The Hedges 0n Blue Mountain Lake

Truth and revelation • click to embiggenMy thanks to John Denniston for his informed and informative response to my comments on urban ku # 178 -

In the Post Modern Photo Art world there is no difference between pictures taken by a war photographer in the field and those created using props and models such as the one by Jeff Wall. I listened in disbelief once when Roy Arden, one of Jeff Wall's more successful students, explain that he protested the Vietnam war by photographing products in Wall Mart and that it had the same impact on the war as did the pictures taken by photographers who actually went to Vietnam to record what they saw happening. To these people the words documentary and propaganda are interchangeable. Documentary photographs are not documents but photographs made to further a point of view. It's interesting that I have been to a number of lectures at the Vancouver Art Gallery (the home gallery of Jeff Wall) in the last few years and there was a subtext which said that photographers don't think they just push buttons. Jeff Wall calls himself an artist and would be insulted if you called him a photographer. I was surprised that A.D. Coleman in a lecture at the VAG two weeks ago said he knew of few photographers who could think. He said this in praise of pictorialism which he is fond the very of. Pictorialism, of course, is much about changing what the camera saw into a more dramatic or painterly thus artistic image. The problem with all of this is that photography ceases to be appreciated for what it does best, record what we see in front of us. Photography is praised for the unnatural colours we create in photoshop, the distortions we create with wide angle and telephoto lenses or in Jeff Wall’s case, the tableaus we create with props and models. I’ve seen the photo in question and found it, despite its impressive size and technical merit, to be cold and without passion. Its impact on me was similar to those colour advertisements I see every once in while in very old Life magazines from the 1960’s; unconvincing, unreal, staged; advertising at its most banal. I’ll take pictures from the photographers who were actually there every time.

I'm pleased that someone rose to my photo-constructionist bait in such an articulate manner. And, despite what I opined (and meant) about Jeff Walls picture - which I too have viewed 'in the flesh' - I agree with most of John's statement. I even agree with the his assessment that Wall's Dead Soldiers Talking appears to be "cold and without passion" which I believe is part of its power - IMO, the carnage of war is meted out by the gods of fate in a very indiscriminate (cold and without passion) fashion. Some human beings, when placed in harm's way in the guise of modern firepower, tend to be maimed or killed without any rhyme or reason behind their being plucked from the crowd. So, I like the fact that there is a overarching emotional first-impression of "cold and without passion" in Wall's picture that, for me, sets the stage for other emotional revelations to come.

Obviously, not everyone sees it - literally or figuratively - in that manner. Some, like John, prefer "pictures from the photographers who were actually there ..." as opposed to pictures from photo-constructionists. Personally, I like it to have both ways and fortunately, the apparatus of the very messy medium of photography can be employed to create all manner of pictures from the cauldron of which just about anyone can find a lid for their particular pot.

ku # 506 ~ the more things change, the more they stay the same?

Cabin porch with cooler • click to embiggenOn ku # 174 ~ entre chien et loup, I opined that "I don't see any difference between my earlier photography and that which I am making today.". Paul Maxim responded. "I am certainly not an expert on your body of work over the years. I am sure, however, that if I were, there would be far more that I "liked" than I "disliked". Having said that, it seems clear (from my point of view, anyway) that you aren't the same photographer that you were 25 years ago. But my perspective is different (and possibly more objective) than yours. To say that you "see no difference between your earlier photography and that which you're making today" is, in my opinion, just a tad silly."

Hmmmm. Interesting. Thinking about my statement a bit more, I still think that I don't see any difference between my earlier photography and that which I am making today.

Sure enough, as I stated, my referent is different - now, primarily the natural world Vs. then, primarily the urban world. Yes, my pictures are now square whereas they used to be rectangular. And then there's the matter of that corner vignette. But, all of that is mostly concerned with form and surface.

The area in which I feel there is no, or at least very little, difference is that of vision, although, when it comes to form, I do think that I handle the makeup / arrangement / composition of the 2-dimensional surface of the print in very much the same manner. Because I am very interested to read what others have to say on the subject, I won't elaborate on whys, hows, and wherefores of why I think I 'see' in exactly the same manner.

I don't ask for comments on my pictures all that much but, will those of you who have followed my ku (and related variations) of the past few years please comment on how they are or are not like my much earlier (almost 30 years ago) view camera work that I have been posting over the last few weeks. You see a few more of the earlier pictures here (I am adding to this portfolio as I scan more of the negatives).

