ku # 492 ~ I Luv NY, pt. 2

Stump with orange fungus • click to embiggenRe: complexity, James wrote about I Luv NY (pt.1 - the previous entry) that simplifying it would be "...removing the entire experience of exploring this place visually over time through the artist."

He also wrote; "...Isn't it interesting to pay attention to how your eye moves from one area to the next and how even that can change your experience or the "subject" as you uncover details? The more of this the better as far as I am concerned...I also think the real challenge is showing more and still making it feel like less...

Both of these statements are great observations, but I think his last statement is best - "I prefer to focus on the story that unfolds as you spend time with the work itself. A certain level of complexity allows for this I think and moves us away from the quick "wow factor" that we've come to demand and then just as quickly forget about."

And, in answer to his question - "It also respects your audience just a bit more, don't you think?", all I can give is resounding "yes".

Thanks, James.

ku # 490 ~ Grace

Muted autumn sunset • click to embiggenRobert Adams also mentions 'grace' as a quality found in good/great pictures. By grace he means that a picture that can be "measured by the apparent ease of its execution".

He goes on to say that, "An Artwork should not appear to have been hard work." Adams mentions an emphasis on 'appear' because certainly no artwork is easy to make." He notes that much photography suggests an "embarrassing strain: odd angles, extreme lenses, eccentric darkroom technique (ed. - and today's Photoshoping) [which] reveal a struggle to substitute shock and technique for sight."

He suggests that the pictures of great photographers (and merely 'good' ones also) are marked by an economy of means, an apparently everyday relationship with their subject matter." Even though this apparent 'ease of execution' and 'everyday relationship' are deceptions (of a sort), he goes on to state that "only pictures that look as if they have been easily made can convincingly suggest that Beauty is commonplace."

Once again, I agree.

ku # 488 ~ a fresh intimation of Form

Autumn scene • click to embiggenOnce again from Robert Adams; "If the goal of art is Beauty and if we assume the the goal is sometimes reached, even if always imperfectly, how do we judge art?"

IMO, Adams is talking about Art, not art - that is, Fine Art (which engages the mind), not decorative art (which dis-engages the mind). He goes on to state -

"Basically, I think (we judge art) by whether it reveals to us important Form that we ourselves have experienced but to which we have not paid adequate attention. Successful art rediscovers Beauty for us."

Once again, I'm with Adams on this. I am drawn to photography that is in some sense 'a new way of seeing'. I don't mean a new 'technique' (although that's OK). What I mean is a new way of looking at something I have already seen but 'to which I have not paid adequate attention'. Pictures that cause me to 'think again', so to speak.

Adams says something similar - "One standard then, for the evaluation of art is the degree to which it gives us a fresh intimation of Form ... it must in some significant respect be unlike what has preceded it ... if the dead end of romantic vision is incoherence, the failure of classicism, which is the outlook I am defending, is the cliche, the ten thousandth camera-club imitation of a picture by Ansel Adams." (FYI - classicism; Aesthetic attitudes and principles manifested in art ... characterized by emphasis on form, simplicity, proportion, and restraint.)

As most here already know, I'm totally with Adams on this one - the last thing the world needs is another 'camera-club imitation of a picture by Ansel Adams'.

ku # 487 ~ Form and Light

A field in the (autumn) gloaming • click to embiggenIn his essay Beauty in Photography (in the book of the same name), the photographer and writer (about photography), Robert Adams, states that "... the proper goal of art is, as I now believe, Beauty and the Beauty that concerns me is that of Form. Beauty is, in my view, a synonym for the coherence and structure underlying life .... "

I definitely agree on both counts - I mention that just in case you haven't noticed my reference to beauty at the top of your browser window.

Adams goes on to ask/state; "Why is Form beautiful? Because I think it helps us meet our worst fear, the suspicion that life may be chaos and that therefore our suffering is without meaning." Now that's some pretty 'heavy' and 'heady' stuff, but, as the adage states, 'Beauty is more than skin deep.'

It is said that poets write for a single reason - to give witness to splendor. As Adams points out, splendor is a useful word for photographers 'because it implies light - light of overwhelming intensity.'

OK. I'm with him so far. So, if art's point is Beauty in the guise of Form, and Form is a peek at 'light of overwhelming intensity' in the guise of splendor, Adams concludes that, "The Form towards which art points is of an incontrovertible brilliance, but is also far too intense to examine directly. We are compelled to understand Form by its fragmentary reflection in the daily objects around us ..."

So, in keeping with yesterday's notion of 'one long quiet howl', I guess I'm just going to keep howling at the light.

ku # 486 ~

It's been dry • click to embiggenIf not entirely clear and vibrant, the forecast for Maggie is very good. She continues to improve and maybe, just maybe, she will be released later today. Several doctors still have to sign off on it but the probability is high.

There is still no diagnosis, only speculation that it was a viral infection of some kind. The neurologist continues to run tests looking for all kinds of exotic stuff but nothing shows up. My speculation is that it's the same viral thing that I had - including 3 days of bedridden high fever semi-delirium - that laid me low for the better part of 2 weeks in early August. It just hit Maggie harder or she had a much lower tolerance for it. But, no one knows anything for sure.

