http://www.weatherscapes.com/photo.php?cat=photo_month&id=w-882-30

  Honestly, I don’t have any background in Photography. But I certainly appreciate those which appeared beautiful in my eyes; like the Bolt from the Blue by Harald Edens. But for now, I have to base my judgments on my understanding of our lesson in aesthetics in photographs.  We have discussed that a photograph must have three contexts- these are the internal, external and original context. According to Barret, these three contexts must be considered in interpreting a particular photograph.  

Internal Context

It is the information evident within the picture. It represents the Photograph itself. When I searched the net, I have found out the gallery of Harald Edens.  Among all those photographs, what really captures me is his Bolt from the Blue.  As what the title suggests, the photo shows a bolt from the blue, as this type of lightning is called – negatively charged cloud-to-ground lightning evolving from an intracloud flash and jumping out of the side of the cloud. It was shot Last August 8, 2007.  

 External Context 

The photo was obviously taken when there was a storm in New Mexico. The Magdalena Mountains was so great and suitable place where for this kind of “lightning event” must be captured. The place and environment is indeed affecting how you see the photo. It adds on the excitement.  

Original Context

This was Edens story on how he came up with this photo- “On August 8 the weather in New Mexico was quite boring storm-wise due to a very dry atmosphere at mid-levels. Almost no cumulus succeeded in becoming a storm, and those that did manage quickly dissipated. This changed in the evening as the atmosphere destabilized due to radiative cooling at high altitude. A few storms started to the W, NW and NNW of Langmuir Laboratory. I drove along the ridge of the Magdalena Mountains to South Baldy, a vantage point at 10,782 ft altitude, and managed to photograph some splendid lightning in front of the twilight arch. I photographed it with Nikon FE, 85mm lens at f/4, on Fuji Provia 100F. Unfortunately I missed two other bolts from the blue flashes in this storm because they appeared in different places and the frame size was limited; I had forgotten to bring a more suitable lens.”

Color

As what I can see in the photo, the color was so great. I was stunned with the effect on how the color was plot in the nature. The contrasting color of the dark blue sky and the brightness of the lightning produce a dramatic effect; and then, added by red orange as the base. Wow! This natural phenomenon is so terrifying, but upon watching the photo with its beautiful colors, I got in love with it.  The color indeed gives life to it.

Texture

This photo is has texture because of the clouds wherein its “curves” was emphasized.  Also, at the center, wherein you can see where the lightning came from, it has dimension. It is not flat at all; there is that something that bulging where you can say that this is where the lightning came from.

Shape

As what I can see it, the photo has no certain shape. But, there is something spiral in the middle. I guess, it is because of the brightness of the light that it forms like a ball of light. But other than that I believe the photographer has not taken into consideration what certain shape he must take in capturing the phenomenon. He is so engaged with the phenomenon itself.

In general, I can say that it is so stunningly beautiful. You certainly can see beauty in terrifying things and it was very well captured by Harald Edens.

  

With the “butterfly” sculpture of Kublai Millan, we can see that it is somehow  a butterfly because of its wings but not actually like a butterfly since it has a human body. With this we can see what Gombrich is saying that an artwork is not  a faithful record of the truth. For all we know, there is no such  element as that. Kublai with this sculpture and other of his works has to say something other than creating those pieces. He includes his interpretation on what he sees, on how he interprets his reality for is Gombrich  saying that in artwork you can see the artist’s particular point of view.  Like Kublai, he just doesn’t make a butterfly like what we see but made something beyond reality because he interpreted something and want to say it to his audience. He has a message to tell and want to convey it through his works. Maybe this is also the style of Kublai like having his sculptures larger than life size and that it reflects the Mindanao culture. As what Gombrich said, it is the artist’s style. Which is already established in Kublai’s work is. His works also reflects his selective preference and his personality. 

 Kublai grew up in Mindanao that is why all his works represents its culture. It is inherent in an artwork even though he wants to reproduce nature faithfully. According to Gombrich,  “there is no seeing which is purely innocent & unaffected by the artist’s personal history, interests & visual vocabulary”.  What he makes is based on reality where he is in.  He is from Mindanao, he sees what is in it and put it in his work. He want to emphasize the richness of Mindanao and the nature in particular and it  is clearly seen in his “Butterfly”.

Artworks, indeed are not just a mere representation or copy of nature alone but  products of the artists’ perception of his nature.