In this case, more so than usual, I am very eager to read what you have to say.

ku # 505 ~ the reenchantment of art

Winter ferry ride on Lake Champlain • click to embiggenI've found some more buried treasure during my move, a few way-back issues - from the late 80s when I was a contributing photography critic - of the New Art Examiner. The magazine ceased publishing in 2002 after a 30 year run. It was Chicago based and initially focused on the Chicago and midwestern art scene (considered an 'art backwater' at the time) - one which was all but ignored by the 'established' East/West coast art mags.

In the cache was my rather scathing critique - rarely have the words poured from my penny pencil with such feverish acerbic fluidity - of a landmark photography exhibition at Pittsburgh's Carnegie Museum of Art. The review opened with; "Either the art of photography as practiced in western Pennsylvania is generally unfocused, uninventive, and imitative in nature, or the curators of this landmark exhibition - John Caldwell (the Curator of Contemporary Art) and Annegreth Nill - are non conversant in the vernacular of contemporary photography." It got even better after that.

But the real treasure of the cache was an issue with an article, The Reenchantment of Art, by Suzi Gablik. The piece was an excerpt from the then so-to-be published book of the same title. I googled Gablik and found that she is still quite active and championing the basic tenets of the book - "the remythologizing of consciousness and the question of mythic thinking - whether it is possible at all today, and if so, in what way given the inevitable stream of cybernetic simulacra that is given and now accepted as social reality."

translation - cybernetic simulacra: the mechanical and electronic communication of a vague, unreal, or superficial semblance - in this case, of social reality.

Gablik goes on to say, "My present concerns have to do with how to give our culture back its sense of aliveness, possibility, and magic. It is an issue that I believe will find resonance in many minds, among all those who are similarly convinced that, in losing the ability to perceive the grand harmonies of the cosmos, our Western civilization has been thrown seriously out of equilibrium ... (having lost) a living cosmology to enable us to hold the spiritual dimension of existence in mind, the individual fails to establish a relationship with a larger context of meaning and purpose, or to keep a chronic sense of emptiness at bay."

Gablik wrote this in 1988 - a time that could now be considered to be the infancy of the age of cybernetic simulacra. If she thought that our civilization was 'seriously out of equilibrium' then, I can only imagine what she thinks it is now.

In addition to the then prevailing cultural paradigm, Gablik was also responding to the Post Modernist world of Art. In her opinion, it is no coincidence that a culture, which has lost "a living cosmology to enable us to hold the spiritual dimension of existence in mind", creates Art that is "cynical, selfish, and (has) a pessimistic view of existence." rather than Art "that speaks to the human need for meaning rather than to metaphysical despair."

It should go without saying that Gablik is suggesting that Artists, or a significant segment thereof, devote themselves to the reenchantment of Art. Art that "help(s) to expand our 'model' of reality and that challenge(s) these obsolete and constricting images of the self" - a sentiment that dovetails quite nicely with Hockney's statement "If we are to change our world view, images have to change. The artist now has a very important job to do. He's not a little peripheral figure entertaining rich people, he's really needed."

I would really like to know if you guys 'n girls have any thoughts on this matter. Can Art help change a culture? Can artists help reshape thinking without becoming didactic propagandists? Is work created for such a purpose Art?

Do you even care? Or, are you under the thrall of 'metaphysical emptiness'?

Update on Friday, February 29, 2008 at 11:18AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: 2 different takes:

Stephen Connor wrote: "I'd be curious to know exactly which "living cosmology" it is that we've lost. Christianity? Buddhism? The Navajo cosmology? Ancient Egyptian? Aztec?

And what's meant by the "enchantment of art"? I find lots of contemporary art perfectly enchanting. Am I reading more into it than is actually there?

Or is Ms. Gablik, forgetting for a moment that she's sitting on a tiny little planet circling a tiny little star circling at the far edge of a tiny galaxy and therefore in no position at all to "perceive the grand harmonies of the cosmos", simply waxing overly-poetic while saying nothing particularly interesting or useful?"

Michelle Parent wrote: "The way I read this, is to find the soulful/spiritual connectedness between all things (not a specific religion per se) and the magic to be found everywhere if you just look (or know how to look). We may be connected through the world wide web, but there is still a lot of "emptiness". Science and our current culture of "me" has left us with no "magic" and there is a coldness to it that leaves my soul feeling barren, sterile, empty, and unconnected in a deep, meaningful way.

