tuscany # 86 / ku # 642 / man & nature # 254 ~ poetry

Sunlight at the bottom of the steps ~ Viliano, Tuscany • click to embiggen
Sunlight on the side of the road ~ Wilmington, NY • click to embiggenOnce again Matt Dallos has offered us an interesting comment in his answer to the question, has photography failed you? (FYI, his answer was, "yes"):

.... I have just run into too many situations in the past 12-18 months when what I was seeing in the world and what I wanted to show about the world just couldn't be done with photography... I have found a new place for photography. It will become my poetry, showing what cannot and should not be explained.

I have always thought that photography was akin to poetry. Like good poetry, pictures can be lyrical, complex, and seemingly inscrutable with meaning(s) that requires delving into the feeling(s) they traffic in in order to "understand" their meaning(s). Good pictures, like good poetry, can open the door to many interpretations and, as such, they often ask as many questions as they pose answers. And, as is true of the best of Art, the more "experience" (in life, in the Arts, etc.) the viewer brings to the proceeding, the more can be gained from it.

That said, as I have mentioned on many occasions, in the medium of photography (unlike many of the other Arts), there is the tradition of the artist statement, which can be an invaluable aid in "interpreting" pictures.

Many of the simple-minded in the crowd object quite strenuously to the artist statement, most often on the grounds that they do not want to be "told what to think" or that a picture(s) that "needs" an artist statement is somehow faulty in as much as the artist has not made his/her intent perfectly clear. That, my friends, is pure unadulterated BS.

An artist statement is intended to let the viewers of an artist's work have a peek into the mind of the artist - what was on their mind as they made their work. It is not intended as a how-to-view-this-art instructional manual. One should take the artist statement for whatever worth the viewer judges it to have and the viewer should always do what people with a brain do - think for yourself when viewing a piece(s) of Art.

That said, let me be perfectly blunt - with one caveat: in my experience - those who object mostly vigorously to the idea of an artist statement, are generally those who could not write even the simplest of one for themselves.

BTW, I almost always read an artist statement after I have viewed any given work. That said, I always read an artist statement when one is available.

ku # 632-41 ~ a damn good question

Rainy day # 1 • click to embiggen
Rainy day # 2 • click to embiggen
Rainy day # 3 • click to embiggen
Rainy day # 4 • click to embiggen
Rainy day # 5 • click to embiggen
Rainy day # 6 • click to embiggen
Rainy day # 7 • click to embiggen
Rainy day # 8 • click to embiggen
Rainy day # 9 • click to embiggen
Rainy day # 10 • click to embiggenCoincidental to an recent ongoing rumination I have been engaged in, Matt Dallos asked on man & nature # 252:

Have there been times when photography has failed you? .... in that you had something inside that you desperately needed to express or share and it couldn't be done with a photo. I guess I'm asking are there ideas/thoughts that haunt you that you cannot translate into photographs?

On one level, the easy answer is simply - no, never. On that level, since I rarely set out with any ideas/thoughts that I want to translate into pictures other than my standard desire to picture what I see - especially the beauty in the commonplace, I am rarely disappointed in the results. I have no trouble at all translating ideas/thoughts into pictures, which is distinctly different from the fact that I do have ideas/thoughts that I want to translate into pictures but simply have not attempted to do so and that fact does, indeed, haunt me.

That said, consider the 10 pictures that are part of this entry. I was out and about on a particular non-picturing mission. It was raining cats and dogs and we were in the very last stage of autumn foliage, a time that appeals to my eye and sensibilities. There were lots of dead leaves, half bare trees, and a thick rainy mist - one of my absolute favorite times / favorite weather conditions of the year.

Within a very short time, 20 minutes at the most, I made the 10 pictures that you see here and I am very pleased with the results. There is not a single picture that I would not be very happy to hang on my wall. And I have to say that this is a very typical picturing experience for me. In fact, if the wife and I were not not on a specific mission, I could have made 30-40 pictures to include a fair number of man & nature pictures as well.

