Category: Following One’s Passion

  • Art work: “Depth of Tulip Field”

    Depth Of Tulip Field F Brochure Whole

    (Catalogue #100_5644-5730: 44โ€ x 66โ€ – edition of 100)

    The human eye is an amazing gift, tool, and experience. The power of the brain behind it takes seeing to mesmerizing capabilities. Take focusing for example. My Left Eye 100_0002cThat part of the image in the centre of our field of vision is in sharp focus (excepting for long- and short- sightedness), and the rest of the image gets progressively out of focus – the further away from the centre we go. But we are usually not aware of this. Anything we scan our eyes over becomes instantly sharp. The fact is we are constantly re-focusing as we scan a scene. If we are looking at one part of a scene it is in sharp focus. We may not even be aware that the rest is out of focus, because no sooner have we moved our eyes to something else, then that new part becomes immediately in focus.

    Focus has a few noteworthy properties. The closer we try to focus, the shallower the depth of focus is. If you hold your hand in front of your face and focus on it, even things just in front of it (try placing a finger of your other hand in front of your hand without looking directly at it), and things immediately behind it will be out of focus โ€“ i.e. blurred. This is a โ€œshallowโ€ depth of focus – or depth of field as it is more commonly known in photography. The further away the subject is the greater is the focus depth โ€“ the region from the nearest to the furthest part in focus. The focus range is invariably perpendicular to our eye view.

    The camera acts like a static eye in that it can capture one static scene and its inherent depth of field. It is unlike the eye in one important respect: we focus on a narrow zone where our two eyes converge, and outside this area โ€“ left, right, up or down โ€“ but at the same distance from our eyes โ€“ things become progressively more out of focus the further away from the centre of our gaze they are. The camera on the other hand focuses on planes. Think of double glazing: the zone between the two pieces of glass is in focus, everything in front and behind are out of focus. As always with focus, there are no sharp boundaries between in and out of focus โ€“ just very sharp to progressively less sharp. However, there is a general area where most people would agree is an acceptable level of sharpness โ€“ enough to say itโ€™s in focus.

    Depth of field can be controlled by the diameter of the iris or aperture: the smaller the aperture the greater is the depth of field. But the aperture can only affect depth of field to a small degree. What also applies to the camera is the phenomenon that the closer the subject is, the shallower the depth of field. There are special cameras/lenses that offer a tilting mechanism that allow you to literally tilt the plane of focus, but these are only effective with flat surfaces โ€“ like a road or a lake. Anything in the foreground sticking up or down โ€“ rising above or below the narrow horizontal plane of focus โ€“ like my tulips – would appear out of focus.

    Why am I rambling on about depth of field? When you are confronted with a real life scene you can survey it at your leisure, and it is something we all seem to enjoy. We seem to love being able to see a long way, and climbing/driving to the top of a hill or mountain to see a great view is a common goal we nearly all like to do. Taking a static image of such a scene โ€“ from our toes to the horizon – is virtually impossible, especially if there is fast movement in the scene as well.

    What has all this got to do with art? If art is about enhancing the viewerโ€™s experience of life, getting the viewer to think about their surroundings, and their perceptions and pre-conceptions of it, then โ€œDepth Of Tulip Fieldโ€ is very much art.

    I use photography a great deal because Iโ€™m so moved by reality, and a lot of what I want to convey about my perceptions, pre-conceptions, and ideas about reality I feel are best expressed by being as realistic as possible. Iโ€™m completely in awe of vision โ€“ it is the most amazing gift. When I see a beautiful scene Iโ€™m frustrated as an artist that I cannot transport you there to see it also. So much art is about non-reality, disfiguring reality, or making attempts at copying reality โ€“ with varying degrees of success. But reality cannot be faithfully copied โ€“ it has near and far properties, and we can interact with it in almost an infinite number of ways โ€“ moving to different parts of it, zooming in to any level of detail. And realityโ€™s main quality is, I feel, the freedom we have to look at it in any way we choose.

    At a scene we can scan and focus on anything we please, and that is the real delight I want to capture. Conventional photography pre-focuses for you on a static focal plane. Depth Of Tulip Field F Bruchure Flying BeeThe photographer has to decide what he/she wants you to focus on โ€“ that is what he/she wants to focus on themselves, and they capture that in stone as it were. You are not free to focus on what you want. That is not necessarily a criticism โ€“ indeed it may well be the intention. But in this case my intention is that you should be free to look at any part of the picture in great detail โ€“ as I had the pleasure of doing.

