ku # 709-10 ~ twigs and trash

River foam and froth ~ in the NE Adirondack PARK - Au Sable Forks, NY• click to embiggenIn response to yesterday's entry, civilized ku # 460, Tom Frost suggested:

Here's a survey you can host: pictures of twigs and trash. The only caveat is that they must be unique in point of view, content, or whatever parameter deemed significant. Pick a panel of experts or you be the arbiter.

By "survey", I assume that Tom means that I set up a gallery here on The Landscapist - not unlike the Kitchen Sink Project and the Wildness Close to Home galleries (see links in the right hand column). Those were 2 galleries that were set up to display the work of other picture makers made under the criteria as named in the gallery titles.

So, I have no issue with hosting a survey of pictures of twigs and trash. However, it requires the participation and efforts of The Landscapist audience - something that was sorely lacking in a recent suggestion for a car wash gallery project.

That lack of participation may have simply been the result of a lack of interest in the subject matter. Or, maybe it's just that nobody goes to a car wash anymore. Or, perhaps more to the point, most of The Landscapist audience is not all that inclined to partake in what amounts to camera-club assignments. I don't know the answer. All I know is that no one other than Don has pursued making car wash pictures.

Nevertheless, I'll ask the question .... any interest?

ku # 707 ~ surprise vs going the distance

Erratic top growth and detritus • click to embiggenPursuant to yesterday's entry about the utilization and organization of the flat 2D surface of the print, to include ideas and concepts about visual language, one could rightfully conclude that what appears on the surface of the print constitutes, in no small way, most of the purely decorative qualities of the print.

Color, shapes, spatial relationships/tension, tonality, and the like are what catches the eye. Sometimes they delight / soothe / comfort the eye and sometimes they irritate / agitate / confuse or otherwise unsettle it. And, dependent upon a viewer's tastes, preferences, mood, and the like (or any given combination thereof), a picture may be deemed to be visually involving or not.

It is also interesting to note that any particular picture that is deemed to be un-involving upon first viewing may, with a change in any of the aforementioned variables, be deemed, upon further and/or repeated viewing, to be interesting to the eye. Some pictures become more so upon repeated viewings. Others just tend to fade away.

Keep in mind here, that we are talking about the purely 2D surface characteristics of the print that are independent of the print's referent - the thing depicted.

I mentioned in yesterday's entry that these 2D qualities to be seen on a print are, in the photography world at large, one of the least understood / recognized qualities of a print. IMO, the reason for that is quite simple - most people on the planet, to include the overwhelming majority of picture makers, view pictures in much the same manner as Szarkowski suggests ... you're not suppose to look at the thing, you're suppose to look through it. It's a window.

When viewing a print (the thing), most people don't "see" the print, they look right through it and "see" the thing depicted. Not that this should come as a big surprise, after all, a picture is just a picture, right? And, to a certain extent, the medium's most unique characteristic - that which distinguishes from the other visual arts - its inherent and irrevocable relationship to and as a cohort of "the real", tends to work against the perception of anything but what is depicted.

A print is most often judged only by what it depicts in a very literal sense. It is what it appears to be and nothing else. It only represents the denoted. There is no such thing as the connoted.

Because the medium is so rooted in "the real", there seems to be no room at all in the minds of the masses for concepts such as metaphor, symbolism, irony, paradox, allegory, allusion, and the like - concepts and devices that are readily accepted, studied, applied, and understood in a whole host of other arts.

IMO, and that of many many others, the understanding and perception of such concepts and devices in pictures is what, ultimately, separates the wheat from the chaff in determining what is and is not "Real Art". Those concepts and devices in pictures are what separates the flash-in-the-pan pictures from those with legs.

civilized ku # 457 ~ uninterested people

Roadside landscaping ~ in the NE Adirondack PARK - Jay, NY• click to embiggen

My creative process begins when I get out with the camera and interact with the world. A camera is truly a license to explore. There are no uninteresting things. There are just uninterested people. - Jerry Uelsmann

civilized ku # 455 / ku # 705 ~ being in the moment

A balance beam and decaying birch • click to embiggenRelative to my recent entry, ku # 697, wherein I wrote about picture makers struggling to break out of the pretty picture making picturing MO, it seems that one old and gnarly guy is pining for "some small shred of insight into 'Real Art'".

OK, sure. I'll do what I can to help but, first things first .... IMO, one of the greatest influences on getting at least some small shred of insight into “Real Art” is the old Right Brain / Left Brain thing. To clarify:

The Left Brain favors Logical/Sequential, Rational, Analytical, Objective, and Looks-at-parts thinking. Traits that would serve well, say, a statistician or someone involved in chartered accountancy.

