Interim Crit - Nature!

I wanted to approach the idea of “nature” in a non-traditional or non-obvious way—something beyond only trees and sky. Looking into the science side of nature, I found x-ray crystallography. The wavelengths of x-rays correspond to inter-atomic distances. The diffraction (resulting pattern) of an x-ray passing through a crystalline solid can be used to deduce the shape or structure of that crystal. The result is a “photograph,” although with a much different appearance than one from our digital cameras.

The most famous image is that of DNA taken by Rosalind Franklin in 1952. It was from this image and research that Watson and Crick modeled the double-helix structure of DNA. The photograph of the x-ray diffraction is not only historically significant, but also aesthetically beautiful in its abstract, simple symmetry. Here it is:

DNA is the foundation of life, and “life” is a key component of nature. My image merges the external, natural-phenomena traits (of flowers and fibers) with the internal structural traits (of DNA). In my first variation I used this orange flower to stand out against the brown/tan background, but I have other images that I could use instead of the flower. Here is my interpretation:

Another idea I was considering stemmed from our discussion of the non-existence of the “pure nature,” one without “unnatural” human intervention, or death or moldy parts. I wanted to make an altar/reliquary to show how we worship this ideal. The top would be a triptych of images, and the bottom would be little “reliquary” containers with small objects on interesting backgrounds. It would all be encased in some kind of an altarpiece, of either man-made or natural materials. In my rough demo that I posted below, I used photographs with natural and unnatural aspects, to show that “nature” doesn’t really fit this ideal. However, I’m not sure if it would be more compelling if all of the pictures were pristine, “sacred.” Any suggestions?