ku # 614 ~ earth, water, sky

Roots, moss, grass, and water • click to embiggen

ku # 613 ~ hade and shibui

Submerged ripples in the sand • click to embiggenSomewhere in my meanderings around the web, I came across this as a comment on a discussion about beauty, photography-wise:

Some of the images I've seen that have a "wow" factor I do admire and love to look at for a while. But after that - well, I'm ready to move on. I couldn't live with an image like that on my walls.

But other times, when I see another image and go "wow" - it's an image that I know I can live with for the rest of my life.

So for me, the term "beauty" has different levels or depths. I like the Japanese concepts of beauty - there's the fresh gaudiness of spring flowers that probably we might not be able to live with comfortably all year long, as the brightness may tire our nervous systems - the stimulation is too strong and we need a rest. This is the concept of beauty they call "hade."



There are also stages in between hade and shibui, which to them and to me, represents the highest form of beauty - the kind of beauty that nourishes and sustains. It doesn't yell at us to notice it. It just quietly "is." Shibui refers to things that have survived all the hassles and gaudiness and have settled down into comfortable and enjoyable contentedness.

Against the background of shibui we can introduce temporary hade objects. But we always want to go back to shibui.

On those same meanderings, I also came across this from a NY Times Op-Ed by NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF titled, When Our Brains Short-Circuit:

Evidence is accumulating that the human brain systematically misjudges certain kinds of risks. In effect, evolution has programmed us to be alert for snakes and enemies with clubs, but we aren’t well prepared to respond to dangers that require forethought.

If you come across a garter snake, nearly all of your brain will light up with activity as you process the “threat.” Yet if somebody tells you that carbon emissions will eventually destroy Earth as we know it, only the small part of the brain that focuses on the future — a portion of the prefrontal cortex — will glimmer.

“We humans do strange things, perhaps because vestiges of our ancient brain still guide us in the modern world ...”

With apologies to Craig Tanner who thinks that I "have attacked enough straw men here to make me think you might have an issue with oats, wheat and barley", I hereby introduce an expanded definition (extrapolated from the above quotes) of my favored bogeyman - the ever-maligned "pretty-picture crowd" - to wit:

The pretty picture crowd who practice a koyaanisqatsi picture-making lifestyle - emphasis on hade over shibui - are exemplars of / advocates for the short-circuited brain way of living / thinking.

Koyaanisqatsi, for those of you haven't seen the movie of the same name, is a Hopi Indian word for the concept of "crazy life, life in turmoil, life out of balance, life disintegrating, a state of life that calls for another way of living". And I ask you - is there anyone out there who doesn't think that we (in the "civilized" world) are living a 'crazy life, life in turmoil, life out of balance, life disintegrating, a state of life that calls for another way of living'?

Now I am not placing a big part of the blame for our current koyaanisqatsi on the pretty-picture crowd, but, that said, I do believe that the near-pavlovian / near-exclusive emphasis that they place upon the making and adoration of hade over shabui pictures is both systematic of and encouraging of the idea of the short-curcuited brain - the now-and-wow over the later-and-greater.

Quite frankly, IMO, I believe that any activity that promotes rapid-response behavior coupled with shallow-emotional/intellectual content when practiced to exclusionary excess, is detrimental to achieving a cultural / societal "life in balance".

Does this mean that I am on a mission to eradicate hade from the face of the picture-making earth? In a word, "no". In 2 words, 'absolutely not". IMO, the commenter quoted above had it right when he opined that "against the background of shibui we can introduce temporary hade objects".

Hey, everybody should have a some "brain-dead" fun every now and again even on a daily basis. IMO, you'd go crazy without it. But, when it becomes the steady diet - the staff of life so to speak, as is so evident in our current economic state, koyaanisqatsi can't be far behind.

ku # 611-612 ~ it rained

Raindrops • click to embiggen
Raindrops • click to embiggenOur wilderness canoe trip was delayed by 1 day due to about 7 hours of severe thunderstorms on Saturday. Thunderstorms are not the place to be in a canoe. Due to the delay 3 people had to drop out so it was just the wife and Hugo and I.

Sunday was sunny and semi-warm although it was, as per usual this Summer, very windy. In fact, it was very headwindy so the paddle out was much more lengthy than usual. At one point, Hugo even suggested that we should have brought a sail. Smart kid.