The Right Brain favors Random/Intuitive, Holistic/Synthesizing, Subjective, and Looks-at-wholes thinking. Traits that serve well, say, an artist or someone involved in interior design.

Left Brain thinkers are also said to be literal or verbal thinkers while Right Brain thinkers are said to be intuitive or visual thinkers. Most thinkers favor / use one side of the brain or the other as their dominant way of thinking - which is not to say that those different ways of thinking are mutually exclusive because, quite simply, they are not.

Most Right Brain dominant thinkers also tend toward free association - a spontaneous, logically unconstrained and undirected association of ideas, emotions, and feelings. Consequently, they lean toward questioning and challenging convention. In short, they like, one could even say that they are driven, to break the rules, unlike their Left Brain counterparts who are much more likely to unquestioningly follow the rules.

All of that said, there is little doubt that the Right Brain favors creativity, exploration, and risk taking. As a result, Right Brain thinking favors the artist and it should come as no surprise that Modern Dance, Abstract Impressionism, Modern Poetry, Free Form Jazz, and whole host of other "modern" artistic activities have sprung from the minds of Right Brain thinkers.

It should also come as no surprise that Right Brain thinkers - artists or not - tend to understand and/or appreciate many forms of "modern" art. A picture, a painting, a musical performance, a poem can trigger a whole range of free associations that move the viewer / observer well beyond the literal plane of mere appearances and words. In the mind of visual thinkers, ideas, feelings, and emotions are quite literally, hair-trigger sensitive.

In the visual arts and for the Right Brainers, colors and shapes can set off quite a cascade of seemingly random thoughts and emotions. That is why, for many, a Jackson Pollock painting is so much more than just a random splash and dash of paint on canvas. Why a Warhol print can be so much more than just a Campbells soup can. Why Eggleston's Tricycle is so much more than just a picture of a tricycle.

And, yes, Mr. Old and Gnarly, that is why a playground balance beam and a pile of twigs / detritus in the snow can be so much more than what mere appearances suggest they might be.

ku # 704 ~ form the meaningless world into photographs ....

Spring ice and dormant flora • click to embiggenI came across an interesting article, The Unreasonable Apple (by Paul Graham) that is a must read for those who are interested in the medium of photography and all its possibilities.

The article starts with a simple premise:

... there remains a sizeable part of the art world that simply does not get photography. They get artists who use photography to illustrate their ideas, installations, performances and concepts .... [B]ut photography for and of itself -photographs taken from the world as it is– are misunderstood as a collection of random observations and lucky moments ..."

Graham goes on to define what he sees as "the problem" and asks an interesting and challenging question:

... whilst you can discuss what Jeff Wall did in an elaborately staged street tableaux, how do you explain what Garry Winogrand did on a real New York street when he ‘just’ took the picture? ... [A]nyone with an ounce of sensitivity knows (he) did something there, and something utterly remarkable at that, but... what? How do we articulate this uniquely photographic creative act, and express what it amounts to in terms such that the art world, highly attuned to synthetic creation - the making of something by the artist - can appreciate serious photography that engages with the world as it is?

The article, which is of the short and sweet variety - easy to read and refreshingly devoid of artspeak, makes a number of interesting points ...

... we need the smart, erudite and eloquent people in the art world, the clever curators and writers, those who do get it, to take the time to speak seriously about the nature of such photography, and articulate something of its dazzlingly unique qualities, to help the greater art world, and the public itself understand the nature of the creative act when you dance with life itself - when you form the meaningless world into photographs, then form those photographs into a meaningful world.

Now, not only have I've read lots and lots and lots of stuff about the medium of photography but I have also viewed lots and lots and lots of pictures and I must confess that I have read or seen very little that comes as close to expressing my concept of what the medium's all about than those bold and underlined words in the preceding quote ...

A creative act wherein you dance with life itself - wherein you form the meaningless world into photographs, then form those photographs into a meaningful world.

As always, comments and opinions are encouraged and appreciated.

ku # 703 ~ aromatography

Uprooted trees ~ in the NE Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen This picture would be a perfect candidate for Kodak's revolutionary new Aromatography (Neuro-Optic-Nasal-Sense Imaging).

ku # 702 ~ a pile of twigs

Lichen and bog detritus ~ in the NE Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenI totally agree with John Szarkowski's idea that ...

