Garden report

[muckefuck]

My informal dogwood count has more than doubled with the recent discovery of three new specimens: one in Lakewood-Balmoral (spotted on a stroll with Monshu), one in West Lakeview (spotted on a stroll with e.) and one a few blocks south of chez moi. The one near me looks spotty; I hope that's not blight. But the one near Meinl is the largest and healthiest I've seen in Chicago, so there's hope! (It was also a different variety than the typical Missouri C. florida, which may be why.)

Also on a walk near my place, I saw a buckeye in bloom. The (horse)chestnuts are starting to open up, too; this might be an excellent weekend to take a walk through the park or the cemetary and view them. Alas, the azaleas are fading, but the lilacs are going strong and the bridal wreath and honeysuckle are coming on line.

(I don't wish I had a camera on these walks, but I sometimes wish I had bitterlawngnome along and he had his camera.)

Comments

[bunj.livejournal.com]

It wasn't until this year that I realized why our house's previous owners had planted a lilac. There must be some sort of ordinance, because every house in the neighborhood has at least one. One house has three in its yard.

Still, it makes for pleasant walks, and our dogwoods are starting to bloom to. Soon we will have peonies. Huzzah!

[bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com]

That's a very interesting comment, cause it tells me you have an idea about who I am based on the visuals I post here. It's a real struggle for me sometimes not to explain what my pictures are about, and this is telling me that at least sometimes, I don't need to.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Personally, I feel that visual art should be, well, visual. I understand and accept that some forms of it do incorporate verbal elements (heck, I have a major hard-on for Chinese calligraphy) but I see that as distinct from incorporating verbal explanations. I feel strongly that visual art which requires explanation to be appreciated and understood has failed on some level.

This doesn't mean that explanations are counterproductive. I almost always read the captions on museum art because they often answer questions I have, point out features I hadn't noticed, and otherwise enrich my interaction with the art. It's interesting for me to learn about the Niagara Escarpment and what the area around Hamilton represents for you, but these aren't necessary for appreciating your photos from there. These have a strong, positive impact on me due to intrinsic elements of composition.

Perhaps I'm missing the message behind the bold colours and audacious framing. If you want to offer insight into your process and intention, I'm happy to listen. But I'm also happy letting your lens do the talking. Keep up the beautiful work.

[bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com]

It's that thing, "writing about painting is like dancing about architecture".

The message is just, this is what I see when I walk though the world. Sometime I try to do something more "art"-like (here and here for example) but like you I think they must communicate or evoke something from the viewer without much explanation, or I might as well have written rather than made pictures.

That being said, it's nice to communicate with people about the work in words, too, especially if it starts a discussion ...

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

It's that thing, "writing about painting is like dancing about architecture".

Partly. But it's more a rule of thumb for sorting out the art that I like. The more explanation a work of art "requires", the more likely I am to find it gimmicky or pseudo-intellectual.

Thanks for the second link, since I hadn't seen those shots before. Where the poster sees a rave no one showed up for, I see the approach to a Buddhist temple, ready for the arrival of the spirits of the dead.