ProfessorRoush is polling today (or is it trolling?) with a troubling question for my blog readers.
Gardeners, do you prefer the captured images of beauty in your garden au naturel, or touched up to hide the blemishes and traumas of living? Should the photographs we bloggers take of our gardens be posted unaltered, or should they be released onto the internet as posed and filtered and airbrushed as Cindy Crawford on the cover of Vogue? Are we ready for the naked truth of our gardens, for the blatant blemishes of foliage or flower, for the ravages of wind and sun and rain? Is the Venus de Milo an ageless perfection in marble or merely one more damaged chunk of rock?
Nearly all of the photos that ProfessorRoush posts here are unaltered except for some cropping and for a few taken after I pulled the surrounding forest of weeds and only then "snapped" the photo (do we still "snap" photos or do we just focus and tap?). Is pre-pulling the weeds a mortal sin of nondisclosure of the truth of my garden or merely a permissible act of vanity and understandable attempt to avoid embarrassment for my gardening sloth? I'm facing the question today as I post the nearly perfect combination of white 'David' phlox and the 'Alaska' Shasta daisies displayed in the top photo and the unaltered reality here of the vista at the left. I took the left photograph before removing the dead and brown spent flowers from the area and posing the top photograph. Yes, I could have done even better if I had cut the unobtrusive bare stems away, but which is really the better photograph? Nature in all its raw glory at left or the gussied up and primped "Still Life of White Flowers" at the top?
The broad question vexing me today is so simple in essence but has so many permutations in practice. The aforementioned Cindy Crawford is a beautiful woman, but famous as well for the flaw in her beauty, the
melanocytic nevus we commonly refer to as a beauty mark. In fact, google "beauty mark" and a picture of Cindy will pop up alongside the listings, an icon for that concept of a minor flaw perfecting the person. Does that same concept extend to our gardens? Is the picture at the right of this
Knautia macedonica blossom struggling up through the phlox somehow more beautiful than that of the simple and pure virginal white phlox in the photo below? As garden photographers, do we need to add mouches to our perfect photos to make them yet more perfect?
ProfessorRoush is so full of questions today, eh? So deeply troubled about photographic nuance and so immersed in disturbing philosophical discourse unbecoming of a cool and sun-lit Saturday morning here in the Flint Hills. I know that many come to this blog for entertainment and answers and yet here I am, the snake bound to ruin Eden and cast you out into uncertainty and unease. I leave you today only with my questions, a complete dearth of assuring answers, and my hope that this photo of the clean and white 'David' phlox will soothe the disturbance of your soul.
