I think you are somewhat missing my point here.
The main appealing element of the OP's macro shot is the very striking and vivid colour, plus the shape/form of the subject.
I agree
IF he had made sure that those 'other' more technical components were also at a high standard...his picture would have been so much better.
No, I disagree. His macro abstract does not need any "improvements" in "technical components." The narrow DOF, the truncated crop - these things add, not detract, from its favorable impact. However, if one's preconception of a flower macro ONLY allows for pin-sharp, fully framed, evenly lit parameters one will (as you appear to be) understandably be disappointed with a photo such as his. It's all about expectations and preconceptions.
Applying the 'technical' excellence factor to any picture won't distract from it's "appeal' or creativity aspect...but only enhance it.
Again, I disagree. If the intent is to represent "reality" then one could convincingly argue your point. But if the intent is to provide the viewer with a feel, an emotional impact, then sharpness, "rule of thirds" compositions, extended DOF, etc, etc are not essential and in some cases are counterproductive.
\
It's a common myth that ART is a 100% free-flowing form of expression. Modern science now clearly indicates that WE (as a species) are far more 'hardwired' to established norms & commonality than we previously believed.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Modern science definitively and 'clearly indicating' much of anything has been shown, time and time again, to be, at best a temporary truth. When it comes to demonstrating scientifically what humans are and are not predisposed to enjoy aesthetically is at best a speculative field, a few published studies notwithstanding. Newborn babies may indeed respond more favorably to the high pitched female voice than to a lower pitched male voice, and may be thought to smile more often at teddy bears than trolls, but these studies are all very speculative in their conclusions and hardly constitute "hard science" in the vein of well-controlled, randomized, blinded studies of the "hard sciences."
Great ART (in any medium) only works truly well - IF the creativer elements also engage the range of 'accepted' human psycho-social parameters.
Please define "works well." Also, please define "Art." And please direct us to the citations to the works that support your rather narrow conclusion on what is and what is not "great."
Ie: a blurry subject, with no focus (attention) region - is just that - an "out of focus" photo....which doesn't make it artistic, just technically incorrect...and therefore, generally not acceptable to our human visual sensory experience.
I could not disagree more. Blur, soft focus, indistinct boundaries, merging colors and tones, etc are often elements that give an image, whether photographic or otherwise, a truly transcendental and desirable aeshetic quality. Were that not so, photographers would not be so heatedly and passionately discussing and praising the so-called "bokeh" of their $4,000 lenses.
--
My Art, Your Pleasure
