ku # 523 ~ a couple new things to consider

The quiet before a storm • click to embiggenA few things of note have passed my way recently so I thought I'd pass them on to you for your consideration.

The first item came via an email from Tyler Monson with the subject line, Fellow from Seattle. I did not know Tyler prior to this missive and the photo that was attached together with the text was ... well ... a bit off beat.
Tyler Monson, I presume • clickThe text read; "One hand for the camera, the other for a triple espresso...and not a drop spilled nor opportunity missed." The picture is on the left.

Undeterred, I followed the link to his blog.More Original Refrigerator Art, about which he states - "where a new image is posted every day, and words are few". That seems to be the case - there is no way to leave a comment, there does seem to be a picture a day, and his words are very few and far between.

IMO, his pictures are well worth the time spent viewing them. They are not of the new-way-of-seeing variety - they are very much in the postmodern idiom of cool and detached - but, that said, I find them to be very interesting and involving. Visually, the pictures are rather "formal", which I tend to like. There are occasional flirtations with humor - I laughed out loud at a couple pictures. IMO, it's very good stuff. But, 'nuff said from me. I am interested in reading what you might have to say.

Item # 2 is from Joe Reifer. His blog is one that I follow on a regular basis - it/he introduced me to the genre of night photography which, at its best, I also find interesting and involving. Joe's NP niche is junkyards by the light of the full moon. He also dispenses interesting photo tidbits from time to time.

That said, Joe recently posted 2 entries of recent work, Salvage Yard II & III, in which, IMO, he has made some very interesting and very involving pictures. Again, IMO, he's on to something big, something very big. The work has made such a dramatic impression upon me that I am going to write a full-blown review of it asap.

But, I don't want to give away the store here. Again, I would like to read your thoughts on the work.

FYI, I am trying, here on The Landscapist, to encourage critiques from you, the reader, about the photography of others (or mine) as a means of:

a) communicating about pictures in a manner related to content, not the tech crap or lame "I like the way you composed ... cropped ... used a GND .... etc. crap that is most often encountered on the web.

b) helping those who need and/or want to escape the inanity of item a) in order to start understanding the real capabilities / power of the medium so that they can develop their own personal way of seeing, aka, vision.

IMO, the best "education" one can get for the development of a personal vision is one based on looking at the pictures made by others and, starting with the ones that you don't understand / get, discuss your thoughts and questions with others on the same learning path. In short, work at it. Learn something new.

Despite what the it's-a-visual-art simpletons think, what a picture connotes is as important - in the Art world, more important - as its visual referent and/or its visual form. It's the idea(s) beneath the surface and how well the picture / picture-maker communicate that idea(s) that matters most.

Forget all that technique stuff, that really is the easy part. As has been stated by many, once you have an idea, the manner in which to express it flows naturally.

Don't be shy. Take a look at both links and let me / the rest of us know what you think. Then we can discuss it. who knows what we might learn.

ku # 522 ~ it's matter of educated opinion

Forest floor detritus • click to embiggenA little while back the ever-popular yet oft-dreaded topic of What Is Art? was bantered about here on The Landscapist. As is nearly always the case, the populous idea that Art is whatever I deem it to be was proffered right along side the other regularly conflated idea that Art can not be defined.

In response to which I put forth a single word - "educated".

Sorry if this sounds elitist, but the fact remains - the more you know, the more you can know. That adage holds true for just about any human endeavor. Everything builds on what came before. Knowledge matters.

"Ok.", you might say, but how does this help define Art?

In my time, I have done quite a bit of investigating into the matter of what makes art, Art. I was even a credited consultant for the seminal book, The New Color Photography by Sally Eauclaire. In this book, published in 1981, art critic Eauclaire (my next door neighbor) explored the formal and technical innovations of forty of the most prominent color photographers of the time - Eggleston, Shore, Meyerowitz, Callahan, Grover, Epstein, et al - and systematically examines and compares their work. My relatively minor participation in this book was, nevertheless, a seminal moment in my growth and development as both a picture maker and an viewer of pictures - two decidedly different disciplines (more on this in the next entry).

All of that said, it should not be inferred that I have all the answers but it does seem readily apparent that there is, in fact, a consensus in the Art world regarding the experience of viewing Art. By extension, an easy to comprehend notion regarding is it Art? / what is Art? can be inferred or deduced.