    The conventional artist โ€“ oil painter for example – is severely limited by the materials she uses, and by time. Whilst she doesnโ€™t have the same limitations of depth of field, close up daubs of paint look like daubs of paint. And what would the point of meticulously copy reality anyway in this day and age of photography? The best youโ€™ll ever achieve is a photograph. If Vermeer or Ingres (two of the best detailed artist I know of) were around today, would they reject photography and paint? Depth Of Tulip Field Brochure ButterflyWas it the process of painting they enjoyed or were they trying to capture something they considered beautiful, captivating, worthy of putting on a pedestalโ€ฆ?

    In Depth Of Tulip Field I have gone to enormous lengths to share the freedom of focus I enjoyed on a fateful trip in Norfolk, England. It was early morning, the date was spring 2004, I was driving along and suddenly this amazing field of tulips appeared. The field was huge and the rows ran perpendicular to the road. A striking feature was the bands of brilliant colours. The sun was not out fully (it was burning up the morning mist), and it was at the wrong angle anyway (aesthetically) – so I decided to come back later in the afternoon (the forecast was for sun).

    When I returned I went to the far end of the field with the sun shining at me โ€“ I love the sun shinning through plants โ€“ it really brings out their colour. I spent quite a while admiring the scene and wondering how best to shoot it โ€“ how to do it justice. I had all the main types of cameras, numerous lenses, and other equipment with me – so I had very few technical limitations on what I could do. The field was wonderfully long. I didnโ€™t want to crop it. I didnโ€™t want to focus on one part of it. I wanted it all. Eventually I came up with an idea and proceeded to execute itโ€ฆ

    There are a lot of different types of birds, insects, and other animals in this picture, but that is only to draw your attention to the fact that there were none! This field โ€“ due to modern chemically assisted intensive farming methods โ€“ was a veritable desert of life! Everything was either dead (killed by โ€œpesticidesโ€ โ€“ implying they are pests – probably a propaganda ploy by the agrichemical companies) or the wildlife stays away โ€“ perhaps because there is no natural food there and/or because it is such an alien landscape to them and they have no natural cover. Depth Of Tulip Field Brochure DeerI did actually see the hare and the deer running through the field โ€“ sadly they were fleeing from a near by gun shot blast โ€“ I donโ€™t think it was their natural choice to be there. But it gave me an ideaโ€ฆ

    Most landscape paintings donโ€™t depict this level of detail, and many animals in the wild are very elusive โ€“ indeed a lot of the time their survival depends on them not being seen. So often they are there but you just donโ€™t see them. But for me this is what is fascinating about Nature: it is everywhere. The more you look, the more you see. And the closer you look the more detail you see. You can start with looking at a whole landscape (even my depiction of the tulip field is a small section of the whole), and you can zoom in on a field, then a flower in the field, then an insect on a flower in the field, and see the amazing detail of it. Zooming in still further, you can see the hairs on its body, its compound eye, the structure of its wings. Zooming in on the eye reveals its conical hexagonal lens structure. You can go on to see the structure of the cones, the cells that make it, the internal structure of the cells, the structure of its proteins, the atoms that make up the molecules, the structure of the atom โ€“ its subatomic particles. And who knows where this journey ends in ever smaller worldsโ€ฆ?

    I have kept the detail in the picture to what you could see with the naked eye, but I hope Iโ€™ve got my point across about the detail in Nature.

    Sometimes we come across a scene so beautiful that we stop what weโ€™re doing. We stop and stare, remain silent, and enter into a trance-like state. Itโ€™s fascinating that our mind should respond so strongly to what are after all just images. It is also fascinating that the vast majority of us will respond in a similar way to the same scenesโ€ฆ I, as a contemporary artist, feel just the same (possibly more?) about such scenes – but I want to respond to them in a very personal and unique way, and to sometimes use them as a vehicle to express certain ideas Iโ€™m interested in.

    Really this is many photographs (circa 80) combined into one, with a great deal of digital editing โ€“ including much freehand work. But it is essentially what I saw. I have spent more time on this โ€œphotographโ€ than I have ever spent on a real painting or drawing. (No, I havenโ€™t attempted to break any world records โ€“ some artists will have spent longer on their paintings.) My goal was to try to break the limits of photography, to highlight our wonderful, amazing, delighting, gift of vision; to produce something beautiful โ€“ or something I consider beautiful. The result is not perfect, but Iโ€™m happy it goes a long way to depicting what I saw and the ideas I wanted to convey. It gives me immense pleasure to be able to share that experience.

