BODIES OF WORK ~ PICTURE GALLERIES
- my new GALLERIES WEBSITE
ADK PLACES TO SIT / LIFE WITHOUT THE APA / RAIN / THE FORKS / EARLY WORK / TANGLES
BODIES OF WORK ~ BOOK LINKS
- Kitchen Sink
- 2014 • Year in Review
- Place To Sit
- ART ~ conveys / transports / reflects
- Decay & Disgust
- Single Women
- Picture Windows
- Tangles ~ fields of visual energy (10 picture preview)
- The Light + BW mini-gallery
- Kitchen Life (gallery)
- The Forks ~ there's no place like home (gallery)
It doesn't matter how many times I hike the 5 miles to Camp Santanoni, it never fails to impress (from this page on the Adirondack Architectual Heritage website) .....
Camp Santanoni, built 1892-93, had three main groupings of buildings, totaling 45 buildings in all. The Gatehouse Complex, situated at the edge of the hamlet of Newcomb, included an impressive gatehouse with its monumental, stone, gateway arch and eight staff bedrooms, a caretaker’s home, and assorted barns, wagon sheds and other buildings.
A mile farther into the estate, the Farm Complex included a massive set of barns, four farmhouses and workers’ cottages, a stone creamery, workshop, chicken house, kennels, smoke house, root cellar and other service buildings. With imported and domestic breeds of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and poultry, Santanoni had probably the largest farm operation ever associated with a family estate in the Adirondacks. It supplied the camp with its meat and produce, while surplus dairy products were sold in Newcomb and sent to Albany for the Pruyns and their friends.
The Main Camp at Santanoni was situated 4.7 miles from the Gatehouse Complex, farther into the estate on the shore of Newcomb Lake, with an excellent view toward the Adirondack High Peaks. The main lodge was actually a grouping of six separate buildings – the main living and dining lodge with two bedrooms upstairs; four sleeping cabins with a total of six bedrooms; and a kitchen and service building with seven staff bedrooms – all connected by a common roof and porch system. 1500 trees were used in the log construction.
If you are ever in the neighborhood, it's a must see.
FYI, the diptych pictures were made looking left and right from the left and right corners of the main building. As can be seen on the rendering above, all of the separate buildings were connected by a massive deck under a single massive roof.
In yesterday's entry I linked to an essay by JÖRG M. COLBERG in which he emphasized his desire to view pictures which create a "dialogue". That is, by his definition, "... the dialogue someone’s work has (or attempts to have) with everything else."
What I infer from that statement is that Colberg is looking to find a meaning which is implied / suggested beyond the obvious literal observation of a picture's referent - what Roland Barthes deemed as a picture's punctum: the wounding, personally touching detail which establishes a direct relationship with the object or person within it. OR, what I describe as a picture's illuminative quality (as opposed to its illustrative quality).
Much has been written about a picture's meaning, its illusiveness, its malleability, and, in the case of the academic lunatic fringe, its preeminence (meaning over visual) in the act of picture making. While I place absolutely no stock in the ALF's preoccupation / fetish, re: meaning, I certainly agree with notions of meaning to be found in a picture as illusive and malleable.
All of that written, I have a question .... it seems to be a significant part of the human condition to look / search for meaning (why are we here / what's the meaning of life, etc.). In light of that fact, it would appear that many bring that approach to the medium of photography. But the thought occurs to me that perhaps we are asking too much of the medium when it comes to the idea of meaning. Which thought does by no means that I believe meaning in pictures is not possible.
In fact, I still and always will believe that the best pictures are those which, in addition to their visual merits, ask questions and/or introduce the viewer to something (s)he finds challenging and/or thought provoking to at least some extent. How far one can take that idea, re: deliberately creating intended meaning in a picture (the WOW factor really doesn't qualify as meaning), is, IMO, open to very legitimate question (other than pure outright propaganda).
And, of course, no matter the picture maker's intent, meaning wise, the viewer can assign to a picture any meaning (or none at all) (s)he can conjure up inasmuch as what the viewer gets out of a picture is very dependent upon what that viewer brings to the picture viewing table. After all, stupid is as stupid does, and, interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art.
FYI, in the same dune diptych the pictures were made from about the same vantage point but with different lenses. They were made approximately 45-60 minutes apart. The sky over the ocean at the beach can change rather quickly.