The most straightforward elucidation on the experience of viewing Art that I have encountered is in the book, Photography's multiple roles wherein there is an essay, Spaces for the self ~ the symbolic imagery of place, by (take a deep breath) Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. In it, he writes:

When approached as works of art, photographs are created to express an individual vision that ranges far beyond the recording of personal history. And viewers may decode the message of art photographs along many more dimensions than they can snapshots pasted in family albums. While domestic pictures are likely to have stronger meanings and a more important place in a person's identity, photography as art is likely to provide a broader range of experiences, and lead to a more diverse growth of perceptual and cognitive abilities.

There are many ways of looking at any work of art. They vary from a passing glance to a deep involvement of the senses, the mind, and the emotions. What is usually called an "aesthetic experience" is simply an intense involvement between a viewer and the work. Aesthetic experiences can be briefly described as having four dimensions:perceptual responses, which refer to visual elements such as balance, form, and harmony; emotional responses, which emphasize personal reactions to the feeling embedded in the work; intellectual responses, which include theoretical and art historical questions; and, finally, what might be called communicative responses, wherein there is a desire to relate to the artist, or to his or her time, or to his or her culture, through the mediation of the work of art.

Now, without question, there are many who would disagree with this aesthetic experience as being the sine qua non for their personal aesthetic experience. OK, fine. But that personal preference simply does not negate the fact that Art critics, curators, gallery owners / managers, collectors and other influential individuals or institutions who are the key holders / gate keepers to the world of Art hold those truths to be self evident in determining what is and what isn't Art. Or what, at the very least, might be considered to be Art.

And, yes, when viewing a work, different viewers will bring different biases towards one or more of the 4 dimensions - such as the academic lunatic fringe and its fetishistic preoccupation with # 3 - but I don't have a single problem with all 4 dimensions as necessary in some substantive manner for a work to be considered as Art.

These criteria define nothing less than a hierarchal order in field of Art, no more or less than other definable criteria determine hierarchal order in any other field of human endeavor.

Which is not to say that opinion doesn't enter into it. It does. One could even say, in heaping doses ...but ... that said, what really matters is the educated opinion of those who weight in on the matter.

Update on Friday, June 20, 2008 at 12:40PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Jim Jirka asked: "... is it for me to define my picturing as art, or is it for someone else to define it as art?

my response: IMO, I really think that it is for others to decide whether what you make is Art or not. Ultimately, it's up to the educated viewers of one's work to determine whether or not it succeeds, in any meaningful manner, in touching them in the aforementioned 4 domains / dimensions. This does not mean that on occasion the "educated" do not miss the mark or get it wrong. Time tends to be the ultimate arbiter of that.

And, of course, the "educated" can't see every body of work there is to see. Not by a long shot. One skill an emerging / developing Artist needs is the determination, the tenacity, the hustle (both meanings), and the unadulterated chutzpah to get one's work seen by the "educated".

All of that said, with a bit of education, self-scrutiny, and self-knowledge, I believe one can have an inkling of what one is making.

ku # 521 ~ POV

Blossoming bush • click to embiggenFor whatever reason of late, I have been "seeing" a lot of possibilities lately, photography-wise. I attribute most of this awareness to just the change in seasons. Spring and the life it brings is busting out all over - it's quite a change from the monochromatic paradigm of winter.

All of the possibilities that I am seeing, I see as series of pictures - i.e., bodies of related work. In a way, this comes at a bad time for me in as much as I am fully committed to my decay & disgust and picture windows work - not to mention shaving a few more strokes off my golf handicap - 6 is better than 8). I really don't have the time for a new series or two. So, maybe I can pass along a few ideas for those of you looking for something to sink your teeth into.

The Art world is always looking for a fresh or new and interesting take on things. Sometimes that means a body of work gains attention even though, over time, it will not possess much staying power. Usually that is the case because the 'new take' owes more to technique than content. But, often enough, someone will come along and adopt/adapt the technique and match it to good content and something really worth looking at and considering emerges.

In any event, if I had the time, I'd be putting a ladder (instead of the usual canoe or two) on my car's roof rack. The idea of picturing any number of referents from an elevated POV seems worth trying. To my knowledge, this approach is somewhat novel and, IMO, there quite a few "things" that could be interesting to see, in a series, from that POV.

