Skip

Enough with humans. Let the flowers talk.
June 24, 2003 1:31 PM   Subscribe

Katinka Matson's scanned flower art : technology lets the flowers speak. "...imagine a painter who could, like Vermeer, capture the quality of light that a camera can, but with the color of paints. That is what a scanner gives you.... In her flowers one can see every microscopic dew drop, leaf vein, and particle of pollen—in satisfying rich pigmented color....." (scroll down for images)
posted by troutfishing (16 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
yeah there was a bit of a ruckus over on photo.net* a while ago when this got selected as photo of the week.

in my mind, such work is brilliant, who is to say that a scanner is not a camera. a legitimate artistic tool is, well, whatever the artist decides to use.

*then again, photo.net is generally reliable in its choice of controversial photos of the week....
posted by dorian at 1:43 PM on June 24, 2003


[this is good.] Now I understand what that pulldown item "Millions of Colors" is for.
posted by soyjoy at 1:44 PM on June 24, 2003


Spectacular stuff, troutfishing! Very Georgia O'Keefe. Thanks.
posted by madamjujujive at 2:02 PM on June 24, 2003


I dunno--what does she really do: arrange flowers on a scanner and press a button? Maybe a little photoshopping? That whole what-is-art? thing.

Pretty though.
posted by gottabefunky at 2:09 PM on June 24, 2003


Wow. Beautiful. (They make excellent desktops, too).
posted by carter at 2:14 PM on June 24, 2003


I really like this - thanks.

I believe that it was MeFi'd some time ago (and also featured on iconomy recently), but those who like this may also enjoy the floral radiographs at the Secret Garden...

... as well as images of carnivorous plants at Galleria Carnivora.
posted by plep at 2:59 PM on June 24, 2003


Can we have this done with babes?
posted by Postroad at 3:21 PM on June 24, 2003


gottabefunky: If you take dorian's comment that the scanner is just another camera, then this art would be an example of bringing the subject to the lens, rather than the lens to the subject. I agree that it has an "anybody could do this" sort of feel to it. But I don't think that carries any weight on whether it should be considered art or not.
posted by Witty at 3:46 PM on June 24, 2003


Can we have this done with babes?

You can in Japan. Cute girl and guy link.
posted by emyd at 4:10 PM on June 24, 2003


I think the "anyone can do this" feel is probably the best part. I'm planning to try this very thing when I get the time - purely for my own amusement and desktop-background decoration. The saturation in the colours is amazing, and the very short focal length (objects only a few cm away from the glass become fuzzy) gives an amazing sense of depth and mystery.
posted by Jimbob at 5:53 PM on June 24, 2003


"technology lets the flowers speak" makes my brain ring, and not in a good way.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:26 PM on June 24, 2003


Likewise, anyone can grab a photo and take a picture. Anyone can run up a Web page using Frontpage. Anyone can write a thousand words.

Doesn't mean they do a good job of it though.
posted by wackybrit at 8:39 PM on June 24, 2003


man, I used to do this all the time when I was like 16.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:03 PM on June 24, 2003


The Vermeer comparison doesn't make a lot of sense. He didn't light his subjects from a single source behind his eyeballs, for one thing. For another he didn't paint objects in isolation lying flat on a plate of glass. Did whoever wrote that ever actually look at a Vermeer? Don't mind me, just grumbling.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:39 AM on June 25, 2003


Can we have this done with babes?

Yes
posted by anewc2 at 3:14 PM on June 25, 2003


I agree that it has an "anybody could do this" sort of feel to it. But I don't think that carries any weight on whether it should be considered art or not.

I think it's just that lots of us have scanned all sorts of interesting things but never got written about for it. eg, I have scanned and photoshopped (self link) my eye (and many other things, including botanicals), but I am not considered an arteest for having done so. Not saying she shouldn't be considered one just 'cause we're not - maybe if we went out and said, hey look people, I'm an artist, we'd get somewhere, or maybe we just aren't as good at it as she is, etc. But the natural reaction is maybe still a little third grade: that's not fair!
posted by mdn at 5:06 PM on June 25, 2003


« Older Enslaved by free trade   |   What kind of Flame Warrior are you? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post