Visually mixing up the background and the object of observation can return unexpected results. But on the other hand we should't separate something from its environment in order to have a thorough knowledge about it. So, must perhaps this "thorough knowledge" also contain elements of perceptional fantasy? Is fantasy just as imposrtant as rational thought is?
Hugo, first of all, thank you very much for the comment and the critiques. Indeed, I tried as good as I can, to avoid the "wow-effect", since the whole thoughts are unexpected but quite clear.
Your reference to the sorroundings of an object, to that complementarity, is essential part of quantum mechanics. If it makes sense? Well...
In physics you learn that at the end the outcoming of an observation depends on the observer inasmuch that even a measurable property.. builds up at the moment of observation, more or less. Before the observation that property was not existent!
Crazy? Well, that's nothing compared to mathematics. Often we have some kind of object in a theory, whose surroundings are completelly and sharply defined. Now you could think, remove the sorroundings and you get the object. But, alas, the object is not what remains after removing the surroundings which themselves are completely known!
Since mathematical objects are products of though&logic it seems that this complementarity is not only an inherent property of things but an inherent property in our minds.
Your about is definitely food for thought. I believe the "thorough knowledge" about any subject should indeed include the coherence with it's environment / surroundings, and there are different ways to depict that photographically.
In this photo, you've made a very strong connection between the primary subject and it's background, almost making both equally important, creating a single primary subject made of two features.
The strength in it is not so much the focus or DOF (although that is another way of blending two subjects to equally importance), but the saturation. Yet the two elements remain separated, the one emphasising the feel of the other.
This might sound far fetched, but I think it's fairly simple and basic; the background places the twigs into perspective, at the same time hinting at the time of year, the light and the weather. Similar, the twigs provides a reference and a function for the background, as without it, the background would be lacking structure and meaning.
In this respect, neither background nor foreground can be seen separated from each other, as they are complimentary. Together they sketch a story, stronger than the individual elements.
As to this photo, I think the idea behind it, and the thoughts and questions you've put with them are more challenging than the photo itself; it's good, alright, but maybe you've succeeded too well in blending the two subjects, removing the element of surprise, a.k.a the "wow-factor"...
And, way more off topic, the frame on the right side misses a black line, and is a bit too elaborate for my taste. I think this kind of framing becomes a part of the photo (read: a third subject), instead of a simple barrier between the photo and it's background.
Thanks for making me thing, I hope it all makes sense...
In my personal opinion, I think the brightly colored flowers in the background, even while blurred, is a distraction from the subject. I find my eye going to the blurred bright colors rather than to the main subject even though the depth of field is good. Than again, if it was your intent to give this type of perception than you have accomplished what you set out to do and this is a success.
0 