A POV that is rarely explored - photographers in droves have squatted and/or put their cameras at ground level but only a handful have reached for the sky. And I don't mean picturing from rooftops or upper floor windows. What I mean is an elevated perspective that is visually just a little "off" from usual waist to eye-level height that is so common.

As for what to picture, if anyone likes the idea, pick what interests you .... but .... it's worth keeping this little bit of timeless wisdom in mind:

Everything has it's beauty, but not everyone sees it. - Confucius

Now that I think about, a 10 ft. ladder and a canoe can easily fit on my roof rack.

Update on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 09:57AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: several commenters mentioned that St. Ansel had a car top camera platform from which he pictured various scenes - a fact that I know to be accurate. One commenter, Tom Frost, suggested that therefore picturing from an elevated POV was not "new".

my response: Let me be more precise re: elevated POV - Adams, I'm sure amongst many others, did picture from an elevated POV but what he did not do is create a body of work that specifically focused on that technique. Nor did he, as my picture entry from yesterday suggests, elevate his POV in order to picture in a downward direction - a semi-bird's eye POV.

What I was suggesting was/is simply this - a slightly elevated POV with camera pointed downward towards near/close-in 'intimate' scenes / objects. A sort of look at what's at your feet if you were 10-12 feet tall kind of thing.

FYI, I am not claiming that this idea is "new" in the it's never been done before sense of the word. What am suggesting, though, is that I am not familiar with any bodies of work that specifically exploit this technique - which, of course, does not mean that they don't exist, just that I am not familiar with any.

Victor Bloomfield's link to Dave Beckerman's camera elevation doohickey thingamajig and his pictures using it are much closer to the idea I had in mind. Thanks Victor.

And, thanks for all of your comments and feedback.

ku # 520 ~ therefore, I am

East Branch of the Au Sable, Jay • click to embiggenI engage in picturing on a daily basis. A camera (or two) is my constant companion in large part because I can't stop "seeing" things that I want to picture.

What is a little weird about all this picturing is that I would not in any way call it a "desire" to picture. Nor would I call it a "need". It's more like breathing - it's just part and parcel of my being (being = a verb and a noun). I like to observe. Sort of like Chauncey Gardener (Chance, the gardener), in the movie Being There, when he said, "I like to watch."

When I picture, I am usually just making a visual note of what I "see". What I "see" is most often that which most others do not or, perhaps, choose to avoid or overlook. Over time I have come to realize that this is quite simply how I "see" - I am not intentionally driven to see in a different manner than most, which is to say that I come by my "vision" honestly. My "vision" is neither a contrivance nor an adopted affection.

Now, none of the aforementioned could be called the "inspiration" for why I like "to carry around these little boxes" and picture. In fact, I am not certain that I need or have ever had any "inspiration" to picture, unless you count the personal pleasure and satisfaction I get from making "something" out of "nothing" - the pure act of creating - as inspiration. Without a doubt, I get plenty of emotional and intellectual pleasure from that.

And, yes, I really enjoy it when my pictures communicate to others at least part of what I feel and think when I am picturing a given subject. When viewing my pictures becomes an act of connecting with others - a sharing of my thoughts and feelings about what it means to be human.

While I do not seek praise from/for my pictures, I feel the greatest sense of accomplishment (and a warm, fuzzy sense of connection to others) when I hear comments such as, "I never noticed that before", "I never looked at it in that way", and, "I never thought about it in that way".

For me, "Photography is the capture and projection of the delights of seeing; it is the defining of observation full and felt." ~ Walker Evans. And, I really enjoy that I can, "Make visible what, without you (me), might perhaps never have been seen." --Robert Bresson

In a very basic sense, I feel both "validated" as a person and connected to the human race when my pictures "speak" to others.

And, in a very real sense, I can say, "I picture, therefore, I am."

ku # 519 ~ decide what you're making

Lilacs, birch, & Jay Range • click to embiggenA couple commenters, and who knows how many others, took a bit of umbrage the other day when I quoted a comment from Joe Reifer's blog. Specifically, it was this little ditty:

... if you make a beautiful picture of a clearing winter storm in the Sierras, it's almost certainly junk (in the artistic sense) ...

Just because I quoted this idea doesn't mean that I agree with it. The fact that a lot of what is being made, photography-wise, is Decorative Art, not Fine Art, does not make it "junk". It's true that a lot of it may be cliche ridden, schmaltz-y, obviously (and intentionally) imitative, and, as some always point out, meaningful to the person who made it, but, IMO, that still does not make it junk. It's not Art, but it's not junk.