However, that said, my recent ongoing rumination is concerned with just that issue. I really do not believe that my "standards" for what constitutes a very good picture (talking about my pictures here) are that low. At the risk of sounding immodest, I am very good at what I do.

Over the past 10 years or so I have made thousands of very good pictures - approximately 1,500 of which have been posted here on The Landscapist over the past 3 years . Sure enough, if I did a particularly critical edit, I might end up with "only" 500 or so "ultra-keepers" but that's still a lot of pictures.

So, on another level - that of sharing my ideas/thoughts - that's precisely, rumination-wise, where I do fear that either photography has failed me, or, quite possibly, that I have failed photography. In either case I am simply overwhelmed by the number of pictures. It seems at times that I have constructed a photographic Tower of Babel, too many voices all speaking at the same time. The result being that, perhaps, my ideas/thoughts are; 1) not clear, 2) too diluted, 3)too fragmented, 4) too weakened by too much information.

All those pictures can convey a sense of lack of focus in the work- and I'm not talking about my new 25mm f2.8 shallow DOF pictures.

That said, nearly 2 years ago I had hit upon the idea of discursive promiscuity as a viable approach to this "dilemma". To repeat my rationale for a discursive promiscuity presentation:

The conceptual point of the project / exhibit is multifaceted. Some, but by no means all, of the topics I wish to address are (in no particular order at this time):

1. The discursive and promiscuous nature of the medium of photography
2. The discursive and promiscuous nature of my body of work
3. The apparent casualness / randomness of my individual images v. the apparent casual / random arrangement in their presentation
4. Does the ease of digital capture and the resultant volume of images tell us more or less about the world we inhabit?
5. Complexity and chaos
6. The medium's narrative possibilities
7. Information saturation in a information media saturated culture
8. My discursive and promiscuous view of the Adirondacks v. the eco-porn calendar view
9. Fact v. fiction
10. The nature of beauty
11. Why I just flat out like saying the phrase "Discursive Promiscuity"

The longer I have ruminated about this, the more I am inclined to go for it. At the very least, making the effort to pull this together will ameliorate my feelings of / doubts about failure.

BTW, I mentioned that Matt's question was a damn good one. Even though the question was intended for me, feel free to give an answer here for yourself - and that includes Matt - has photography ever failed you?

ku # 631 ~ chime in

Rainy mist • click to embiggenLisa Sutcliffe, the assistant curator of photography at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, has asked a single question - which, in turn, I would like to ask you - of photographers whose work is included in the exhibit (which she organized), Photography Now: China, Japan, Korea, currently on display at SFMOMA. In an entry on the SFMOMA blog, there is this lead in to the answers given by 7 of the exhibitors:

Photography, with its ability to “mirror” reality, has a more direct connection to the visible world than most other media, including painting and sculpture. It can also alter our perception of reality, either through the artist’s unique perspective, or by manipulation. Examining artistic decisions can reveal quite a bit about how a photograph is understood. Why was this picture made? Who is the intended audience? What did the artist decide to keep inside the frame or to crop out and how does that change our interpretation of the scene? ... I began to wonder how the rapid cultural transformations, especially in China, might be influencing the growing interest in photography. In addition, I was hoping to find out what intrigues these artists about working with and manipulating the visible world. With this in mind, I asked each artist in the exhibition to answer the same question:

why do you work in photography and how do the particular qualities of the medium affect your artistic decisions?

So, as stated, I would like to ask the same question of all of you - Why do you work in photography and how do the particular qualities of the medium affect your artistic decisions?

I would really, really, really like to read comments and opinions from all of you in answer to this question. Really. Seriously. No kidding.

Update on Monday, October 26, 2009 at 07:24PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Svein-Frode wrote: "It's going to be hard to answer this without making it sound like an artist's statement...

my response: an artist statement would be nice but I wouldn't let not having one stop you - or anyone, for that matter - from commenting. Just blurt out whatever comes to mind.

