ku # 442 and a commentary for your consideration

Judging by the number of times I have photographed this erratic, it might be said that I have raised it, in my eyes and imagination, to the status of a fetish object.

the commentary (its realtionship to the above photograph is optional) - In a response to my commentary, which stated in part, Many landscape/nature photographers seem to be very focused on a notion of "beauty" which very often becomes little more than another trite example of "pretty picture". Paul Butzi wrote,

"...The trap of falling into triteness lies waiting for us everywhere. Do you have some reason to think that 'pretty' is a bigger trap than 'ugly' or 'poverty' or 'social injustice'? Judging from the work I've seen lately, the bigger trap is that often people are AFRAID to make photographs which show beauty."

my answer - While every photo genre has its trite and cliche-ridden traps, I certainly believe that the landscape/nature genre is overwhelmingly prone to the easy and culturally popular lure of "pretty". If you have any doubt, visit any one of several online nature photography photo forums and witness the neverending parade of repetitious and hopelessly sentimental photographs. These serious-minded amateurs are drawn, like moths to a flame, to a narrow range of motifs and pictorial techniques that when visited and applied over and over again "...knocks the life out of any ideas to which it is applied..." (The Art Spirit - Robert Henri). I would addend this notion to read, sucks the beauty out of any ideas to which it is applied. Beauty, which is most often complex in nature, is trivialized and reduced to the simple and easily digested state of "pretty".

To be clear, let me explain that I believe there is a vast difference between "pretty-ness" and "beauty". To my eye and sensibility, "pretty" is the obvious which sits on the surface of things while "beauty" goes much deeper than the obvious and the surface. True beauty does not reside in the merely pretty.

To my eye and sensibility, beauty is a complex and rich mixture of the real, the hidden (or not so obvious), and the imagined. In the medium of photography with its formal characteristic of connection to the referent (the object of its gaze), I believe beauty is discovered and found, not "made". IMO, the best photography is that created by the keen observer and witness to the "real". Photographers who do not rely on technique but rather on a finely honed (practiced) sense of observation of a referent to which they are passionately and obssessively drawn.

It is these photographers who, no matter how their referent is culturally classified - ugly, mundane, beautiful, pretty, etc. - create photographs of great "beauty".

As far the notion of photographers who "are AFRAID to make photographs which show beauty", I would venture the opinion that perhaps they are really afraid of making photographs which might be judged to be merely "pretty" - a self-regulating temperance that I judge to be a worthy one in the cause of curbing the sentimental excesses of mainstream landscape/nature photography. However, it would be a shame if this "fear" inhibited the photographic exploration of things "beautiful".

FEATURED COMMENT: Ana wrote: "From what I've seen of art-school culture over the past few months, I think there absolutely is an almost superstitious fear of formal beauty. It's a very interesting experience (in a tear-my-hair-out sort of way) to have gone from the NPN-like culture where my photography is considered to be quite ugly to the art-school culture where I'm constantly being beaten up for my love of formal beauty. Both of these extremes seem somewhat pathological.

publisher's comment - d'accord...