So, just like today's picture, things are getting brighter even though it's still quite hazy.

ku # 485 ~ on being a grasshopper

Rock, tree and fence post • click to embiggenOver the past few weeks, there has been some discussion here and there about teaching art, or, more accurately, can how to be an artist be taught?

My thoughts on the subject, which really annoy those who don't believe that artists possess anything 'special' (that others don't), is that the 'mechanics'/theory and history of just about any medium can be taught, but mastering mechanics/theory and knowing history does not an artist make - that comes from within. Some have it, some don't. Within the ranks of 'those who have it', some have in spades, some only a lesser allotment.

Back in my halcyon studio/commercial days, my studio was a regular stop on the R.I.T. (Rochester Institute of Technology, Photography Dept.) day trip rota. One professor in particular always encouraged me to give my you're wasting mom and dad's money, just learn the mechanics, drop out of school and use all that tuition money to buy film, processing and prints - just shoot your ass off and discover what, if anything, you have to say speech. And then, after they were suitably impressed with all of my Fortune 500 company clients and work, let them know that I had never had a single day of photography education in my life.

And, of course, then there's my son, Aaron, the Cinemascapist, who seems to have less than a single day of photography education in his life - making pictures for less than a year and he has A NYC gallery show and mounting worldwide fame and recognition.

Go figure on both counts.

That said, in all the discussion about the topic, this little tidbit from Bill Jay - I'd buy LensWork magazine just to read his EndNotes column; "... the only learning which has been meaningful has been self-motivated, self-taught, self-appropriated, self-discovered."

But, when it comes to teaching how to be an artist he also wrote: "I have to admit it: I am only interested in changing lives, not providing information for its own sake. It sounds impertinent and I make the statement with some embarrassment. I do not know why such admissions are awkward but they are, like conducing to virtue, or advocating Beauty and Goodness, or even Truth, or urging on the artist as spiritual seeker. Such notions, nowadays, tend to prompt the gagging reflex. But I cannot imagine the purpose of education if such concepts are not at issue. And centrally so." (emph., Ed.)

A recommendation: back when I was urging photography students to tune in, turn on and drop out, if I had known about Robert Henri's book, The Art Spirit, I certainly would insisted that it be the very first thing that they spend mom and dad's money on, and that they, like student members of the Communist Party who were encouraged to carry copies of Mao's Little Red Book, read it and carry it with them wherever they go.

Update on Friday, September 14, 2007 at 12:11PM by gravitas et nugalis

Gordon Coale asked; "I've been wondering what you shoot all those square pictures with..."

Hey Gordon, you're not alone in your wondering.

I do my picturing with either an Olympus e510 or e500 and then crop to square. In my film days, amongst many other formats, sub-miniature - 8×10, I learned to love the square format with a Bronica.

(mixed) ku # 484 ~ autumn is creeping in

Autumn is creeping in • click to embiggenThis AM, James responded to my response (on ku # 483) to one of his prior comments. He wrote, "... What is different for me about your more "natural" picturing is the feeling I get that you are exploring aspects of the forest ... that are not easily captured...and explore this region in ways that others tend to overlook. Or maybe what I am trying to say is, these are in no way "typical" of what I have come to expect from "nature photography" in this region ... not "grand scenic" or "marcos" ... but rather intimate and real the way you would experience them stumbling through the Adirondack forest ..."

James is an Adirondacker and is therefore familiar with more than just the 'roadside attractions'/picture postcard impressions that many visitors have of the area. I appreciate his insight into my pictures very much becasue I am trying to "explore this region in ways that others tend to overlook'. As I have stated many times, the 'details' of the Adirondacks, in all their natural "grit", are what I believe are the defining 'natural' characteristic of the park.

That said, I believe the old adage which states that the genius is in the details and I find it both amazing and depressing how many of my fellow humans are so wrapped up in the 'shock and awe' of life - I call it the SuperBowlHalftimeShow mentality - that they never see the genius. In fact, I believe it is the reigning American consumer culture of wretched excess, with its\ driving principle of fanning the flames of 'shock and awe' simply for economic gain, that is killing the 'thinking' genius and propagating an unthinking pavlovian response to the bell of unrestrained 'desire'.

In is my hope that my pictures are clogging at least a small part of the breach of brain drain that is so prevalent in our American culture.

ku # 483 ~ incredible # 2

Birch and erratic in the forest • click to embiggenWhat with a trip to Montreal, my work load and grand jury duty (a 3 month term, but only 12-14 days of actual jury-ing), I haven't had much time to think about things photography. However, as I stated in ku # 480, my intent was to return to the boulder field in the woods, and I have managed to do so, ever so briefly.

And it was on ku # 480 that James stated, "... I know it's not always as fashionable to appreciate strictly "natural" shots here...".

I did take note of this and have intented to respond so here goes - in the beginning, The Landscapist was almost all about strictly "natural" shots, although, truth be told, certainly not your average camera-club nature shots. Over time, my gaze has drifted more towards the 'social' landscape, but I still picture the strictly natural world with as great passion as I ever have, even if sometimes the strictly natural world is 'just' a stage or backdrop to some human 'intervention'.

That said, it is my hope that "strictly" natural shots will always be presented - by me and others - and appreciated here on The Landscapist.