Wabi-Sabi, Asymmetry, and Framing in Japanese Aesthetics (+revised)

[Marylynne_Diggs]

Revised Version

Revision 1 (latest)

What changed: Healed over some distracting light bits and burned upper left corner.

Added after receiving feedback from the community.

---

Original Version

Maple with Rock

Maple Framing Flat Garden

Critique Style: In-Depth

The photographer is looking for deeper feedback connected to their intent, creative direction, and specific questions.

Feedback Focus: Artistic / Expressive

What I’m Trying to Express or Explore

I have been enamored with the Portland Japanese Garden for decades, and this year, at Igor Doncov’s suggestion, I’m exploring how to apply Japanese Aesthetics to my photography there. I shared a set of images using the muted color palette of traditional Japanese painting a few days ago. You can see those here: Traditional Japanese Muted Color Schemes

Now I’m sharing a couple of images with some of the other principles of Japanese Aesthetics: wabi-sabi, asymmetry, and framing a scene.

These two images were made with the intention of exploring how asymmetry and imperfection in the leaves/trunks can still create a sense of balance or harmony between different elements. The hard/soft, rock/plant, near/far elements, impermanence, along with asymmetry and organic imperfections are connected to what both destabilizes and balances us. It’s the wabi-sabi of real life.

Where Feedback Would Help Most

As always, I’m open to any and all feedback. In particular, with these two, I’m wondering the following:

1. Aside from the subject matter itself (clearly Japanese maples), do these photographs have a more Japanese aesthetic than some of my other work?
2. Of the two images, does one seem more successful considering my vision? In other words, does one have a more uniquely oriental art feeling than the other?
3. Is there anything about my approach here that feels like a traditional Western Landscape approach that undermines my efforts to apply Japanese aesthetic principles?

As always, I appreciate the time it takes to offer critique. Please know I value it greatly.

ML

Technical Details

Canon 5D4 with 24-105 at 105mm and 93mm respectively

ISO 200, f/20 for the first, f/5 for the second (might have been better to do the opposite?), 1 sec and 1/15sec

[Dennis_Plank]

I like the flow of the colors and the path my eye follows in both of these images, Marylynne. As far as your questions go, I have to admit to a blissful ignorance of almost any school of art, so I can’t help you there.

[Marylynne_Diggs]

Hi Dennis,

Glad the eye path is working. Yeah, I realize my questions assume some things. But really, I’m wondering whether they feel less like traditional landscapes from the Western tradition (whether it be painters or photographers). Does it feel like a different approach? I guess I might still be begging the question though: do American and Western European nature photography have a set of aesthetic values different from Japan’s, or are we all perhaps doing a variety of things that makes such a question simplistic?

ML

[Dennis_Plank]

I was wondering much the same thing. I do understand that there are/were “schools” of art that followed pretty strict guidelines both in eastern and western art, but I suspect that these days that’s pretty much gone by the wayside except for a few die-hards that insist it’s not art if it doesn’t follow a specific set of rules and techniques. A large part of those “schools” that we look back on now may have been due to the materials and processes that were being used rather than by intention (e.g. watercolors don’t lend themselves to highly saturated images).

But take all that with a bucket of salt, because I’ve never studied art or the history thereof.

[system]

The original poster added a revised version of their image.

[Dennis_Plank]

I really like the effect of bringing down that upper left corner, Marylynne. Great job on that revision.