Please Help w/ Contrast Essay?

<p>Supposedly similar, yet different</p>

<pre><code>Sometimes, there is more than just the visible; sometimes, one has to meander deeply into the forest of life to truly know the worth of one’s surrounding. Caspar Friedrich’s Early Snow and Ansel Adams’ Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico portray the same principal elements: a landscape and its sky. While Adams’ photograph Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico suggests the promising vastness of the universe, Friedrich’s painting Early Snow portrays the abundance of life in nature, and the true insight one needs to uncover its true potential. Through the juxtaposition of the vast sky and the seemingly dwarfed landscape in Ansel Adams’ photo, and the mighty elevation of the forest in Caspar Friedrich’s, one can see that these two images are truly contrasting their views of Mother Nature.

A white pathway laid in rock, and pine trees covered in snow. These are the objects that catch one’s eye at first. Yet upon further examination, we discover a more vital production. In Friedrich’s Early Snow, the further the inspector travels into the forest, the taller the trees grow, reaching the pinnacle in the far end of the image. Compared to the small, inconspicuous pine trees first encountered, the last array of trees seem to fortify into a pitch black wall. It seems as if Friedrich wanted to showcase the vastness behind nature–that it is something more than just trees and logs. Through the absence of animal life, one can only assume that Friedrich wants the viewer to believe that life, truly arises from nature. That no life can exist without it. The small, dwarf trees scattered in early in the painting depict the inferior life forms outside of nature; the further you dig into the roots of this forest, the mightier life will appear to one. Then, we discover the small patch of sky left for us to devour. Cloudy, and seemingly separated from the rest of the universe, this streak of sky further points at the insignificance of life outside of nature. Limiting the sky’s intrusion into the forest scenery, a sense of protection is invoked. It seems as if the trees indeed built a fortification to protect its citizens from the influence of the outside. Similar, it is as if the winding road is purposely covered by a set of pine trees to suggest that finding your way into the heart of nature can prove itself as tricky. One may have to excavate and look into places that others would fail to observe. Then, one becomes distracted by the golden shimmers cast off by the broken pathway and the trees’ apex. Arousing an image of a golden castle, it seems as if Friedrich wants to portray this fortified entity as a golden kingdom. Furthermore, a clustering of pine trees almost seem buried beneath the rocky sand, almost purposely drawing attention to that fact that, sometimes, nature’s most promising entities may seem inconsequential, when in fact, one just has been blinded to the point where the true core of these entities seems invisible. Showcasing nature’s true worth, Friedrich delineates the true value of nature and its life forms.

Ansel Adams’ Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico portrays the exact opposite. Displaying a vast sky above the seemingly inferior landscape, Adams suggests the complexity and enormity of the worlds above. Left in black and white, Adams tries to persuade the viewer into believing that nature is colorless. He only leaves the one true aspect he cares about in its authentic manner–the black emptiness that is portrayed by the deep skies. One first sees the small bushes perfectly arranged, portraying a feeling of conformity. Through Adams’ concept, the spectator presumes that believing in nature and accepting her ideas, one truly becomes a conformist. He leaves the village and all of its tainted objects in a neat, orderly line, further implying the sense of conformity. Drawing out the uneven parallels of the clouds, Adams tries to convey the freedom and spaciousness of the infinite universe. Leaving more than half of his photograph dedicated to the blackness of sky, he only dots it with his precious moon. Mankind has always dreamt of conquering this object of the vast skies. So many wanted to name this prized entity of rock theirs and have become obsessed. With this contrast, Adams wanted to lure the reader into assuming all of the universe should be this prized. Furthermore, Adams captures a graveyard in the right corner of his photograph, showing his distaste and morose attitude towards nature herself. Qualifying nature as decomposing, Adams tries to distract the readers from nature and onto a more vast universe, further highlighted by the almost translucent view of the clouds staggering on top of the mountain lining, seemingly separating the mundanity of the earth below from the limitless sky above.