You will not be graded. This is not a spot quiz. There are no wrong answers.

a mixed bag of f2.8

civilized ku # 229 ~ Refelction, NYC • click to embiggen
ku # 630 ~ Yellow leaves • click to embiggen
civilized ku # 230 ~ Railing • click to embiggen
man & nature # 249 ~ Car mirror • click to embiggen
civilized ku # 231 ~ 128, NYC • click to embiggen
civilized ku # 232 ~ Taxi, NYC • click to embiggen
man & nature # 250 ~ Picket fence • click to embiggenThomas Ruff stated in an interview:

I always want to take the medium of photography into the picture, so that you are always aware that you are looking at an image – a photograph,’ he says, before continuing, ‘so, in the picture I hope you can see two things: the image itself, plus the reflection – or the thinking – about photography. I hope it’s visible. I’m an investigator, and it is as if I am investigating the grammar of photography.

Since day 1 of The Landscapist it has been stated - righthand column, About This Website -that I am interested in .... photographs which, whatever their visual merits, instigate thought and discussion about the medium of photography. What interests me most about the medium is its unique characteristics amongst the visual arts, re: the vernacular (grammar) of photography. In other words, photography's characteristics as a visual language.

Or, to be stated even another way, photography that goes beyond pictures as entertainment.

Basic to investigating / understanding the medium on a "deeper" level - I might say on a more robust and richer level - might be to read the book by Steve Edwards, Photography - A Very Short Introduction. Chapter 4, What is a photograph?, and Chapter 5, The apparatus and its image, are especially helpful sections.

Chapter 4 deals primarily with signification - the notion of the construction of meaning as determined / influenced by signs. Think of "signs" as symbols - something used for or regarded as representing something else - and the idea of symbolic meaning.

In a very real sense a photograph is a sign in and of itself. It is something that is used for representing something else - it is not the thing pictured, it represents the thing pictured.

How a photograph represents the thing pictured (the referent), that is to say, how it attempts to suggest or construct meaning is very dependent upon how the picture maker uses the apparatus of the medium and also to a large extent upon the viewers understanding / interpretation of that apparatus and its application.

Apparatus implies technique, not only the technique employed by the use of equipment but also by the technique employed by the use of the medium's other characteristics (read Chapter 5) - its relationship to/with the real/actual, the detail - the facts of things, the frame or the act of selection, the vantage point or POV - what's in, what's out, and time - revealing what is otherwise concealed within the flux of movement.

I mentioned all of this simply because I am employing new apparatus in my picture making.

Equipment-wise that is a new lens with a "normal" field of view used with a wide-open aperture.

Other of the medium's characteristics-wise, this equipment apparatus requires that I modify my act of selection (the frame) from its previous wide-angle field of view MO which is not as easy as it might be thought to be.

Detail is also quite different from my previous MO in the sense that only a very narrow part of the thing pictured is rendered in detail. The rest of the thing pictured is, quite obviously out of focus.

My picturing POV (the vantage point), which was normally stand-up-straight, eye-level but is now much more bend-over, squat-down, look-up, and look-down in nature, has changed considerably. I am now considering a stretching regimen as a kind of picturing accessory.

An interesting and entirely unanticipated result of all the new apparatus has been to employ a framing device that is often quite cock-eyed in nature. Don't ask me why because it is a surprise that bears a bit of consideration that has yet to be undertaken.

BTW and FYI, it seems to be worth noting at this time that my picture's much commented upon black edges and corner vignette are apparatus that I have been employing to draw attention to the frame - the act of selection. It is also intended to emphasis the fact that one is viewing a picture - as Thomas Ruff states, looking at an image - and that the picture, as a thing, should not be confused the thing pictured.

All of that said, I am picturing my ass off with my new apparatus. Mostly because it's fun but also to try and get a handle on what the hell - and why - it is that I am doing.

Any thoughts?

ku # 629 / tuscany # 74 ~ even more autumn color

Old olive tree, above Bagnoro, Tuscany • click to embiggen
Adirondack thicket, along Lake George • click to embiggenTwo pictures in the autumn mist - 1 in Tuscany, 1 in the Adirondacks.

ku # 628 ~ more autumn color

Thick and wet Autumn mist ~ along the West Branch of the Au Sable River • click to embiggenIn response to yesterday's entry, man & nature # 243 ~ different strokes for different folks, Breandan Dezendorf commented:

I salute the way you capture the subtle tones of nature.

