Tidbits

I hope that photography (with its power to portray the real world) can start to move toward understanding, appreciating, and portraying the common wonders of the world, rather than just the special wonders of the world.

and,

It has come to the point that landscape photography seems to exist in a world of perpetual sinrises and sunsets, as though the ordinary experience of living does not in and of itself constitute a remarkable experience.

both quotes - John Paul Caponigro

FEATURED COMMENT: Ian wrote: "I think the sentiments also apply to life in general, the tendency to go through life without really experiencing or appreciating the continuous moments of living, instead focusing on the highlights, the 'sunrises' and 'sunsets' of experience, and trying to forget the lowlights.

publisher's comment - d'accord...

If the publisher chose to be self-serving, he could also include that Ian also wrote, "I think this is one of the reasons that I find your ku's so compelling. To me they capture the experience of being in the moment, that is, they capture what I experience when I am fully appreciating and understanding the landscape that I am at a particular moment part of."

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...

Joseph Kayne

This photograph showed up unexpectedly last night in an email with no text other than "Attached is a recent photograph that I made this past October. Enjoy."

I know of Joseph as a photographer of rural America, expecially of barns and barn art - subjects that are normally fodder for bw photography, not color.

Enjoy.

FEATURED COMMENT: David Pamer wrote: "What really makes this photograph work for me is the dog. Especially the fact that, in silhouette he (she?) appears no more real than the horses. A silhouette looking at silhouettes.

publisher's comment - d'accord...(I seem to have something stuck in my throat...)

"urban" ku # 9

Another roadside attraction in Keeseville, NY.

Heading south just past Au Sable Chasm - the so-called "Oldest Natural Wonder In the USA" - there is a 2-3 mile stretch of highway with wall-to-wall faded remnants of a past tourism heyday. Since 1870, more than 10,000,000 visitors have come to the chasm which was intially billed as "The Little Grand Canyon of the East".

The chasm itself is literally a walk through early post Pleistocene geological history, but a walk or drive down the aforementioned stretch of Rt. 9 is trip through the last major tourism rush era - the 1950s. Especially prominent are a host of 50s-era motels, most still in operation, most every so gently time-worn. I have started to photograph this strip of highway as part of my ongoing project to photograph the Adirondacks in all of its many guises.

What I am working to capture is the "place-that-time-forgot/bypassed" look and feel of most of the peopled-parts of the Adirondacks. Tourism in the Adirondacks - a so-called rubber-tire destination - took a major hit in the late 50s as Americans took to the expanding interstates, all of which bypassed the Adirondacks. With the exception of the village of Lake Placid which experienced a brief period of 1980 Olympic's development, virtually all tourism related development came to a complete stop. Many of the grand old lodges closed and were eventually torn down.

Somehow though, most of the small family-run motels managed to survive to this day in one fashion or another. Today, the result is a virtual living museum of 50's-era cultural set pieces spread out through out the Adirondack Park - the largest wilderness in the east, an area larger than the state of Vermont.

David Chauvin from way down south

While wading in the thigh deep soup, I ran across this spent lilypad and seed pod. In years past, the seeds were collected, roasted and eaten.The water level had dropped leaving the pad high and dry above the hyacinths and hitchhikers.

Tidbit

I love this one.

Interpretation is the revenge of the intellectual upon art. - Susan Sontag

"urban" ku # 8 and mini-commentary for your consideration

Early-ish this AM in the sleepy hamlet of Au Sable Forks.

Yesterday, in comments on Jerry Greer's photograph, the notion of "pretty pictures" reared its ugly head. On an online photo forum Jerry is well known for what many would label his "pretty pictures" of his beloved southern Appalachians, and, when the accusation of "pretty picture" is hurled in his direction, he responds with a vigorous defense. He and I have gone heatedly lens-cap-to-lens-cap a few times but have managed to pull back before putting out contracts on each other.

But, all in all, I'm glad to have him here.

That said, it is, past history and all, very interesting/intriguing to read Jerry's "confession" (using only the absolute loosest of definitions) here on The Landscapists that much of his photography was created to "keep the lights on" as they say. I didn't take this to mean that he was disavowing any of his work or that the photographs were not created out of "...passion and a deep love..." for his subject. He also noted that he now has "...the freedom to shoot as I would like to shoot and not be tied to a specific style..." and that he is pursuing "...projects (that) will be freer and more art driven than the moneymaker projects that we do in mass to keep the lights on."

