for art.

[Bruce Watson]

Straun, it's OK not to like it. I find it interesting to have to defend a photograph that is far from my favorite, but it is my only cherry blossom photograph. If I were really interested in chasing cherry trees and making excellent art with cherry trees, I'd be finding a way to be in Japan and/or China every spring (and every fall too). Where I am, cherry blossoms go from buds to the gutter in just a few days, and the trees don't live long enough (winters not cold enough) to get truely gnarly and interesting. So what I'm interested in is their beauty and their brevity.

Like I told Mr. R, had I known that you wanted world class fine art, I wouldn't have posted. I have no illusions of being compared to Friedlander, Weston, or Ansel Adams. I don't know anyone who would be comfortable with those comparisons!

Still, we ended up with an interesting discussion about art. Nothing wrong with that even if no minds got changed.

[paulr]

I see Weston as being on a steady path to post-modernism. He went from seeing the beauty of nature to seeing the ugliness of what humans do to nature. Not a path I'm interested in, but it was the path he was interested in.

Are his later California landscapes examples of ugliness? Postmodernism? What about his latest work at Point Lobos?

And is 'the ugliness of what humans do to nature' related to postmodernism?

[Lightbender]

I like Robert Adams' idea from "Beauty in Photography" ...

He observes that most of us would prefer a half hour's time spent looking at Hopper's painting "Sunday Morning" to a half hour spent standing on the street depicted. With the help of Hopper's vision, we see more.

This is as good a definition as I can find of a worthwhile piece of art. A pretty picture can be a pretty picture, but it will usually be a pale immitation of what it depicts. And often it will be a second hand depiction ... one that reminds us primarily of other similar, familiar pictures.


You contradicted yourself there.

In response to the OP, I'm sure there are excellent images around if you look. And if you still cant find anything you like go out and shoot your own. Inpire us with your unique vision of what a cherry blossom is supposed to be presented.

[tim atherton]

---Quote (Originally by paulr)---
I like Robert Adams' idea from "Beauty in Photography" ...

He observes that most of us would prefer a half hour's time spent looking at Hopper's painting "Sunday Morning" to a half hour spent standing on the street depicted. With the help of Hopper's vision, we see more.

This is as good a definition as I can find of a worthwhile piece of art. A pretty picture can be a pretty picture, but it will usually be a pale immitation of what it depicts. And often it will be a second hand depiction ... one that reminds us primarily of other similar, familiar pictures.---End Quote---

You contradicted yourself there.

Huh?

[Lightbender]

Paulr references here that the painting is better than the actual place:
"prefer a half hour's time spent looking at Hopper's painting"
But then states here that a painting or photo is usually not as good as the truth:
"but it will usually be a pale immitation of what it depicts."

This brings up a good question: can a peice of art be better than reality?

Well many commonplace things can be beautiful and or meaningful. I'd like to think that a good peice of art shows us what is profound about something. Maybee its a flower or a street or a beach or a person. An artist shows us something important that we may miss otherwise. But as far as which is better: art or reality? who knows?

[paulr]

Paulr references here that the painting is better than the actual place:
"prefer a half hour's time spent looking at Hopper's painting"
But then states here that a painting or photo is usually not as good as the truth:
"but it will usually be a pale immitation of what it depicts."


Try reading it again. That's exactly the distinction I was making (Adams, too) ... between work that lets us see more profoundly than seeing the subject matter first hand, and work that doesn't.

[tim atherton]

Paulr references here that the painting is better than the actual place:
"prefer a half hour's time spent looking at Hopper's painting"
But then states here that a painting or photo is usually not as good as the truth:
"but it will usually be a pale immitation of what it depicts."

This brings up a good question: can a peice of art be better than reality?

Well many commonplace things can be beautiful and or meaningful. I'd like to think that a good piece of art shows us what is profound about something. Maybee its a flower or a street or a beach or a person. An artist shows us something important that we may miss otherwise. But as far as which is better: art or reality? who knows?

no - in the second clause he says "A pretty picture can be a pretty picture, but it will usually be a pale imitation of what it depicts."

in this context - i.e. the worthwhile piece of art - pretty is not a good thing. It's an aspect of what leads to just what Paul describes - the work not being as good as what it describes and a pale imitation.

[Lightbender]

"Try reading it again. That's exactly the distinction I was making (Adams, too) ... between work that lets us see more profoundly than seeing the subject matter first hand, and work that doesn't."

Ok, am i correct in my understanding of the point you were trying to make?: Reality is better than a poor representation, but that a good peice of art can be better than reality. Corect?

Darin

[tim atherton]

I've just been reading something on looking at contemporary art and a couple of folk suggested I link to a blogpost on it

http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/04/looking-at-pictures.html

(I'm still reading the book - if I find any more interesting passages, I'll pass them along)

[QT Luong]

That we can't go there and experience the scene when we want to is part of what makes art interesting IMHO. Art can be a window that allows us to see without having to be there. It can further allow us to feel some small bit of what the artist was feeling when he/she was there making the photograph. If we're lucky and the work resonates with us, it can induce us to recall the smell of the cherry blossoms and the feel of the breeze in our faces.

For me, a better test than Robert Adams test of 30 mintes with the art, or 30 minutes on the scene, is this: Does the art make you care enough about the scene to want to visit it and experience it for yourself?



I think that's a goal worthwhile enough. It's OK for me if the result is more about the subject than about myself. Maybe this will change, but for now I don't see myself as being that interesting. That's also OK if others have done the same. Maybe this will change, but for now I don't see myself as someone that unique in everything he does. I'd rather pursue that goal than holding off on those images just because it was pursuing something more worthwhile, but that I may not be able to attain.

