It’s interesting that it does require “getting used to.” Though some photographers have taken liberties from the beginning, such image manipulation can still feel like a violation. Everyone chooses where along the spectrum they feel comfortable. My idea was simply to use this image play to build my intuition, train my eye, regarding negative space. At this point, I don’t think I’d want to present an altered photograph as a normal photograph. I’d be much more willing in a more decorative context, like a lampshade or screen. But I certainly have no problem with anyone else doing whatever they want in an art setting (not in journalism!) Have fun!

I have a number of images that do not translate well to 2 dimensions that could benefit from adding some negative space. There may be an interesting curve to a branch that just doesn’t stand out enough without it.

I think that once I get used to the idea of it being okay to re-arrange a photo, it is just one more step to begin to arrange an image from scratch with segments from other photos.

I’m thinking of something I read about “shared” space — not individuated elements, but elements that are incomplete without the others in the scene.

With that in mind, I started to blank out more of the tree trunks (with a finger). The change was startling, because the two elements then related, even with the lines between them were invisible. That’s what I’ve always thought Notan was about — and to some extent, the emphasis on negative space. So I guess I would say that the second photo has more conversation going between the lines of foliage.

Now I don’t know how this fits with your question about the viewer filling in the blank. I myself prefer some suggestion of something in that blank — a bit of gilt, a fading line, a lost edge. But then, that could just be an internet habit — wanting the blanks filled in.

The famous screen that Elatia Harris speaks of does have the big blank in the center, but it is bounded by tree groupings and the edges of the screen itself.

I wonder if you could collage some of your trees/foliage, layering them and fading them almost to nothing to give space a shape and a mystery.

Just pondering — I am enjoying your working through of the questions.

I’m loving your play here and in the last post. I think Jay has captured something of the difference with your on-screen work and what I’ve seen of eastern negative space work — and that’s the texture out of which the not-space comes. As well as the frame that Melanie refers to. But I haven’t resolved these issues in my own mind.

And I must run off for a bit, but I’m leaving this half written post so I will remember something of what I was ruminating over.

That’s an intriguing analogy. It bothered me at first that there’s a tension implied in the holding-in function. But the way I’m thinking about negative space is not just in the graphic art/decorative sense, but as a space that suggests a contribution from the viewer (assuming they bother to contemplate the picture at any length). I don’t necessarily mean a filling-in of the imagery, but some train of thought by the viewer confronted with that near blank. So that might be your manifestation or generation of form.

I wonder if that’s the function of the so-called negative space — to supply a field within which (or upon which) form can manifest?

Yes, focus plays a big role here, so it’s not a simple comparison. Difference in focus, as you highlight for the second picture, is something I’ve clearly been experimenting with a lot lately, and I think that difference makes the “dialog” more interesting than if both parts were either in or out of focus.