ku # 684-687 ~ truth or consequences

Lake Champlain ~ view of Vermont • click to embiggen
Lake Champlain shoreline • click to embiggenA few days ago Mike Johnston announced in an entry on his blog - (T.O.P.) - that he is a "radical" ...

.... What's the use of hunkering down in Plato's Cave and telling happy fibs about an idealized, romanticized ideal of wilderness that no longer exists? That's just not the story that matters. Here's another radical assertion: telling lies doesn't just promote the false; it also hides the truth. The only responsible wildlife* photographers are scrupulous truth-tellers. No matter what or how they shoot. The rest have their heads in the sand. And they're asking you to put yours there, too.

*FYI, I struck the word "wildlife" in his statement because, for my self-serving purposes, that's how I want it to read. However, that said and IMO, I don't think taking that liberty would offend Mike inasmuch as I don't think he would object to how the statement reads without that word - that is that the only responsible photographers are scrupulous truth-tellers.

I believe that to be so because, taken in the context of his entry, he also states about the medium in general:

Trouble is, photography is all about the shadows, in the Platonic sense. Photographs are instantly, effortlessly specific. People spend an inordinate amount of effort and time in the cunning application of trickery to make them less so. But what photographs want to do is show the individual thing in all its quirky, specific individuality.

All of that said, anyone who has followed my various rantings and ravings, re: the medium's inextricable and intrinsic characteristic of its relationship to and as a cohort of the real - the one that distinguishes it from the other visual arts, will not be surprised that I agree with Mike's statement (even more so as amended). HOWEVER ...

... even though I also agree with Mike when he states that neither he nor I (nor anyone else for that matter) "own photography ... and it's not up to me to tell anyone else what to do, and anyway my base position has always been that everybody should do whatever they want to as long as it's not hurting anyone", I would nevertheless have to ask the question ...

If telling lies not only promotes the false but also hides the truth, are not those who "spend an inordinate amount of effort and time in the cunning application of trickery", the result of which is to obscure the truth about the whole of the natural world, acting irresponsibly?

IMO, another question that needs to be asked is quite simply - what cause are they serving?

BTW and FYI, considering that The Landscapist has had an extra 4,400 visitors in the last 6 days, most of whom were directed here from a link posted by Mike Johnston in an entry on T.O.P., I assume that Mike reads, at least on occasion, some of my stuff here on The Landscapist. So, Mike, if you're reading this entry and disagree with my liberty taking, feel free to let me have it.

Update on Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 02:28PM by gravitas et nugalis

It is worth mentioning that, for the most part, Mike Johnston's statements were made in the context of his entry about pictures of wildlife that are made using trained and/or captive animals. Pictures that are presented as being or appear to be of "real" wildlife in their natural habitat- even if perceived as such only because of the omission of caveats that state something long the lines of this picture was made with trained/captive animals or words to that effect. Pictures that, therefore, lie and deceive about the true state of well-being of wildlife on planet as it exists today.

TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR ON THE MATTER - It is strictly my extrapolation and application of this lie-and-deceive notion to encompass the whole of the natural world as it exists today.

ku # 683 / civilized ku # 415 ~ it really is the way how you chew it

Two trees ~ 3.07.10 Raquette Lake, NY - in the Adirondack PARK / 03.06.10 Fairport, NY • click to embiggenIt has been "suggested" that my pictures here on The Landscapist are lacking in nuance. At least that's what I assume is the meaning of this comment from Paul Maxim (in response to my response to the linked entry):

I really don't care if someone takes a million pictures of dead leaves, grass, twigs, snow on the street or the neighbor's porch ... [B]ut please, please show me something that's got some shred of nuance to it.

Proceeding upon the assumption that Paul's definition of "nuance" is similar to my own (and that of the gang at Meriam-Webster) - 1: a subtle distinction or variation; 2: a subtle quality; 3: : sensibility to, awareness of, or ability to express delicate shadings (as of meaning, feeling, or value) - I find it rather odd that the oft-leveled criticism of my pictures - that I am way too nuanced/subtle for the room - has been turned on its head, re: Paul's opinion of my pictures.

