Columbine: A Call for Cubism
Nature provides an abundance of interesting and curious shapes. Great examples can be found in each of the kingdoms (animal, vegetable, and mineral) — and I regularly seek out these examples. One of the reasons why I so enjoy flower photography (in particular) is that it gives me a view into a wide variety of surprising structures, and I have convenient access to these within a few feet of my front porch.
I also love a challenge and, when it comes to columbine, I have both a visual treat and a challenge. This is a flower that needs to be seen from all sides in order to be fully appreciated. There are structures pointing backwards, with tiny balls at their ends, that pique my curiosity — what purpose do they serve (other than to make me wonder)? Herein lies the challenge: I have yet to see a single image of a single columbine flower that adequately captures the wonder of this creation. The front is beautiful, and a 90° profile is also stunning. How do we encompass all of the salient points of view in a single image?
For this image, I punted. Rather than try to get everything I like from one flower in a single image, I chose to include a couple of flowers, each affording a different point of view (and a third one, out of focus and in the background for compositional variety). I rather like this image, but it has made me wonder what Picasso might have done with a camera.
Cubism portrays an often non-linear representation of subjects, frequently incorporating multiple points of view into a single image. My first introduction to Cubism came in a Humanities 101 class when I was far too young to appreciate the significance of that movement. I regarded Picasso’s paintings as the product of a deranged mind. I was a literalist, and my camera was a very literal tool (far more literal than a brush and oils). I wanted art to be purely perceptual, evoking emotion through only the right brain; the cubist paintings I saw tended to involve (even demand) cognition. Rather than just feel, I had to think; I did not want to think.
Maybe I was slow to mature, but it has taken me a long time to realize that thinking about art is not such a bad thing. Perhaps Picasso was similarly vexed — seeing several facets of a subject with no single point of view adequately revealing the gestalt. Perhaps cubism was not merely a whimsical invention, but a response to a need to capture more within a single image.
Of course, we now have technologies available to us (such as holography, crystal lithography, and video) which remove the confines of a single static image so typical of photography. But Cubism in painting did not predate sculpture, which was also more able to cope with the need to portray a subject from multiple points of view. For some reason, even with other “technologies” available, the Cubists found a degree of satisfaction in extending their range of expression while working within the physical constraints of a static, two-dimensional image. I could resonate with such satisfaction.
What does this portend for photography? Can we infuse Cubism into our cameras? Can I find a way to show all of the interesting parts of a columbine flower in a single image?
Photo of the Week
2007.06.25