I will be very intrigued to follow the "transition".

On to the mini-commentary which I believe is very related to Jerry's comments - 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". Without going into a lengthy explanation of why I think this happens, let me offer the following -

Not sure of my reference on this - "...photographic documents are not the creations of an idealizing imagination that responds to the imperfections of reality with a dream of beauty. Instead, they are the trophies of a hunter who looks for the unusual in the world of what actually exists and discovered something exceptionally good."

It seems to me that this notion of "trophy hunter" pretty clearly defines the difference in photographic MO between the pretty-picture-ists and those who create photographs that are considered to be more in the fine art realm.

Eric Fredine - a follow up

Kent Wiley commenting on my Horizons photographs very kindly wrote : "...the formalism is stunning..."

The formal structure of my photographs is overt - obsessively so even. And I often worry about it becoming too 'cute' or contrived. That I might descend in to vacuous exercises in graphic design or emulate a second rate stock photographer.

But I also think its a fundamental part of what I do. The formal structure emphasizes that I am observing a scene from a precisely chosen place and time. This creates a transience that is part of the emotional impact. I am exploiting that unique characteristic of a photograph: it's relationship to a slice of the real world.

Compositional choices are inherently subjective and calculated - and are often manipulative. By making my choices overt and obvious I may actually be creating a more objective photograph. Which hopefully facilitates the viewer forming their own relationship with the scene.

At the same time, the formal structures are a reflection of the environments and provide a commentary on them. They are part of the narrative.

PS - Winter has aggressively asserted itself in Alberta: -25C, winds, snow. Strangely enough, this inspired me to get out and make some new photographs after a several months of inactivity.

FEATURED COMMENT: Kent Wiley wrote: "...yakety yak, yakety yak, yadda, yadda, yadda...but I'd like to hear more about the improv aspect of your photography.

Photopop 7.0

On the road to gravitas' house.

Jerry Greer ~ Old and Beautiful # 1

For years I’ve had a fascination with the forest interior. Yes, I love the big clean forest scene but lately I’ve really started to look into the secondary forests that predominately make up the southern Appalachian forests due to heavy logging.

I recently was hired for an assignment by the Southern Environmental Law Center to photograph an old growth forest with chestnut oaks that were cored and found to be over 325 years old (there is an imminent threat from the USFS to allow these trees to be cut as part of a huge timber sale). The trees were really not that impressive and were intermingled with what the old-timers call laurel-hell. My job as a photographer was to make the trees look massive and beautiful! This was the hardest photo assignment that I’ve ever done.

Tidbits

I have quite a collection of quotes, so, instead of keeping them all to myself, I'll start to share some on a regular basis. Please feel free to contribute. Here goes:

As soon as beauty is sought not from religion and love, but for pleasure, it degrades the seeker. ~ Emerson

and

The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the power of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand in rapt awe, is as good as dead. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitve forms - this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and this sense only, I belong to the ranks of the devoutly religious men. ~ Einstein

I offer the second quote to qualify my sense of "religion" in the first.

ku # 441 and a commentary for your consideration

A cold frosty late November morning.

Last week over at Photo-Musings, Paul Butzi raised the topic of "talent". He stated, "I think the whole talent thing is a myth. At least, I think that talent is vastly over-rated....the myth is that talent is a substitute for hard work..."

The point that Paul seems to be making is, "doing your best is hard work...do the best work you can. Talent or no talent, that's all any of us can do..." I find it difficult to disagree with the proposition to, as they say in the Army, "be all that you can be".

BUT...(with me it seems like there's always a "but")

...I find it not nearly as difficult to disagree with the notion that "talent is vastly over-rated", in part because this idea seems to lead to the proposition that "...talent is a set of skills that you develop over time through desire" - a related but highly suspect statement made by Craig Tanner in his essay The Myth of Talent

The notions that "talent is vastly over-rated" and that "talent is a skill set" are rather dangerous ideas for 2 reasons:

reason # 1 - IMO, a true talent for something - that unbidden preternatural inner-being "gift" - is precious, relatively rare and very real. Not understanding that this so tends to denigrate the special-ness of a truly unique talent vis-a-vis a "small" talent. (FYI, I am not using the word "small" as a put-down because after all, as Paul Butzi also states, "...photography and art aren't a race..." or a competition, but this recognition does not negate the fact that some art is "large" in impact/influence/significance while other art is "small" in impact/influence/significance.)

