After listening to the conversations in class yesterday and then going back to do more research I started looking again at more abstract images and why they appeal to me so much.
I like the anonymity and the fact that sometimes you just can’t tell what an image is – leaving it up to the dreams and imagination of the viewer to decide for themselves…
I have played around with the editing of some other ‘Den’ images I did not post previously last week…..
I like the first image – it looks a bit like stained glass – the image is a combination of slow shutter speed and movement in camera – the editing has been adjusted to emphasise the colours rather than the form.
The 2nd image has been transformed into a ‘negative’ and edited, based on our work with cyanotypes for the last 2 weeks (further post to follow on that specific subject).
I found an example of the work of an artist who does this by compositing parts of the image as a negative onto a positive image – http://legassick.art. Legassick spent many years as a visual effects artist working under directors such as Oliver Stone, Ridley Scott, Wolfgang Petersen and Tim Burton, where he worked heavily with compositing and digital matt painting.
There is an interesting article on his work here: https://fstoppers.com/architecture/grant-legassick-does-multiple-exposures-differently-152060
Images below by Legassick:
Legasssick’s work seems to consist of many technical variations – in camera movement; multiple exposures, compositing, digital manipulation in processing – I am drawn into the effects of the more abstract work rather than the ‘clearer’ images.
Criteria: 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4