Some photographers consider themselves “Nature Photographers” and for them it may make sense. For me not.
Nature can be clearly defined as that which is not created by man. Or woman 🙂
But when you look closer, distinctions begin to blur. Whatever we create, it begins to rot and decay under the influence of nature. Now, when the artificial is unmade in a natural process, it not only becomes nature again, it does so gradually, beginning right from the first instant.
So, when I make images like this, don’t I photograph nature? And if or if not, how meaningful is the distinction anyway?
The Song of the Day is “Second Nature” from the 2001 Eric Clapton album “Reptile”. Hear it on YouTube.
Bill Birtch (2013-05-30)
Great image. Love the contrast between the eroded piece and the rest of the image. Seems to me that you've captured the 'natur'al process of erosion here. Nature's effect rather than nature herself. Then again, nature is anything but static in and of itself so maybe it's all about process. Is the distinction meaningful? Not really.
💬 Reply 💬