I feel that in the past, Artists truly did influence culture. Especially when an artist was the only person who could put paint or other media on paper (or canvas/wood, etc.) and "capture life" while the majority of the population could not do so. These artists in the past where also very connected to their religion, where very few today seem to lack a deep spiritual connection to something greater than themselves. I am not trying to be judgmental, so I hope I am not coming across that way, but the majority of work I see (on the web) seems to lack that type of connection. It all seems very empty to me (and very much it is all starting to look the same too). In some ways, I think the web has hurt art a lot. It has homogenized the different styles to such a degree, that it has become very sterile to me ...

I know this is a bit of a ramble, but it something I feel strongly about, as I am trying to steer my own work in a deeper, more soulful connection. I want to find the "magic" in all around me."

The rest of you wrote nothing. Apparently you're all under the thrall of 'metaphysical emptiness".

ku # 504 ~ pressing on

Near the summit of Algonquin • click to embiggenOne of the joys of moving, even if it's only from one room to another, is discovering buried treasure. Today's picture is a case in point. I've been looking for this picture for quite some time. It was tucked away in a hanging folder with some other 'miscellaneous' pictures. Unfortunately, the folder wasn't hanging - it was buried in box.

The picture is of my winter backpacking companion, Jim Minardo (from Rochester, NY). Jim has since retired from winter backpacking. The details: very late day just below the summit of Algonquin - notice the scrub pine and emerging bare rock, -10F, 30 mph wind with gusts of 40-60 mph, blizzard conditions - my kind of winter hike! Within another 30 ft of elevation, we were in white-out conditions and the wind was so strong and loud that we could only communicate by shouting.

FYI, Algonquin is described as; "Although this lacks the prestige of making it to Mount Marcy, the trail to the summit of Algonquin Peak and the view from the top, at 5,114 feet, are better and the trail is probably the most challenging in the Adirondacks, if not New York." That, of course, describes it in the summer.

At that point the decision was made to retreat about 100 ft of elevation to a tiny clearing, pitch the tent and ride it out. For those of you not experienced with winter mountaineering, it should be noted that, once in a winter tent, you are a snug as a bug in a rug - hang a small backpacking lantern in the peak of the tent, light the stove in the cooking vestibule, get water on the boil (for tea, hot chocolate, soup and dinner) and the next thing you know you're shedding clothing by the layer. It's not hard to get the tent up to a balmy 35 degrees which seems genuinely toasty compared to what's going on outside.

And, IMO, one of life's great pleasures is riding out a roaring blizzard high - 5,100 ft - on a wilderness mountain top while sipping hot beverages, eating a hardy stew, warmed fruit cup, warmed chocolate pudding, and just hanging out with a good friend.

Climbing out of a warm sleeping bag and into -15F temperatures is a whole other story.

ku # 503 ~ more PH Emerson

Cloud bank on Whiteface • click to embiggenI totally agree with Martin Doonan's comment - "There is certainly a lot of good material in Emerson's book." The more I read, the more 'good material' I find.

I am currently reading Chapter IV, Hints on Art, which is like a stream of consciousness list of thoughts about Art. Much of it reflects my ideas and thoughts on the same subject. It is very interesting, and a bit unsettling, to read the thoughts, written 120 years ago, of another that so closely match my own. Throw in the fact that he also photographs with a technique that also is based on exactly the same methodology as mine and it all gets a bit creepy.

A few nuggets mined from Chapter IV:

• Do not get caught by the sensational in nature, as a coarse red-faced sunset, a garrulous waterfall, or a fifteen thousand foot mountain.

• Avoid prettiness - the world looks much like pettiness and there is but little difference between them.

• Do not mistake sentimentality for sentiment, and sentiment for poetry.

• The value of a picture is not proportional to the trouble and expense it costs to obtain it, but to the poetry that it contains.

• The greater the work the simpler it looks and the easier it seems to imitate, but it is not so.

• Art is not to be found by touring Egypt, China, or Peru; if you cannot find it at your own door, you will never find it.

• Many photographers think they are photographing nature when they are only caricaturing her.

• When a critic has nothing to tell you save that your pictures are not sharp, be certain that he is not very sharp and knows nothing at all about it.