Monday, as predicted, was cool with a daylong cloud cover and an extended period of rain in the afternoon. Not as predicted, Tuesday was the same although, on our paddle in, we avoided the rain.

This AM, now that we're back at home, dawned bright, warm, and sunny.

ku # 610 ~ up a lazy river

Last evening ~ West Branch of the Au Sable River • click to embiggenBeginning tomorrow AM the wife and I and The Cinemascapist and Brandy and Hugo and the guy from France (and maybe Joe) are out of here for a much needed and eagerly anticipated 4 day wilderness canoe trip.

We may even luck out with the weather. Unlike the last 2 weeks which has been rain, rain, rain, the next 4 days are forecast to have only "scattered" showers. That said, we won't be experiencing typical (for there here parts) summer temperatures - daytime highs are expected to be in the 65-70˚F range with night temperatures around 45˚F.

One good thing about all the rain we've had is that we won't be scraping the bottom of the canoes on submerged rocks 'cause they're really submerged. Water levels are at near record highs.

I'll be back to my regularly scheduled posting routine late Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning.

ku # 610 ~ on the other side of the camera (again)

Early evening on the West Branch of the Au Sable • click to embiggenSo, one day I'm sitting here on the Group W Bench and the phone rings. I answer it and, scratch my back with a hacksaw, it's Rachael Ray calling and wanting to know if I would do a guest appearance on her TV show. Would I prepare one of my wilderness-experience gourmet meals (click on the Nessmuk & Stoddard Trekking link) for her and her husband (and film crew)?

I say, "Sure, why not?" So now I'm working with her people to set it up. The shoot date is July 21st out in the Adirondack wilderness where I and my guest chef will cook it up Hollywood-style for all the Rachael Ray TV world to see.

Truth be told, until the phone call, I didn't know Rachael Ray from Adam - I'd heard the name but I've never seen the show. I've still never seen the show but I am amazed at how many people here abouts positively love Rachael Ray - if I had a nickel for every person who has asked to "help" me with the shoot, I'd have a lot of nickels.

At this point I have no idea when the segment will air. When I do, I'll let you know.

FYI, this is the 3rd TV show that I and my wilderness / gourmet experience has been/will be featured on - hence the "(again)" in the entry title.

ku # 609 ~ news flash - The Creator got it wrong

Another fine example of how The Creator got it wrong • click to embiggenNone other than the ghost / doppelgänger / spirit-in-the-body-of-someone-else has left a comment here on The Landscapist.

On Wednesday's entry, George Berhard Shaw left this comment:

Some people see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not?

Now, even though he didn't state that this comment was directed at things photography-wise, one must assume that that is the case, this being a photography blog and all. And in as much as I was ranting about the interpretive crowd who like to picture things as they wish they were - the idealized idyllic landscape, one must also assume that Mr. Shaw was presenting an alternate / opposing theory or sentiment.

I am, of course, making an ass of u and me, but there's nothing new in that.

Nevertheless - and remember that we are talking about landscape / nature pictures here - I would like to ask Mr Shaw a question. To wit - if, as you seem to imply, the interpretive crowd is justified in taking visual liberties with The Creator's (i.e, Mother Nature, God - The Father, the Big Bang(er), Spider Woman [Hopi], The Earth Diver and/or Atahensic - a sky goddess who plummets through a hole in the floor of heaven and lands in the primeval sea. To support her and give her room to move about, the animals dive deep into the sea for bits of earth. The goddess spreads this earth on Great Turtle's back to create the land, and the daughter she bears there becomes known as Earth Woman, et al) - handiwork in the name of dreams that never were but should be....

... does that mean that you believe that The Creator (pick one of your choice) fucked it (creation) up?

Did The Creator, in fact, use the wrong shades of red, green, blue, yellow, et al when painting with His/Her brush. Or did He/She just get a bad batch of paints from The Big Sears Store In The Sky? Or are there legions of paint mixers (there must have been a lot of them in order to handle all of Creation) suffering in the eternal flames of Hell for their paint mixing sins?