Even though the painting by Casper Friedrich and the photograph by Ansel Adams seem so similar to the quick glance, truly, they portray opposing views on Mother Nature. Through their opposing usage of landscape dimension, these artists were capable of capturing two different stories with the same elemental foundation.
</code></pre>

<p>While well written, I think it has a fatal flaw. I was watching a graduate student give a paper at a geology conference one time - results from his Master’s thesis. When he asked for questions at the end, a professor from another university raised his hand. This particular professor created fear not only in the hearts of grad students, but other professors and professionals as well. The grad student looked shaken as the professor rose and said, “Your thesis is untenable,” and then went on to destroy everything about the talk. That professor is a friend of mine now, but he still strikes fear in presenters and authors.</p>

<p>While I agree that these are two excellent choices for comparison and contrast - similar and contrasting approaches… I disagree that Ansel Adams had a distaste and morose attitude towards nature herself." Adams has some of the most famous landscape photographs in history, and loved the outdoors.</p>

<p>Here is some insight (from the web) about him and nature, talking about his close-ups that he felt people did not appreciate:</p>

<p>*Adams may be most well-known for his long-distance shots, but he was also fascinated with turning his camera to the details in nature. The creative photographers of the early twentieth century were known for close-up shots and he followed suit. He wrote poetically in his autobiography, “One can never assert the superiority … of torrents swollen by the floods of spring against the quiescent scintillations of an autumn stream.”</p>

<p>Adams quoted an American poet who shared his tendency to look for beauty in small and unassuming places as well as in the grand and dramatic:</p>

<p>“These with the rest, one and all, are to me miracles,
The whole referring, yet each distant and in its place.”
From “Miracles,” by Walt Whitman</p>

<p>While he himself found “subtle beauty in quiet, simple things,” it was typical of “modern conceit to demand the maximum dimension.” He believed that people in Asia involved with aesthetics “would never question the exquisite charm of those pale threads of water patterned on shining stone,” but that Americans’ preference for the “theatrical” limits their appreciation of the beauty in small details.</p>

<p>Adams was disturbed by this attitude even among some close acquaintances. They could see a “grand vision in a photograph of a mountain”, for instance, but not in fragments or details of nature. Adams says that to them, “A close-up composition of a pinecone” was “simply not as important as a whole tree.”</p>

<p>Adams conceded that for most people the subject matter is the dominant consideration in any photograph. The successful transmission of more sophisticated creative concepts “depends upon the sensitivity of the viewer.” A photograph begins to lose some of its illusion of realism when taken in black and white because the reality around us is in color. The more the photographer focuses on the beauty of the light, texture, shape, value and other formal elements, the less the image is tied to the reality of the subject.</p>

<p>Adams wrote in Examples that a composition that is arranged in the studio is “contrived” and is “a synthetic creation in that it involves putting together elements to make an argreeable arrangement.” On the other hand, a composition from the external world, is “created by an analytic process in that we select and manage the elements of the photograph in the existing surround.”*</p>

<p>I do see what you mean, but we were asked to write from a personal point of view, only relying on what we thought when we saw these images, and not what the artist intended. Thank you for pointing out this “flaw” in my paper; I will definitely keep your anecdote in mind whenever writing something meant for the public. :]
Oh, I have received your kindle gift, thank you very much. I was wondering, when does the next edition of your book come out?</p>

<p>The one you have is the latest (eBook version). The new paper version should be on Amazon now. Oops - just checked… temporarily sold out. But I know some some are on the way.</p>

<p>As for the essay, if it is totally about what you’re impression is, then I withdraw the “flaw” comment.</p>

<p>I accept your withdrawal, haha. :] When, and how, will you be using my narrative for your book?</p>

<p>…either in a future edition (long time away since Second Edition just came out) or in an article or perhaps on the website as well.</p>

<p>I know quite good <a href=“http://www.professay.com/”>custom writing service</a>. You may use it if you want</p>