Volcanoes without "Nature"

READ THE TEXT BELOW.

When we think of Photoshop, do we really have to enhance the image to make something nicer? I think I would be against it as it disconnects the essence of your work. Usually my Photoshop is idea, mood and event based, to create a sense of atmosphere that people can easily understand while at the same time keep my originality.

When I first created "Fury Kazan", I did not make things look clear enough for the audience to critically analyze. Just a huge volcanic eruption but with a tiny plot that I have since thrown away. Now looking back at it, more things made sense. In Timothy Morton's "Architecture without Nature" (a good read!), he said that humans must not connect design with a broken concept of nature. Rather, they should connect with a so-called Object Oriented Ontology (OOO), looking at things in an objective way to understand a bigger picture of it. Hence my proposal is here competing with other people's images.

It was something that I just figured that I have been thinking cognitively. I don't seem to think of things as "nature" but rather object oriented, such as with the trees, rocks, lahar, and volcanic ash are all completely things individually, but work in tandem to create a resilient environment. We see in the picture that things look the same but they are also different entities. By using Photoshop as an object to specify yet to conceptualize as a whole, I think the clear message of the idea and an event can happen.

Easier to read: Used Photoshop as an Atmospheric tool, not to enhance the image
 

Tech Specs:
- 300 dpi image
- colour (surprise)
- Used different shades of grey to create a "smoky ash" effect
- All in all, it was "minimal"