But, on the other, maybe The Dream is a bit more scientific in nature. Maybe The Creator gave us all those inferior / faulty colors as an incentive to get our shit together genetically modified vegetation wise. Maybe The Dream is about selective Hue & Saturation Genetic Engineering - discovering the Velvia Gene, perhaps?

Actually, now that I think about, forget all those questions. What I really want to know is ....

... what exactly is The Dream (photography-wise)?

ku # 608 ~ a reason to keep coming back

Fungus • click to embiggenI may have been unjustly harsh in my recent statement that:

.... so-called "interpretation" is the lazy person's way of trying to make an interesting picture.

I use the word "unjustly" because those from the interpretive school most often expend a great deal of time and effort creating their interpretations. Long and sometimes arduous treks hauling lots of gear to favored locations, once there decisions about equipment and technique, and once back to their darkrooms (computer + PhotoShop) spending a significant amount of time manipulating their RAW material into an interpretative state are all part of the effort involved in their interpretive enterprises.

Add to that the time and effort spent learning their interpretive techniques, it really is unjust to label that effort as a "lazy" one.

So, in that light, I must amend my statement to include the word "intellectually", as in intellectually lazy. I have considered adding the word "emotionally" to that phrase but I don't really think that applies in that sense. However, the phrase "emotionally stilted" has a nice ring to it since most their interpretations are strictly limited to the emotion of "wow" - an emotion of which they never seem to tire.

Now, you should feel free to call me a smug, effete, and arrogant snob/bastard but that's how I see it. I can't imagine a picture world that has only that one note to play over and over again. Well, actually, I don't have to image it because I was immersed in one just like that for a couple of years with the net effect being that my mind and my eyes just became numb from the endless repetition of the same song - kind of like being trapped on 500 story elevator ride with some vacuous background music adding to the drudgery.

Only one word comes to mind - boring (once again, feel free to call me a smug, effete, and arrogant snob/bastard).

That's just not my cup of tea. I prefer something more like this:

a concentration on the world within the frame, For my material I have gone to the "commonplace", the "neglected", the "insignificant" - the walls, the pavements, the iron work of New York City, the endless items once used and now discarded by people. the concrete walls of Chicago and the deep subways of New York on which the water and weather have left their mark - the detritus of our world which I am combing for meaning. In this work fidelity to the object and to my instrument, the clear-seeing lens, is unrelenting; (take a deep breath - here it comes) transformation into an esthethic object is achieved in the act of seeing, and not by manipulation ~ Aaron Siskind

What Aaron Siskind was attempting to create with his picturing making - based on the preceding statement - was essentially the Stieglitz / White idea of an equivalent. An equivalent, photography-wise, is a picture that is

...both rooted in the subject and yet beyond it; surface appearance, though of secondary importance, is essential; and the photograph must be transformed into a new event, to be interpreted, or read.

The significant idea in this statement that emphasizes the key difference between those who picture what they see as opposed to those who picture what they wish to see - the straight crowd v. the interpretive crowd - is that the straight crowd leaves the interpretation / reading to the viewer of their pictures whereas the interpretive crowd leaves little or nothing to be interpreted or "read".

One could also consider this difference to be a one that revolves primarily around the notion of imagination.

The interpretive crowd evidences little imagination in the aforementioned act of seeing. Their imagination is centered primarily around what technique to apply and which spectacular display of nature to picture, the net result of which is to leave nothing to the viewers imagination - both literally and figuratively. Everything is made apparent from the opening up shadows (literal) to (over)stating the obvious (figurative).

IMO, and to my eye and sensibilities, the straight crowd is much more imaginative. They concentrate their imagination of the act of seeing in which they evidence some discovered meaning. And, most importantly, they respect the viewer of their pictures by letting them put their imagination to work, letting them interpret and read what they see in a picture.

By any standard, the straight crowd makes much more "involving" pictures. Which is why although the interpretive crowd's pictures may initially wow the eye, they most often fail to grab the imagination and are therefore easily forgotten as soon as the next wow-thing comes along.

As many have noted, finding the picture maker's intentions and meaning is not easy. But, that said, one of the most pertinent statements I have read in a long time regarding that process of interpretation / reading / discovery is the comment left by John regarding the book, The History of Photography:

... This was the first history of photography I owned, maybe even the first collection of photographs, and I spent hours of my younger life pouring over images late into the night. Sometimes I was astounded, sometimes mystified, but never bored. I occasionally wondered why a certain image was deemed significant, but that only led me to more investigation. Most of the pictures my younger self did not get then have become treasures to my older self. The few that still elude me only give me a reason to keep coming back ...

