Lovely all of them. Mud Dancing is especially appealing to me.

I too was thinking about my earlier comments about paths and thinking that I had never seen a water path before — mud paths, yes, but water paths? You boggle the mind. And thanks for your thoughts on Mud Dancing. As a non-photographer, I never realize how difficult it is to get some kinds of images to “read.” It’s good to get some insights.

Melanie, don’t denigrate your art talk — you do just fine. It’s really just about looking and articulating what you see. You do that well.

And you can compare me (my work, I mean)to Rothko any old day. Unfortunately I think Birgit has a better Rothko sensibility (I’d add smiles and/or snorts in here but WordPress renders my “body language” in nonsense unless I use proper code — and I’m too lazy to look it up. So add a smiley face and a couple of carots around the snort.)

I am glad that you appreciate Mud Dancing. I am still musing about its potential. It was difficult, using Adobe Photoshop, to pull out enough contrast to show the wavy lines on the 72-resolution web image given the width of the image required to encompass the breadth of the ‘dancing’.

You inspire me to work more with this image. It could be improved digitally. It could become an experiment for learning how to paint. Rocks, oozing mud and finally water in the rear, three different materials – hard, gel-like, liquid – with the mud as the only substance that can be imprinted to preserve the dancing lines until wiped out by the advancing flood. Pregnant with symbolism.

What complement to think of Rothko, with his genius for design, viewing Mud Floating.

The last picture is given as a joke. The ducks look quite worn-out after all their frolicking about.

I especially like the paired, but not quite symmetrical coming-and-going lines in Mud Dancing. The division in Mud Floating reminds me of Rothko (is it annoying that y’all’s work reminds me of other folks’s work?) and of the 3-part divisions in some Asian art. The landscape is so stark, and the palette so restricted that, without the ducks, it would take several moments of concentrated attention to realize that it is a landscape (waterscape?).

Skis? Perhaps, snow shoes?

About the highlights: low tide was at noon and even at the northern altitude of the Northsea, the sun evoked much glare on the water.

About the horizontals: ocean and lake fronts invite horizontals. Do I see myself as complementing the verticals in Steve’s waterfall pictures?

June, learning that you like picture 1, I  smile remembering your recent comment

I am hesitant about paths in my paintings — they are a cheap way to provide movement and are sometimes overused by less-than-sterling painters

Is it more acceptable to show a river, mountain stream or ‘Priel’ than a path?

It’s hard to know what to admire first — the narrative is charming, the first image has its path only with the twist of water and mudbanks, the second image makes those superb horizontals (the one at the top is masterful) and the third makes me chuckle, particularly given the title, but even the image is witty. And the final one pulls back like a film camera to give us a sense of the whole.

Very nice work indeed.

I especially like the first two photographs, which zoom in to feature the dramatically shaped banks of the tidal streams. Having the ducks as natural focal points in these minimalist landscapes works very well. You’re also doing a good job of avoiding overexposure, which would turn the highlight areas into pure, blank white.

One is certainly led to wonder how deep one might sink in that mud. Maybe I could use my skis to explore.