tommystrat wrote:
Your perspective in image #1 is compelling and harkens back to the days of Jimmie Rogers and Woody Guthrie and other musical "rail riders." Not sure about #2...
Much of what I shoot arises as an inevitable result of a mix and flow of the ever-changing contexts that attend -- among other momentarily contributing factors-- the who, when, where and/or why a particular perspective (or camera placement) had been chosen. That you've associated image #1 as you have --to a vague but nonetheless concrete concept of "back to the days of..."-- you've provided a kind of validity from
your viewer's point of view.
And that is quite sufficient.
Image #2 seems to be an entirely other matter, though, since the 'sufficient condition' of a [your] viewer's view of that image has been left unassigned, so it may be that
my [the shooter/maker/poster] view becomes a 'necessary condition' of assistance, however unnecessary that may ultimately be.
Image #1 was pre-planned. I knew I was going to shoot it well in advance. Image #2 was not planned; I had no idea the train would arrive while I was setting up and shooting the shots (different lenses, multiple exposures intended for focus-stacking, etc.) while 'the scene' was at its best (direction and quality of light on the tracks, the glowing cottonwood tree, and the red-purplish wall of cliff face in the shade beyond). Thankfully, I'd finished making the couple of dozen exposures I figured I'd need some moments before I'd become aware that, even though it was around a bend and out of sight, the train was in fact coming, so there was no problem in me removing myself and my kit from the tracks/danger sufficiently far in advance. Those were the 'mechanics', but the mechanics do not describe the aesthetics.
Many years ago, I did a 'critical' review of work I'd done up to that point. Among the various commonalities that inevitably arose, I saw that what I most produced/portrayed (via camera or via paint or pen or etc.) was not object based, per se, but was instead theme or idea based. More specifically, a great deal of what I shot/painted/wrote/etc. had to do with the juxtaposing --the object placement, side to side or near to far, depending-- of sometimes like, but more typically, unlike 'things' (that at their most basic, could be thought of as 'living' things -vs- 'non-living' things). Those, within the context of ordinary reality --the actual world, or place, where those objects reside-- and the relationships those 'things' had between one another were what I found I was often seeking to convey. So it is with Image #2: an apparently non-obvious (unless one settles only on
what is present in the image and leaves out the post-factual considerations like 'Jimmy Rogers' or 'harkens back to...' that are not) relationship of sorts --a conflict, generally speaking-- that becomes spatially --and thematically-- established.
Which may probably not be useful for anyone to "appreciate" either image, and is likely uninteresting to anyone but me.