That said, the part of the quoted comment that I do agree with is this:

A serious artist making serious art shows a new way, demonstrates thoughts not thought before, makes what is essentially a philosophical argument .....

Even in my basic agreement with this notion, I would issue caveats regarding "new way" and "thoughts not thought before" in as much as "it has all been done (and said) before". All Art is derivative in the sense that all Art; a) builds on / evolves from what came before, and, b) relates to / derives from the culture in which it is created.

The best of Art may, indeed, address a given subject in a "new way" and address thoughts and ideas from a "new" perspective, but, ultimately, the best of Art addresses what it means to be human and, therefore, addresses "timeless" thoughts and ideas about the human condition.

IMO, this is what separates the wheat from the chaff - Fine Art from Decorative Art - in the world of art, especially so in the visual arts. Art is so much more than what strikes the eye, AKA, the illustrative. Art is at least as much about what strikes the mind and soul as it is about what strikes the eye, AKA, Art that illuminates. The best of Art incites, not just passion, but thought and, by extension, discourse about meaning and truth. Art that stimulates something other than just the pleasure centers of the human psyche.

Much has been written lately about photography that suggests that what is pictured in a photograph (the referent) is not nearly as important as what is implied in a photograph (the connoted). As an example, Jeff Wall has opined that it is vitally important to avoid, at all costs, picturing anything that you actually care about lest the referent take precedent over the connoted. This is an excellent example of the academic lunatic-fringe thinking that has dominated a large segement of contemporary Art world. Although, it must be said, that is probably a legitimate notion when one is making Art about Art, which is essentially what Wall is doing.

All of that said, and with the exception of pseudo-art made solely for commercial gain, I would suggest that there is a lot of art out there - most of it Decorative, and just a bit of it Fine.

ku # 518 ~ a delightful surprise

opposits attract • click to embiggenRecently, I mentioned that I have been looking around the web for some photo blogs worth reading / looking at. While doing a google search for a photo blog that I thought I knew the name of, I ended up on this site - the blog of a painter who lives on the fringe of the Adirondack region - instead.

Imagine my surprise when I was greeted by paintings of scenes close to my home with which I am very familiar and some of which I have pictured in a strikingly similar manner. Yoi and double Yoi - I didn't know whether to cry or wind my watch and you could have knocked me over with a feather.

In any event, if you peruse Takeyce Walter's paintings, when you come to Birch and Maple Trees, you will notice that it has a SOLD sign. As soon as it arrives at my house, Birch and Maple Trees and my Cascade Lakes Blackies will be framed side by side in a single frame and placed in our newly renovated bedroom.

I also believe that Birch and Maple Trees will not be last of my purchases from Takeyce Walter.

ku # 516 ~I'm out of here

Vernal water # 2 • click to embiggenI'll be in Amish Country next Tuesday-Thursday. It's work related - a press check - but I will have lots of free time.

It would be nearly impossible to avoid the Amish in Lancaster County or so I'm told. As many know, the Amish do not like to be photographed, especially so if an individual is recognizable in a picture. So, I am going to attempt to get beyond the beaten path (if that is even possible) and photograph the Amish landscape in a way that will interest me and not annoy them. If I knock on the door of an Amish home, I wonder if they might let me in to do a picture window photograph? Wish me luck.

I will be posting everyday. Stay tuned.

ku # 515 ~ fried

Spring in a marsh • click to embiggenSee the tree with the brokren trunk and a few straggly branches off to one side in today's picture? That is pretty much how I feel.

I've got way too many balls in the air right now. One wrong move and it might all come tumbling down. However, there is light at the end of the tunnel and it is getting brighter every day. If I can make it through until noon on Friday, I will be in the clear - not exactly finished, but most of the balls will be in someone else's court(s) and I can get back to my primary role of being a patron-ed artist instead of a hardworking graphic artist (with a minor in home renovations).

Despite it all, I have managed to make a few ku although my decay stuff - the stuff that's actually decaying - sits idly by. Unless I take it on the road with me to PA for my press check, it's going to be idle a bit longer, which might actually improve things, decay-wise. My only worry is that the wife might "accidentally" dispose of it while I'm away.