There it is, plain and simple - the power of the medium.

ku # 607 ~ the temptation

A marshy Summer thicket • click to embiggenAs of the year 1964, in his book, The History of Photography, Beaumont Newhall stated in the 4 pages about color photography (at the back of the book) that:

The greatest users of color film are amateurs: it is estimated that 40% of all snapshots are in color. To the commercial photographer color has long been indispensable ... [M]agazines are using more and more color editorially ... [S]urprisngly few photographers, however, have chosen color as a means of personal expression ...

Since that was written, color photography has, as is very evident, become the preferred medium of choice for personal expression. In fact, with yesterday's announced passing of Kodachrome film, color photography has since passed through one era of picture making into another. That is, of course, from film to digital.

Now, I should point out that I don't buy into the notion of the so-called digital revolution. Anyone who thinks or postulates that picture making has changed in any substantive manner with the advent of "digital" is most likely engaged in the business of selling of something "digital".

To be clear, that is not to say that digital tools have not revolutionized the means/tools employed in making pictures because, quite obviously, they have. But ... as just about anyone who is familiar with the history of the medium knows, when it comes to making pictures (with precious few exceptions - there were no electron scanning microscopes or Hubbell telescopes), just about anything that is being created today (in the realm of picture making as art) was being created within the first few decades of the birth of photography.

As an example, the Cinemascapist might be surprised to know that tableaux vivants were being made in droves as early as 1848 and many of those were made by combining several negatives to make a single print. One notable example of this technique - titled combination printing - was Oscar G. Rejlander's The Two Ways of Life (1857). Rejlander, a Swede, painstakingly combined 32 different negatives on a single print - interesting enough for the Cinemascapist, a print that was 31×16 inches.

The picture was entered into the Manchester Art Department Exhibition of 1857 where it was purchased by another amateur photographer, Queen Victoria. It was hailed by critics as "a magnificent picture, decidedly the finest photograph of its class ever produced."

It is also believed that Rejlander introduced Henry Peach Robinson to combination printing, the technique that he used to overcome the "limitations of photography". Robonson's picture, Fading Away (1858), was made from 5 negatives. That picture was not so favorably received by many critics of the day because the subject - dying and despair - were not considered to be suitable subjects for photography.

And, while we're on the subject of "the more things change, the more they remain the same", it should be noted that many thought that Fading Away was made on a single negative. When Robinson later revealed his technique of combination printing "at a meeting of the Photographic Society of Scotland, he was greeted with howls of protest from people who seemed to feel that they had been deceived. There was much discussion about what one correspondent referred to as "Patchwork", rather than composition".

Sound familiar, re: Photoshopping?

BTW, another early use of combination printing was the practice of adding clouds to an otherwise blank sky caused by the picturing methodology characteristics of the day.

All of that said, what I really wanted to note in this entry was another statement by Newhall from his short chapter on color:

The color photographer is faced with many esthetic problems ... [T]he temptation is to chose subjects which are themselves a blaze of color, and to ignore the fact that color is everywhere, and that it is not the colorful subject itself, but the photographer's handling of it,which is creative ... [B]y the nature of his medium, the photographer's vision must be rooted in reality; if he attempts to create his own world of color he faces a double dilemma: his results no longer have that unique quality we can only define as "photographic" ... and he cannot hope to rival the painter with the range of pigments he can place at will upon his canvas ... [O]n the other hand, the painter cannot hope to rival the accuracy, detail, and above all the authenticity of the photograph.

IMO, there it is, the same as it ever was - simply stated, the medium of photography can not be rivaled by any other of the visual arts when it comes to matters of "accuracy, detail, and above all authenticity. The truly "unique quality" of the medium is "rooted in reality".

IMO, those picture makers who choose to ignore or deny this reality regarding the medium's truly unique characteristics are like children playing with finger paints - their picturing results may often amuse or entertain, but they rarely, if ever, illustrate and illuminate anything that isn't obvious or already known.