I appreciate the manifestations of "small" talent very much but there is also a somewhat greater intangible "thrill" of discovery which I expereience when I am confronted the works of a very unique talent. This talent is a thing to be highly "celebrated" and often is by its display in books, galleries and museums.

On a side note, perhaps the web is a big gallery where all talent gets it due.

reason # 2 - I would also opine that talent is a fragile thing - the greatness of the artist's individuality that, if not recognized, fostered and encouraged to flourish, can, in the course of "hard work", wither on the vine. As H.D. Thoreau stated, "What does education often do? It makes a straight-cut ditch of a free, meandering brook.", or, as Einstein stated, "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

Confusing craft (skill sets) with talent is a big mistake. A skill set must work in the service of talent.

IMO, the American educator and painter Robert Henri made the point very clearly in his 1923 vintage book The Art Spirit - "The greatness of art depends absolutely on the greatness of the artist's individuality, and on the same source depends the power to acquire a tecnhique sufficient for expresion."

He goes on to discuss the inherent dangers of "developing a skill set" - "The man who is forever acquiring technique with the idea that sometime he may have something to express, will never have the technique of the thing he wishes to express...the technique learned without a purpose is a formula when used, knocks the life out of any idea to which it is applied.

IMO, talent is an inner resource that has more to do with an insatiable curiousity and a drive to "see" beneath the surface of things than it does with the desire to acquire skill sets. IMO, artists who foster and explore that unbidden burning curiousity and drive - the greatness of their individuality as a person - are those who most often create new ways of "seeing" life (sometimes with a new technique). New ways of "seeing" that have the greatest impact not only visually, but on the notion of what it means to be human - art that is truly meaning full.

PS - the fact that this commentary immediately precedes (in the scrolling scheme of things) Eric Fredine's photograph is not a coincidence. IMO, his comments speak to the heart of the talent matter.


FEATURED COMMENT Paul Ralphaelson wrote: "Several years ago some researchers went looking for talent among the applicants at a major British music conservatory. They were hoping to find examples of the Mozart phenomenon--musicians who soared above everyone else with precious little work.

What they found startled them: an almost exact correlation between the time spent practicing and studying and their admissions ranking. They also found an almost ten-to-one difference in practicing time between the hardest and least hardest working applicants.

In one sense, this challenges the notion of talent. In another sense, I'd suggest that capacity for relentless work IS a kind of talent. How many people walking the earth are actually capable of practicing piano for 60 hours a week, year after year, without burning out, collapsing from repetetive stress injuries, or going crazy?

I suspect it's very, very few. These great musicians exhibit genius-level obsession for working at their craft. I think you'll find similar examples in all the arts. Some photographers never leave the house without a camera. Some can't even face the world without a camera between them and reality ... their obsession leve seems almost like a kind of autism. The obsessive greats are out with their cameras while bums like me are sleeping in, going to cock fights, and running around with loose women.

publisher's comment - Paul R. brings up a point that I thought to put in my commentary but did not because I thought it was getting a little long. The point is this - In his commentary, Paul B. wrote about "hard work" as a means to doing the best you can do - to which I would add, with the talent you have. No question about that.

Paul R. writes about a "genius-level obsession" capacity for working at a craft, but this is NOT what I would call "hard work". I have no doubt that many (if not most) in the arts who are considered "large" talents are, in fact, obsessive about their art, but, while they may work to near exhaustion at times, I'd be surprised if many called it "hard work". Without implying anything about the measure of my talent, I can say that while I "work" at photography very "hard" and long, I really do enjoy every minute of it - even when I'm weaving a tapestry of computer/software-driven obscenities that hangs over the Adirondacks like a dark vaporous cloud, I have to admit, it feels much more like "play" than "work". Please don't tell my wife.

There is way more pleasure than pain. More like sleeping, going to cock fights, and running around with loose women. (Please don't tell my wife)

Eric Fredine ~ Horizons

I've been preparing work for an exhibition. It seems to be a period of consolidation and reflection accompanied by ample amounts of angst and uncertainty. I think I've learnt a few things about myself and my photography.

Thing one: my photographs - at least the ones that 'work' - are more about photographing a feeling than a subject. And because they are photographs of the way I feel they are very much a reflection of me.

Thing two: despite no overt attempt to create one a narrative seems to emerge.