A red/yellow bicolour tulip growing amidst blue and white bluebells at the Christchurch Botanic Gardens, New Zealand.
I wasn't sure if I was going to share this one as the image is a bit messier than I strive for. This is due to the subject being some metres into a patch of bluebells, so no way to simplify the image (in camera) through use of clever framing and angles.
But then it got me thinking, so I decided to just go with it, and pair it with a big long and suitably messy exposition.
I think this illustrates something closer to my heart than mere simplicity - the way in which I protray the environment in the portrait. This involves excluding both man-made objects (labels, plaques, architecture, whatever), and overt human influence (formal borders, bare dirt, bark chip, gravel, or an obviously mass planted flower bed). Given the actual locations I work with are primarily city gardens, this is an ever-present challenge, which likely appeals to skill I've honed over the years. Then I'll use those parts of the environment that do look natural (foliage, light filtering through trees, etc) which to me are far more pleasing and soul stirring, to get a result that appeals to my taste, and the result gives me joy.
I'm not sure I can explain it, as it is more of a visceral thing, but I know it is something that makes an appeal to me. And not just my own, it affects my appreciation of the work of others too. I'm not sure if this is simply because I spend so much time making it the focus in my own work it is ingrained, or perhaps it was already my own idea of beauty which caused me to focus on it.
Maybe a flower revealing its surroundings in a formal bed is a bit like a photo of an animal in a cage/zoo which feels out of place (I'm talking aesthetics here, not ethics), whereas when it seems to be just basking in a more natural environment, it is more like something wild and free.
This may also be why I don't tend to enjoy (and hence don't make use of) black and white, flowers processed with textures to cover up /tame the background, or the subject against a plain black/white background which is a popular form of minimalism. These approaches can be beautiful, and I think I can see why artistic types favour them in that abstracting a thing from reality/environment to focus purely on the subject and its form, and is probably "more arty". But to me the result (usually) feels like insect specimens in a display case with a pin rammed through them, or a plate in a technical book rather than something living that really delights the soul.
I find nature delights me, I love to be out enjoying it - so any attempt to preserve pleasant memories for my own purposes, or to share with others needs to reflect how it makes me feel or it wouldn't be authentic or be pleasing to me.
I presume this may be what is meant by my "artistic voice", and others see things differently, feel differently, and "speak" differently - and that's why everyone has their own style. I expect most feel differently, and I'm not trying to say anyone else should sound like me (diversity is a good thing!), but I wanted to see if I could articulate why I do what I do the way I do. I would be interested to know if this resonates with anyone else - whether it is just my peculiarity, or I am unwittingly a member of some particular artistic movement (I'm an engineer, art is a foreign language to me - I'm just mouthing strange syllables that seem pleasing to me and somehow nobody has pulled me up for the imposter I am yet!).
Cropped to 5x4 (the top of the image was a bit dark and didn't add much, so I decided I preferred it without), but otherwise untouched camera jpeg.
