I suppose I'll be the first to be critical of those who
might substitute careful and thoughtful image making
for otherwise just being mindlessly "artsy-fartsy".
Recent discussions on the forum about out-of-focus
pictures have been the latest questionable practice
to come under fire in this regard. And certainly I
have been as loud a critic of this as any on the matter.

But this is not to presume I am of the opinion that
an out-of-focus technique never has any place in the
work of image making.

As photographers, a good part of our job is to get
to the "essence" of what we most want to show or
convey to the viewer. Sometimes we do this by the
lighting we employ, or by the cropping we select,
or by the decisive moment we try to catch, or
by the deliberate employment of a particular
focal length of lens we use, or thoughtful camera
placement, or by the depth-of-field we use, or by
our choice to select a shutter speed which either
quickly freezes action, or otherwise slowy conveys
movement by way of blur. All of these techniques
of craft not done just to make "pretty pictures", but
rather otherwise to deliberately best guide the
viewer's attention to specifically what we most
want them to see, to best guide the viewer to
what we most want to show them and convey to them.

How well we achieve this is, at least in part,
how well we know our skills of craft and how
well we can match our techniques of craft to the
intent of what we are most trying to convey
or show the viewer. All of this perhaps not much
unlike a speech maker (an orator) who knows
when best to speak loud and bold, or when best
to speak gently in almost whisper, and when best
pause in speech so as to give good emphasis to the
last thing that was said. All of these things to
guide his (or her) audience to where the orator
most to take them -- to best get to the message
of his speech.

So too we photographers use whatever means are
available to us, not just to make "pretty pictures,"
not just to record, but more skillfully to guide the
viewer's attention to just what we most want them to
see, to guide them to what we most want to show them

And hopefully just that, and no more.

The image above is out of focus. But why so? To what
purpose? Or to what ends? Just to be "artsy-fartsy"?
No, I can assure you, I have no love for that, or for
folks who just get "artsy-fartsy" and then try to pass
such stuff off as "art."

But in this particular case, what I most wanted to
draw the viewer's attention to wasn't so much the object
in its most specific details, but rather more to convey
the the overall sense of shape and colors -- shape in
the sense of an upward growing, expanding blooming, and
colors in the progressive change of colors, yellow more
towards the bottom, then rising to orange and finally
more progressing to red.

Now I could have shot the same image in focus. But
in a sense that might work against purpose in this
case .... the more in-focus details having the viewer
potentially paying more attention to the specific
object rather than otherwise paying more attention
to these underlying graphic elements of shape and
colors.

So this is for me one instance where the use of an
out-of-focus technique better draws the viewers attention
to where I'm most trying to guide it, and otherwise
keep smaller details from otherwise potentially
distracting the fewer from most paying attention
to shape and colors.

So even an out of focus technique can have it's place
when -- as with any other technique we might employee
in our image making -- it is used to best guide the
viewer's attention to what we most want them to see.

But perhaps key in all is again the reminder that as
photographers, as image makers, our work with our cameras
isn't simply to record things, but rather to be like writers,
directors, or orators -- to use whatever skills we can in
our image making to best GUIDE OUR VIEWERS to specifically
what we most want to show them, to keep them away from
otherwise potential distractions so what we might best
guide them to what we most want them to see.

CJ