A fox II

Oh, a fox, I thought II
(scroll down to view the start of this dialogue) 

After processing the first image of the fox, and subsequently modifying it, I decided that there was scope for a better rendition. A return was a suitable response. To try again. This is different from a re-visit to make a time-lapse image of the scene, as I have done with other sites. 

So I headed back out. By placing the camera on an extended mono-pod and thrusting it up into the air I was able to make a composite image.

This is the result;

Oh, a fox, I thought version #2

 The distance gained by the height of the camera does not help - as a viewer I feel too far removed, not involved with the space before me but dominant over it. I don't want to put a dominance over the environments I engage with. In this case I am not happy again. As a viewer I find it harder to participate imaginatively with the image, if I cannot do this, then I don't believe that others who view this work would either.

After completing this I immediately started making another image. Perhaps I knew intuitively that the one I'd just made was wrong. This time I wanted to be much closer and to make the scene more dynamic. this is the result;

After processing this piece I was very much more satisfied. I had a sense of completion of the piece. The aspect ratio was right for the body of work. I liked the interruption of the branches in the foreground. This was an influence of  earlier experiments to disrupt the scene by deliberately placing myself and the camera very close to a foreground element, like branches or leaves, thereby mimicking the  perceptive experience of looking through something obscuring a scene. This is akin to the experience of placing one's hand in front of the eyes, too close for the mind to interpret our stereoscopic view, a kind of parallax error emphasized by the compositing process. I was remembering in particular the image below;

Treefall #8 version #1

I have not concluded as yet which of Oh, a fox I thought, version #1 (modified) and version #3 Is the preferred, or final piece. At this stage in the project, this is not a decision that warrants consideration. both can be considered at a later date in the context of presentation. The question is one of interruption and intention. It has a bearing on future work, so I am asking myself the question, what is it I'm trying to achieve by foregrounding works with the breaks of nearby materials? The result offers a barrier to viewing the scene, but with work there maybe a breakthrough in terms of dealing with a three dimensional space, a hemi- sphere viewed from inside and flattened through photographic representation (this assumes that I, the maker, creates the work from a relatively static position, not including the world behind me). The compositing process tends to emphasise further the distancing effect of the camera's single shot, by pushing the middle ground further from my actual experience of the site, hence I have to be much closer to the element of interest than it actually appears I am. The use, or misuse, of broken foreground elements in the recent work is part of the experimentation process of working toward a dynamic perceptual reading of space that does not rely on renaissance perspective and the vanishing point to create the illusion of space.