Having researched its website the previous evening, I knew it would take a lot of time covering the many acres of park and exhibits, so I arrived at 11:00 and expected to stay until late afternoon. There is an excellent restaurant there, so an all day visit can be split into two sessions by a pleasant lunch.
The weather was slightly overcast in the morning but considerably brighter in the afternoon. Interestingly I found the overcast conditions more conducive to photographing outdoor sculptures: backgrounds are less obtrusive and there are fewer specular highlights on metallic exhibits. Back in episode one of this blog I said my aim was to get out with my camera at least once a week 'come rain or shine'. Well I'm quickly learning what many photographers have known all along: sunny, contrasty conditions can ruin photographs, whereas less clement weather can add drama and mystique. I have now made a mental note that the park will be an excellent place to visit in winter, in foggy, misty and snowy conditions and will best be avoided in the height of summer.
Photographing other people's works of art could be considered plagiaristic, especially if the art is already two dimensional and graphical. But a monument or sculpture can be viewed from many angles and can elicit different emotional responses from the viewer. So selecting a single view and attempting to render one's own emotional response into a two dimensional graphic is, in my view, a sort of art in itself. For instance, the following record shot shows a very large sculpture depictng three angry men apparently confronting each other:
I wanted to capture the anger and aggression expressed by the sculpture and decided that I had to focus in on the heads. But I couldn't find a way to put all three heads into a single shot successfully. So I settled for excluding the third head by positioning it 'edge' on and between the other two heads. In this position it provides a barrier between the other two heads, further strengthening the antagonism between them:
The size and construction of this sculpture allowed me to take many different shots of it. The following one completely abstracts the sculture and uses part of it as a frame for a nearby tree creating a totally different work of art to the original, having no anger or aggression, merely recording patterns created in turn by man and nature:
The majority of exhibits did not represent the human form and were therefore much harder to 'interpret'. Some were intricate, and could be admired because of the skill required to conceive and fabricate them. But many others were comparitively simple geometric constructions, which might be admired for a neat bit of welding, but, to me, were lacking in anything approaching a decipherable message or meaning. For example, the following cone attached to a cheese wedge shape did not speak volumes to me, so I decided to photograph it at an unusual angle.
I think I like the result, but it is no more meaningful than the original, just a pattern of shapes and planes. Someone I know said a few weeks ago that a photograph (or any work of art) should make a statement or ask a question. But what about things which are just nice to look at? Are they art? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that I will be returning to the Yorkshire Sculpture Park again.
No comments:
Post a Comment