• The undeveloped artistic faculty delights in glossy and showy objects and in brightly colored things. The appreciation of delicate tonality in monochrome or colour is the result of high development. The frugivorous ape loves bright colours, and so does the young person of "culture", and the negress of the West Indies, bur Corot delighted only in true and harmonious coloring.

ku # 502 ~ s**t or get off the pot # 2

Autumn mist and rain on Lake George • click to embiggenI'll be away for a few days but I wanted to let you know that the POD photobook idea is generating decent interest. There are still of number of you out there who have not responded but that I would expect to do so.

Also, a favor to ask - for those of you with a blog, please make an entry that mentions the idea with a link to my entry about the idea. Let's see how much interest we can generate.

FYI, Jim Jirka asked, "... Do you feel captions are enough for the images, with a artist intent statement enough to carry the book idea?"

my response: IMO, the simpler, the better. Although, if one feels that some text is in order, do it. My intention is to have an Artist Statement, a page or two of intro text, and pictures with captions / titles.

FYI, the entire book can be created in Photoshop by using text layers. More on how - to - do - it later.

ku # 501 ~ real reality

The Jay Range • click to embiggenI'm confused.

One the one hand we are told, photography is a cohort with the real.

On the other hand we are also told, The time was, we thought of photographs as recorders of reality. Now we know they largely invent reality. At one stage or another, whether in shooting, developing, editing or placement, the pictures are manipulated, which means that we are manipulated.

Now, I have never confused a picture of a thing with the thing itself. I fully accept the idea that the picture is a 'trace', a 'representation', or a recorded 'memory' of the thing pictured. And, yes, I realize that making a picture of a thing not only rips the pictured moment from the fabric of the continuum of time but also allows the observer of the picture to see the pictured thing only from a single fixed POV - both of which are decidedly different experiences from observing the thing itself in real time.

And, of course, a photograph, by the intrinsic characteristic of its 'frame' (the edges of a photograph), can present only a small visual 'slice' of the actual world. This stands in contrast to what the human sees - while the human can only focus on a slice of its total field of view, human vision also includes a much broader, albeit 'soft', peripheral vision.

All of these concepts - and many more - are valid ideas re: the medium of photography. In theory many of them can be considered to be 'manipulations' that 'distort' the observer's perception of the thing pictured. It should also be stated that much academic effort has been expended (and continues to be) and much academic blood has been spilled (and continues to be) creating, defining, arguing, and defending various concepts, ideas, and theories regarding the question of what is a photograph.

IMO, a photograph can be many things, which is why I have a high degree of discomfort with blanket statements like the above regarding 'invented reality' and 'manipulation'.

So, all of these concepts - and many more - are valid ideas re: the medium of photography. In practice (leaving aside created scenes ala Wall, Hobson, Crewdson, Sherman, et al) I am not so certain how they apply, especially to those photographs that are the result of 'simple' observation.

For instance, even though I engaged in 'manipulation' while picturing this scene (choosing what to picture and how to picture it), today's picture very accurately depicts a real place, the Jay Range, under specific conditions, low level cloud cover, during a real event, an isolated snowfall.

I 'invented' nothing. I did create a print which, because it is a real object, is a new or invented reality of sorts that is, indeed, not the thing pictured and so, by its very nature, it is different kind of thing from the thing pictured. It is an object. As an object, the print has its own 'real' tactile qualities - thick vs thin, smooth vs coarse, little vs big, glossy vs matte, etc. These are 'real' qualities that help define the print's 'reality' as a physical thing.

Now, if the print itself is what is meant by an 'invented reality', I'm cool with that. But, in fact, I don't think that is the intended meaning.

Where I think my problem with the proposition resides with the idea of 'photographs as recorders of reality. I don't think that photographs record 'reality'. I think that what photographs record can be a very accurate 'trace', 'representation', and/or memory of a real thing ('thing' includes people, places, events, etc).

IMO, a real/actual thing is different from the perceived reality of the thing. Not to mention that there may be as many perceived realities of a thing as there are 'perceivers'. Furthermore, I see a photograph that is an accurate representation of a real thing as being essentially 'neutral'. Yes, the photographer has directed the observer's attention to a real thing and the fact that an observer may come to a new 'understanding' - a new/invented perceived reality - of the thing, does not mean that the photograph, in and of itself, has created an invented reality.

In the case of a photograph that is an accurate depiction of a real thing, the creation of an invented reality regarding that real thing is much more the province of the observer than it is of the photographer or the photograph.

