Previous stop: [[Stop Number 2767]] Next stop: [[Stop Number 2766]] ![[2632.jpg]] ## Notes This is the sort of picture which I think is just a little bit too cute. This is another one of those fussy compositions that I think were quite clever when I make them, but then after looking back at the image with plenty of weeks and months of retrospect, I just feel absolutely nothing whatsoever towards it. First of all, let me share some of the reasons why I do think this is a fussy and well composed image. If you ever choose to make an image like this, ensure that every straight line is perfectly straight. In order to call such careful attention to the tiny geometric details of the scene, and render it in a way which accentuates the straightness or un straightness of every part of the image, ensure that there are things which are rooted to the actual geometric precision of the image frame itself. So, in this image, we can see that the edge of the sidewalk is perfectly parallel to the bottom edge of the frame. We also see that the edge of the white wall is perfectly straight relative to the vertical edges of the frame. I think it’s also to highlight the fact that my camera was placed almost exactly the same plane as the wall which receives away from us and we cannot see in this picture. The way that this trick of the eye is accomplished is by the crack in the lower left side of the frame which points the eye in towards the vanishing point deep in the distance away from the viewer, in other words, if the camera moved to the right, we would still get a sharp vertical line where the white wall terminates, however, the concrete barrier separating the asphalt and the ground material on the right side of the frame would have an equivalent slant towards the vanishing point. What I mean is, the camera is pointed almost perfectly coaxially to the wall, with very little deviation to the right from the edge of the wall. I think this goes a long way to accentuate the sharpness of the wall itself. It achieves that fact of having the stairs in the more distant background basically lineup as a composition element directly on the edge of the wall. I think I got as close as I possibly could to the edge of the wall, even given that I was shooting this image freehand and just had the camera in open space with only my arms to control its exact position. Obviously, if I were using a tripod, it would be possible to make extremely minute adjustments until the camera was exactly in line with the edge of the wall. And what do I get in exchange for all this fussy composition? - First, like I said, I think the fussiness of this geometric arrangement of the different regions of the image calls significant attention to the ordering and irregularities of the items in the frame. The progression from concrete to grass to large stones to pebbles along the right side of the frame is a nice ordered progression of textures. The irregularities in the texture of the white brick can shine through because it exists almost in the field which a modernist painter would create. Yet, this is not white canvas or white paint, it’s a white-painted wall in the real world which has been photographed. So, the real-world blemishes are going to come through as well. - Though, without this effect being used in the service of anything specific, we’re left with a head-scratching question as to “why, why, why?” - If you’re not titillated by fine geometric compositions, your eye will begin searching through other parts of the frame for some meaning the photographer, myself, forgot to include. You end up looking at a whole mess on the left side of the frame. Uncertain yellow forms. Dumpsters. A smattering of cars. Blown out skies. Deeply out of focus, ugly, barren, winter trees. You move on from this brief, fruitless search for meaning in this partially neat composition. You say with a sigh “I must not get it” if you trust me as a photographer. If you don’t trust me as a photographer, you’ll just forget the whole thing and move onto something else. Or, if I’ve somehow offended you, you’ll sneer at my attempts to create an image that was worth your time and shake your fist at me, perhaps just a mental fist. As an aside, I think there are few things less photographically interesting (as a subject, as a texture in the background, as an idea) than an assortment of random cars. I basically understand that someone could identify with their car on a personal level. Yet, when you view a whole field of cars in aggregate, any semblance of personality and a connection between a person and a car disappear. I could see a parking lot with 10 cars and line up their ten drivers in a different order and probably fail to match them together dozens of times. Cars in aggregate are just a bunch of cars. This isn’t a value statement on anything or anyone- my family has two cars. I like the car I drive a lot. I know some people take great pride in maintaining their cars. I take great care in maintaining my own bikes, and I feel a lot of personal connection to the distinctiveness of the bikes I build for myself and ride. All I’m saying is that for as much as car manufacturers sell an idea of a lifestyle or a personality trait associated with a car, and they’ve been doing this for decades, a lineup of cars will always just be a disgusting mess in any image they’re featured in. I try to avoid cars as much as possible when making this series. I’ve included them intentionally in other images, but in this image and many others, I would gladly do away with all of them in my frames. ## Keywords - [[Asphalt]] - [[Car Vomit]] - [[Dead Tree]] - [[Fussy Composition]] - [[Trashcan]]