"Photography is a system of visual editing. At bottom, it is a matter of surrounding with a frame a portion of one's cone of vision, while standing in the right place at the right time. Like chess, or writing, it is a matter of choosing from among given possibilities, but in the case of photography the number of possibilities is not finite but infinite."

Indeed, and without a doubt, "in the case of photography the number of possibilities is not finite but infinite". Unless, of course, you've got your head up your ass (creativity and imagination wise) and think that "a pile twigs is just, well, a pile a of twigs".

ku # 701 ~ wherein I put myself on a pedestal

Back road trees ~ in the NE Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenOn yesterday's entry, ku # 498 ~ rain drops, "Tom Frost" (no link provided) made a request:

I'd be interested in comparisons you might make with the picture you posted here with Robert Glenn Ketchum's "Order from Chaos" series, or almost any of Eliot Porter's nature pictures, many of which were in the Sierra Club book "In Wilderness...." or the the "Intimate Landscapes" book.

To be clear, I am not exactly certain that I know what kind of comparison Mr. "Frost" is looking for but, nevertheless, I'll give it a go.

I am not intimately familiar with RGK's work although I do have a more than just a passing fancy awareness of it, the Order from Chaos pictures in particular. I don't own any of his books nor have I seen any of his prints. Although, I do know that his Order from Chaos prints were Cibachromes that, by his intent, exhibited saturated color so extreme that one reviewer stated that "they verge on artifice".

The work of EP - in the form of his book, In Wildness Is the Preservation of the World - has been on my bookshelf almost from the day it was published back in 1967. I have seen a number of Porter's prints (at the George Eastman House in Rochester, NY). And it is worth noting that his dye transfer prints exhibited, by his intent, color much more in keeping with the true as found in the natural world.

It comes as no surprise to me that TF asked for a comparison between my picture and those of both Ketchum and Porter. Assuming that one casts Porter as "The Master", both Ketchum and I would be cast as "Disciples" - Ketchum readily admits that his visits and correspondence with Porter were a great influence on his interests in color and the natural world. I would, if pressed on the matter (such as "TF" has done), admit to Porter's influence upon my picturing making inasmuch as, when I first viewed his book, I saw it not so much as an "inspiration" as I did as an "affirmation" of something I already knew about color and the natural world.

However, that said, I believe that, while my pictures, Ep's pictures, and RGK's pictures exhibit many similarities on a visual level, if they were to be displayed (intermingled) together, there would be no difficulty in discerning the authorship of the individual pictures. That's because even though we all have pictured the same (or very similar) referent, our intent and vision have differed to a remarkable degree. And those differences are obvious to a remarkably noticeable extent in our pictures.

Simply stated - perhaps too simply stated, I would suggest that Porter was more the scientific observer (trained/educated as such) who had an affinity for the natural world (and its preservation) than he was the artist who had an affinity for that same world. Ketchum, on the other hand, was most definitely an artist (trained/educated as such) who, while he did have an affinity for the natural world, was more concerned with using that world during his Order from Chaos period to make statements about art than he was with issues of "preservation of the world".

It must be stated, relative to the preceding paragraph, that, indeed, Porter was an artist and that Ketchum eventually became quite involved, picture making wise, with "the preservation of the world". But, the fact is that he just wasn't that into it during his Order from Chaos period which, I might add, he lost interest in when he recognized that he was headed toward an artistic dead end - statements about art wise.

Where do I fit in to this mix? Well, I'm a bit of Porter and a bit of Ketchum and a whole lot of Me.

Like Porter, I am a picture maker who has always have had an affinity for the natural world and its attendant issues of preservation so I tend to make prints that are as close to the real as the medium allows. Unlike Porter, I am truly interested in art issues, ideas, and notions.

Like Ketchum, I am interested in making art and statements about art, Photography Division, so, again like Ketchum in his Order from Chaos period, I make pictures that exhibit more than a bit of an "anti-landscape" aesthetic (AKA, "snapshot" aesthetic), or, as I like to call it - an anti-pretty picture aesthetic. Unlike Ketchum (in his Order from Chaos period), I am not headed toward a deadend, because, like Porter, my first interest is the natural world itself (and our relationship to it).

Like both Porter and Ketchum, I am interested in exploring notions of seeing, perception, understanding, truth, and the real. Unlike them, I do come at it in my own unique way.

What I find most interesting about the comparison, now that I have been requested to think about it, is all three of us have made interesting pictures of essentially the same referent that, despite their similarities, are, in fact, markedly different.