And that's why I like photographs that don't function as propaganda for a photographer's perceived realities.

ku # 500 ~ an unapologetic gasbag

Erratics in the woods • click to embiggenYesterday's entry yielded up a couple interesting responses.

One, from Mike (anonymous), explored a very different meaning than most took from the pictures - ""My Life in Summer Camp" could have been the title of this chirpy girlie essay. Perhaps a little more hardcore than our Girl Scouts, but although armed to the hilt by the US taxpayer, these girls won't get to shoot civilians in the Gaza Strip and the other occupied territories. They will probably just swan around Jerusalem with their weapons spreading unease amongst tourists and other unarmed civilians. It's the boys (as usual and at the same delicate age) who'll move into "harm's way" and will shoot unarmed old men, women, and children. It's the boys who patrol the occupied territories. These girls have chosen to be part of a brutal colonial system which should disgust civilized people. If they had any backbone they'd do well to renounce it as did the many USA youths who protested the USA's military/corporate adventure in Viet Nam."

As I mentioned yesterday, no 2 people respond to a given picture in exactly the same manner, which, IMO, is a good thing. Pursuant to L. Ron Hubbard's theory that "True art always elicits a contribution from those who view or hear or experience it. By contribution is meant 'adding to it'...", every honest contribution can, indeed, add to what we know - about the picture, the artist, the artist's intent, and, in the best of cases, what it means to be human. In that spirit, I applaud Mike's comments and response to the pictures.

The other interesting response was from Robert who opined "How intelligent/genius or whatever do you have to be to throw out a bunch of attack questions ... It's a knee-jerk reaction to other people not seeing the world or judging photographs in the same way that you do."

Actually, as evidenced by the preceding (Mike's response), I was not at all bothered by some 'people not seeing the world or judging photographs in the same way that you (I) do'. No sir, not at all. My agita stems from the subject of Robert's other statement ...

"The reasons for finding a photo ho-hum or average can go on and on without touching at all on how the viewer feels about the subject of the photo."

I do realize that, on photo-oriented blogs/forums, photographers tend to react to pictures as photographers, i.e., more concerned about things technical and technique than what a picture might have to say beyond its obvious visual qualities. Such is the broadly ensnaring trap of a medium that is so intimately connected to and dependent upon things mechanical and technical.

From the standpoint of creating photography as Art, more's the pity.

That said, I am at a total lack of understanding as to how one can call a picture that is laden with so many possible emotional / intellectual punches, 'ho hum' or 'average' no matter how 'ho hum' or 'average' the technique employed to make it, or, to put it another way, no matter how 'ho hum' or 'average' the visual qualities appear to be.

If a photograph (or any Art in general) is intended to be saying something about something worth saying, and the pictures in question most definitely are so intended, what is being said is, in fact, the point of the exercise. The visual manner in which 'what is being said' is presented can certainly be of interest ...

but to dismiss or miss 'what is being said' because the viewer hasn't been bedazzled / manipulated / seduced with obvious and flashy pyro-technicals / visuals is, IMO, indicative of an observer who is "intellectually lazy, emotionally deficient, lacking in human empathy / compassion, divorced from the 'real'" (or some mixture of same).

A couple caveats:

1) Just because a person may be, in some fashion or in some situations, "intellectually lazy, emotionally deficient, lacking in human empathy / compassion, divorced from the 'real'" should not be understood to mean that they are sub-human. IMO, it just means that he/she "have very little to bring to the table of not only viewing (the) pictures but also to the table of what it means to be human." More's the pity.

2) Most photographers are 'hobbyists'. On the whole, they are not trying to "say something about something worth saying", they are just trying to make pretty pictures. For them, the act of making pictures is little more than a pleasant activity with which to occupy one's time. That said, it should be understood that, IMO, as far it goes, neither activity is evil, useless, or a waste of time.

3) All of my comments and opinions about the medium of photography and specific photographs come from the perspective of, as the blog intro states, "photography of photographers who have moved beyond the pretty picture and for whom photography is more than entertainment - photography that aims at being true, not at being beautiful because what is true is most often beautiful ...

So, from time to time, my passion for; 1) the medium, 2) its highest potential, 3) its inherent characteristic as a cohort to the real, 4) and its ability to explore and investigate what it means to be human, will inevitably generate some heat that may be difficult and, perhaps, uncomfortable for some to touch. There is no intent to offend but there is intent aplenty to incite and irritate in the hope that something of value may emerge from the cauldron.

A fact for which I offer no apologies.