However, no matter which way one does or doesn't see it, "nuance", picture making / viewing wise, is most often a matter of perception and opinion. Some might even venture that, seeing and perceiving wise, it's more a matter of the difference between "insightful" and "uncreative".

Some might be able to write a book or, at the very least, a lengthy, erudite, and informed critique of the above diptych. A critique which would discuss the nuanced qualities to be found in the diptych - the evidence in each individual picture of an awareness of the ability to capture and present delicate visual shadings; how that visual quality helps lead the viewer to discern the subtle variations of meaning and expressed values exhibited by the pictures; how the pictures subtly work in tandem to suggest the subtle distinctions and the subtle similarities between them.

Or, some might be inclined to just yawn and plead for pictures that got some shred of nuance / surprise to them.

ku # 680-82 ~ miscellanea

Bog detritus • click to embiggenSo I'm going through, via Bridge, my "finals" folder - pictures that are cooked and ready to go - looking for a picture that I had mis-labeled.

The very first thing that I noticed upon opening Bridge was that there are 2,210 items, aka - pictures, in the folder. Man, I had no idea that my "finals" count had reached that number. Truth be told, there might be a few clunkers in there but, even considering that unlikely possibility, that's still a lot of pictures.

Maybe its time to take a cue from Stephen Shore and his "lost" (no record exists) 1972 exhibition at Light Gallery wherein he exhibited 312 3×5 inch "drugstore" prints by gluing them to the walls in an even grid, 3 pictures high, running end-to-end, in no particular order.

The other thing I noticed after opening and printing the moldy-oldie triptych presented in this entry - made with either a Canon G3/4mp or G5/5mp P&S camera - was how beautifully they printed at a 13×39 inch size. The printed quality was virtually indistinguishable from a same size triptych print made from my Oly EP-1/E-3 files.

I mention this printing exercise because after reading about this unfortunate printing train wreck, I am happy as a clam that I have stuck with what works for me - Power Mac G5 / 1.8GHz + 4 GB RAM + OS 10.4.11 + CS3 + RawDeveloper 1.8.7 + Epson PRO7800 / ColorStylus 2200 + a to-hell-with-anymore-upgrades attitude.

ku # 678-79~ beginning to end

Driving to NYC • click to embiggenDuring my recent drive to NYC, I started out in snowfall and finished in even more snowfall. Pictured here is (close to) the start in the Adk mountains (within a few miles of the source of the Hudson River) and (close to) the finish on the George Washington Bridge over the "mighty" Hudson River and into NYC.

ku # 677 ~ to be or not to be

Ice slab on river rock ~ West Branch of the Au Sable River, in the Adirondack PARK, NY • click to embiggenI assume somewhat tongue-in-cheek-ish, a comment left by Svein-Frode stated (in part):

... Photography isn't really art, it's just a word used by some photographers to boost their own egos and tell the world that their work is superior to that of others ;).

On that same subject - Art or not Art - there is another opinion that I find rather satisfactory:

"Although photography generates works that can be called art - it requires subjectivity, it can lie, it gives aesthetic pleasure - photography is not, to begin with, an art form at all. Like language, it is a medium in which works of art (among other things) are made." Susan Sontag

ku # 676 ~ I'm being followed by a moon halo

Moon halo ~ In the Adironack PARK - Au Sable, NY Forks• click to embiggenWhile taking out the garbage early last evening, I noticed that the light seemed rather bright so I looked up expecting to see a full moon but what to my wondering eyes did appear? ... a uncommonly large diameter moon halo against and uncommonly clear, star-filled sky.

Moon halos are caused by moon light striking ice particles in a high thin cloud layer. Normally this cloud layer tends to slightly - at times more, at other times less - obscure the night sky beyond it but last night's display was cast against an uncommonly clear star-filled sky.