    Nature is not always what it seems, and in Nature reproduction is a vital forceโ€ฆ

    16/05/2004


    Exhibited at Royal Academy Summer Exhibition 2006

    2006-06-07-Getty-Images-RA-Summer-Exhibition-press-view

    This YouTube video is using a new video-from-photo technique I developed.
  • Art work: “Lindisfarne Walled Garden”

    Lindisfarne Walled Garden, 2007
    (Catalogue #030525-01-05: 46โ€ x 46โ€, diamond – edition of 101)

    This is another of my studies in visual perception. Unlike most photographs – which are a snapshot in time – I created this image as an idealized scene that shows the best of what did happen over a short of time while I was in this beautiful space. The flying fulmars (sea-gulls in the picture) – who came up close to check me out, the pied wagtail (black and white bird) foraging for flies among the bedded plants, the sunbathing red admiral (red-wing-tipped butterfly), the flying gatekeeper (brown butterfly), and all the insect and arthropod activity – all this happened in front of me over a period of about half an hour. Conventional photography could capture such a scene in one shot using an ideal camera (which doesn’t exist!), a very fast shutter speed, and a very, very, great deal of luck. I had to resort to less miraculous and time-consuming creative techniques to create this image…

    This is also part of my “Diamond Series”. I wanted to make the white tulips the centre of the picture – almost as if the castle was being held up by them. The natural way our perception follows the lines across the corners of a diamond to locate the centre helps draw you to the tulips. We “know” that the castle isn’t being held up by the tulips, and that the castle is much bigger than them. But this is based on what we know rather than what we can see…

    I like the geometry of half sky, half land. I like the textural difference between the top and the bottom half. Standard photography can’t discriminate texture at its finest, pixel, level of detail. I have worked a great deal on the image to achieve this effect.

    We can’t produce anything more beautiful than nature – despite our huge numbers, all our technology, and time. We merely re-arrange it for a while. How can this be? We are led to believe that Nature is merely a quirk of chances – trillions of chances. Out of nothing came all this… The lovely castle in the picture doesn’t compare to a single tulip – for beauty and complexity. In gardens we merely rearrange Nature…

    Nature is a complex set of forces, among many other amazing things: there are many systems and programs running, sometimes they collide and the programs survive or die. But we never make anything new – we merely convert something that is already there into something else – for a short while. Anything that we re-arrange in Nature is only temporary. All we can do is put a tiny piece of Nature out of equilibrium. The soil, climate, aspect, cover, surroundings, herbivorous predators – all affect what will grow and survive in the longer term. We can fight this, but only temporarily. We are temporary…


    Not that I hold the Royal Academy of Art in any special regard in terms of art selection for exhibition (on the contrary…), however, for some people, exhibiting there matters… So I just mention that this artwork was selected for the Summer Exhibition of 2006, however, due to its size and diamond shape – i.e. the amount of wall space it takes up – it was not exhibited that year. (Back then physical actual artworks were submitted for consideration.)


    Cambridge, England 12/09/2004

  • Time to do it properly

    On the 30th November 2005 I gave up a six digit salary (ยฃ Sterling) in computing to pursue the real love of my life – art and photography. (I wish I had started my blog then – now I have a bit of catching up to do!) (For brevity, instead of constantly referring to ‘art and photography’, I will from now on just call it ‘art’, unless I specifically want to discuss either one of them.)

    I had been thinking about doing it for a couple of years, but this seemed like a do-it-now-or-never-do-it moment in my life. Continue with the rat race, get to a ripe old age and wonder what I did with my life, or give up a lot of security and do what I really want to do…?

    Don’t get me wrong. I hadn’t just decided to pick up the brush, so to speak, and “have a go” at a new venture. On the contrary, I have been doing “serious” art since I was a teenager. I have spent most of my money and spare time on digital art and photography, and so, in some ways, because the highest quality equipment and materials is extremely expensive, my quite well paid life in computing was a necessary prequel.

    Even while working in computing I was doing a lot of art. For the previous five years I was only working three or four days a week (albeit long hours), and I was a busy doing art the rest of the week (I wasn’t much of a socialiser).

    I have done just about everything you can do in photography but was always frustrated that I couldn’t achieve perfection. One is never in total control in straight photography, and, as an artist and a perfectionist, I desperately wanted to be in total control. It was only when the digital revolution came along, circa 2000, that I really got excited about the possibilities…