[paulr]

Ok, am i correct in my understanding of the point you were trying to make?: Reality is better than a poor representation, but that a good peice of art can be better than reality. Corect?Darin

"Better than reality" might be stretching the idea a bit. I'd be more inclined to say that a good piece of art can help us see more profoundly, or with more clarity, than direct experience of the subject.

Art can do this by finding form in something aparently chaotic, by finding connections between things aparently disparate, by finding value, meaning, or power in something aparently mundane. It might find the universal in something aparently small and specific. It might find the beauty in something aparently ugly, or merely prettty. Or maybe these are all different ways of talking about the same thing. The common thread is that the art allows us to see more.

If it doesn't ... then maybe the art hasn't succeeded. Or maybe it's because you already see more than the artist does, and you should be taking the pictures ;)

[paulr]

I also don't want to suggest that questioning the value of an image is the same as questioning the value of making it. For a lot of people the process is the most important thing. Or in some cases the final product will have a lot of personal value, but it won't connect with other people. Some of my personal favorite pictures are ones that other people don't like ... in these cases I succeeded in making something nice for myself, but not in making an image that can hold up on its own in the world.

But if we're going to get into the definition of "worthwhile," we should ask Struan what he meant. He started this.

[Lightbender]

I disagree with much of what I read on the website. Tho I dont have the whole book to comment on it thouroughly.

Memorability:
"One of the ways I've discovered is memorably. If you look and can remember, a day, a week, a month later, the way it's made, the way the forms fit, the color-message of the pictures, then it's probably good."
I dont think that whether or not you remember something makes it good art. I cant tell you how much i hate it when a jingle from a radio commercial gets stuck in my head. (BY... MEN-EN) Does that make radio jingles good art? NO! Generally, one will probably remember something simple, like the chorus of a song. But that leaves out many things that are complex. Remembering the tune is far different from hearing the entire orchestra. Another example, I can distinctly remember M.C. Eschers self-portrait of his reflection in a sphere. However I cant quite envision his perspective-wrenching labrynth with rolly-pollys. I remember the vanishing points and the rolly-pollys but the layout of the labrynth escapes me. Does that mean that one is better than the other?

Narrative:
"The work of art must continue to reveal new messages and images on subsequent viewings, and not exhaust itself in what I call the Big Bang, revealing everything to you the first time you see it and then having a lessening impact each time subsequent."
While I agree that a good piece of art should continue to be enjoyable throughout time, I dont think that you need to see new things in it each time you experience it.
Where is it written that one will get bored with a visual experience after 100 views?

Something New:
"The best summing up of what in the contemporary art of any period is so exciting is the Ezra Pound paraphrase of Confucius - Make it new. Make is to fashion. It is tradition, or the craft, the history. And new is... make it new, constantly, make it new. If the artist makes it new, then we're going to have to chase to catch up with it, or, it may be mere novelty. If the it, the craft, dominates to such an extent that it makes it difficult to see the contemporary content, the it might take a while longer to catch up. But make it new."
I also disagree with this. Just because someone does something new does not make it artistic. If i jumped from a building and splatted onto a canvas, would that be art because no one has ever done it before? i remeber from my college art class that an architect proposed building a a giant toilet bowl plunger in a river in london. Would that be art? Modern artists are relly in a bind now, because so much has allready been done before, what now can be considered new?


... Hey what happened to this thread... why did it degrade from cherry blossoms to the meaning of art?

[tim atherton]

I dont think that whether or not you remember something makes it good art. I cant tell you how much i hate it when a jingle from a radio commercial gets stuck in my head.

not everything that hooks into your memory is good. But if something is described as art and it doesnt do that in some way, it's probably not very good art

Where is it written that one will get bored with a visual experience after 100 views?

if it's the same old superficial visual experience, here...

I also disagree with this. Just because someone does something new does not make it artistic.

what's the point in making something old (and hackneyed)?

[Struan Gray]

Straun, it's OK not to like it.

I do like it. It's just that I like it in a different way to the way I like Friedlander's cherry blossoms. Horses for courses. You'll have to take it on trust that for me the distinction is a catagorisation more than a value judgement. I'll admit to a touch of rhetoric in my original post, but nobody ever replies to sensible, quietly-asked questions.

Your photo does not exist in a vacuum. Your serious intent, and craft and diligence, are up against a million snapshooters who plonk their girlfriend under the tree and click off a few frames simply because that's what one does. Straightforward sincerity on your part ends up looking dangerously like bathos, through no fault of your own. Wendy Cope's Haiku is a deliberately bathetic comment on just this process.

Words and pictures have connotations beyond the literal or the dictionary definition. Chilean exiles know that as of a couple of years ago, if they want to get their message across they have to find a new way of talking about the eleventh of September. Among themselves the raw date still suffices, but in the wider culture the rules are different.

[David A. Goldfarb]

The cherry blossoms
Take vengeance for the cameras
Hewn from their branches

[Struan Gray]

David, I'm in awe.

Or is it awwwww?

One of the contemporary photography blogs had a link to a photographer with several images of cars covered in fallen blossom. They had the same faint touch of amoral menace. I have of course lost the link.

[paulr]

The cherry blossoms
Take vengeance for the cameras
Hewn from their branches

what more can be said?

[Bruce Watson]

The cherry blossoms
Take vengeance for the cameras
Hewn from their branches

Nice. Makes me glad I use an aluminum camera!