I call your attention to this comment not so much for the kudos-factor (nevertheless, thanks Breandan) as for the opportunity to state that I owe it all to the PS H&S slider. Well, not all, but the fact remains that, when I use the H&S slider, it is most often to reduce saturation rather than increase it.

At times the saturation reduction is global but more often than not it is used to reduce a specific individual color. In my experience, I find that all cameras have color biases of one sort or another that require correction if one is seeking to present "real" - as real as the medium and its tools allow - color.

I have also found that these biases are not necessarily consistent across all color balance settings in any given camera so what it all comes down to is getting to know your camera's biases (or, obviously, your film's biases) and working around them to get the results you want.

ku # 626 ~ autumn

Out of bounds ~ 12th fairway, Sagamore Resort • click to embiggenNo, my ball not in the woods but as I was walking down the fairway towards my ball (which was in the middle of the fairway) this little scene caught my eye.

ku # 625 / man & nature # ~ America's Best Idea - sort of, but not really

Roadside Autumn splendor ~ near Ticonderoga, NY • click to embiggenMost here in the good 'ole US of America who have any interest in the landscape of America, photography-wise, probably watched all or part of the recent PBS / Ken Burns series, The National Parks: America's Best Idea. The 6-part documentary basically covers -

...the story of an idea as uniquely American as the Declaration of Independence and just as radical: that the most special places in the nation should be preserved, not for royalty or the rich, but for everyone. from - PBS.org

In the telling, the story -

...is a visual feast, featuring some of the most extensive, breathtaking images of the national parks system every captured on film. from - PBS.org

Need I even mention that Sir Ansel, his pictures and his conservation advocacy, was featured prominently in the "visual feast" of "breathtaking images"?

The media has fallen all over itself while heaping fawning praise and adulation upon the series. To be fair, there was some critical analysis of the series scattered about the media landscape but one is much more likely to be reading / hearing words like majestic, stunning, inspirational, pride, rich cinematography, scenery that is almost unspeakable in its gorgeousness, a must see, and so on.

That said, IMO, the words of Pittsburgh Penguins announcer, Mike Lange, are what come to my mind -

How much fried chicken can you eat?

Now, it should be stated that Mike uses that Langeism to denote a good thing - like when Evengi Malkin beats an opposing netminder "like a rented mule". However, I use that expression when I want to get across the idea of puking. You know, like when you eat way too much of a good thing (fried chicken?) and end up spewing lunch.

That said, I didn't watch much of America's Best Idea because, for the most part, it made me want to puke.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to rewrite history and/or eliminate / change America's National Parks. For the most part, they protect things that are very worthy of being protected. But ...

... unfortunately, for a wide variety of reasons - to include quite prominently presentations just like Burns' documentary - the idea of National Parks which are intended as "set-asides", primarily for the "grand and glorious", does an enormously harmful diservice to idea of preservation / conservation for the rest of the natural world.

To wit, if it ain't grand and glorious, pave it and put up a parking lot.

The very idea of a set-side, aka: National Park, is an idea that separates man from nature - indeed an idea that, at its core, separates man from his very nature as an integral part of nature. We are it. It is us. In a very real sense, the idea of National Parks as "special" places that are worthy of protection / preservation lays the mental and emotional groundwork / rationale that "anything goes" for the rest of the "un-special" planet.

Once again, don't get me wrong. I am certain that National Parks have captured the preservation / conservation imagination of some people and that some of those people have taken the fight for preservation / conservation to places that are on a smaller, less spectacular scale. But, I also suspect that for the majority of citizens in the good 'ole US of America, National Parks are little more than a Disneyland of sorts that one visits on vacation and then returns to their "normal" life of devouring the rest of the planet one small patch of earth at a time.

In effect, a visit to one or, for that matter, all of the National Parks might lead one to the belief that, as an American Indian park superintendent says in the film:

America is not sidewalks. America is not stores. America is not video games. America is not restaurants.

To which I would respond - what set-aside planet is he/she living on?