Very impressive.

civilized ku # 395 ~ copy this

Stop sign ~ Route 9N - Au Sable Forks, NY • click to embiggenOver the past week or so there has been more than a (IMO, a tempest in a teapot) bit of discussion on a number of sites - HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE - regarding a "Copycat Or Not?" issue that involves the work of David Burdeny and its Look-a-like relationship to the work of Sze Tsung Leong and Elger Esser.

The gist of the thing is that Burdeny has plagiarized the work of a couple "established" Artists-Who-Use-A-Camera, especially that of Sze Tsung Leong. This is based on the fact that Burdeny has mounted an exhibit that, picture for picture, duplicates the landscape-ish type views - from an amazing number of exactly the same locations (the same tripod footprint) from around the world - previously made by Sze Tsung Leong. Add to that the fact that Burdeny's exhibit uses the same framing and exhibit display style as a recent Sze Tsung Leong exhibit, and the stage is set for an Art World pissing contest.

It seems pretty clear to me that Burdeny has exhibited a rather strange MO of following in Sze Tsung Leong's footsteps / tripod footprints as far as picturing locations goes and nowhere does he make it clear as to what's up with that. However, it also seems that he has pictured those locations with a distinctly different vision - different seasons, different color palettes, different (albeit subtly so) camera POVs, and so on. So, IMO, I think that the notion of "copycat" / plagiarism is more than a bit farfetched.

And, BTB, interestingly enough, many of those who have weighed in on the dustup prefer Burdeny's vision over that of Sze Tsung Leong.

While Sze Tsung Leong's gallery-ist, Yossi Milo, is a bit apoplectic regarding Burdeny's pictures and especially so regarding the truly copycat manner in which they were exhibited, Elger Esser's gallery representative is not so upset. He looks at it his way:

"He (Burdeny) kind of copies quite few different photographers,” says Jason Ysenburg, the gallery's co-director. “He has studied his artists, and seen what would work well.” But a crucial difference between Esser’s work and Burdeny’s, according to Ysenburg, is that Esser’s landscapes reference 19th century painting. Burdeny’s images, by contrast, are true to the scenes and colors as he finds them. “He’s changing nothing,” Ysenburg says. “He’s just recording the image.”

All of that said, here's my take on the whole thing - if I were able to play Art Collector at the $$$$$-level that Sze Tsung Leong's print sell for - $19,000-$25,000US (and up) - I'd be buying a couple of "matching sets". That is, a couple of Sze Tsung Leong pictures together with their "copycat" Burdeny counterparts.

Seriously.

It seems to me that considered together, the pictures make an interesting statement - and, IMO, a statement worthy of a lot of thought and consideration - about the medium of photography and its inherent / intrinsic relationship to the real. That, and how (or if) one picture maker's vision of a given referent can be distinctly different - in a manner worthy of considerable consideration - (or not) from that of another picture maker's take on the same scene, subject, theme, etc.

If I were Yossi Milo, instead of advising Sze Tsung Leong to contact his lawyer, I'd be negotiating with both picture makers with the objective of mounting a joint exhibit of their respective work. I'd do that because - you read it here first - I'll bet my bottom dollar that some enterprising and "creative" museum curator of photography will be mounting such a show - albeit with many other "copycat" sets from a wide array of picture makers - in the not to distant future.

ku # 675 ~ yikes

Nature is chaotic / Ice break up ~ in the Adirondack PARK - Au Sable Forks, NY • click to embiggenAs mentioned, we've had no appreciable snowfall since December. It's been cold with the exception of one 3-4 period in mid-January when it rained and rained and rained and temps reached as high as 50˚F.

During that period there was a significant ice breakup on the rivers which caused some flooding and quite a number of ice jams. However, unlike Spring melts/breakups, during which the ice continues to melt/break up until its gone, after the January event, we returned to steady cold / below freezing temps, so the ice jams have stayed in place and most of the rivers have re-frozen.

What this means is that when the real Spring thaw happens we're going to be in deep shit, or, if you prefer, deep water that comes from massive ice jams. It should be interesting because the existing ice jams are kinda frozen in place as truly gigantic ice fields that won't be so easily broken up.

It's gonna be fun.