ku # 480 ~ what's new pussycat?

Rain, rain, rain, and more rain • click to embiggenRobert Hughes, when writng about how to evaluate Art, suggests that one standard is 'the degree to which it gives us a fresh intimation of Form.' (a reminder, Form is the coherence and structure underlying life).

Basically, what he is saying is that cliche (as he puts it - 'the ten thousandth camera-club imitation of a picture by Ansel Adams') just doesn't cut it. In his essay Making Art New, Hughes writes about the struggle/challenge Artists face when trying to create 'fresh' Art. In the end he quotes T.S. Eliot -

... Each venture
is a new beginning ...
... what there is to conquer
By strength and submission, has already been
discovered
Once or twice, or several times, by men whom one
cannot hope
To emulate - but there is no competition -
There is only the fight to recover what has been lost
And found and lost again and again ...

ku # 479 ~ aesthetics

Rain and fallen birch on the forest floor • click to embiggenAesthetics - the dictionary says; 1. the branch of philosophy dealing with such notions as the beautiful, the ugly, the sublime, the comic, etc., as applicable to the fine arts, with a view to establishing the meaning and validity of critical judgments concerning works of art, and the principles underlying or justifying such judgments. and, 2. the study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty.

Or, to simplify, a manner of thinking and making judgements about the concept of beauty.

In his easay, Beauty in Photography, Robert Adams suggests that Beauty is the beauty of Form, '... the coherence and structure underlying life ... [that] helps us meet our worst fear, the suspicion that life may be chaos and that therefore our suffering is without meaning ...'

Adams goes on to opine that if the goal of Art is Beauty (and he believes it is), then 'how do we judge Art?' His answer is that it should be judged '... 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 ...'

Adams also believes that 'succesful' Art must be measured by '... the apparent ease of its execution. An artwork should not appear to have been hard work.'- a notion that he calls 'grace' in photography. As a counterpoint to his notion of grace in photography, Adams suggests that ... we need only to examine a copy of a mass circulation photography magazine (ed. - or a online nature photo forum). Most of the pictures suggest embarassing strain: odd angles, extreme lenses and eccentric darkroom techniques reveal a struggle to substitute shock and technology for sight.'

He goes on to point out that the work of most photographers of importance is 'usually marked by an economy of means, an apparently everyday sort of relationship with their subject.' Then, IMO, Adams lowers the boom - '... only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that Beauty is commonplace.'

As the poet Theodore Roethke wrote. 'I wish I could find an event that meant as much as simple seeing.'

So, that is why, amongst other things, simple seeing, an everyday sort of relationship with subject, rediscoverying Beauty in that which has not been paid adequate attention are at the core of my asethetic beliefs.

ku # 478 ~ lichens (only god can make a tree)

Lichens on bark and rock • click to embiggenI have been reading entries on a few blogs dealing with digital workflow. On one in particular, the author stated that, in the digital domain, at no point between pushing the shutter button and getting a print is there anything which is fixed. There is never anything which you can see without the filter of a piece of software and a monitor.

Frankly, I don't see how this is at all different from the good old analog days. Between pushing the shutter button and getting a print there was always the multiple "filters" of film type, a zillion processing variables, a zillion paper choices, diffusion/condenser/cold light head enlargers and not to mention alternative-process printing and etc.

Sure, you could put a negative or transparency on a lightbox and, in and of itself, it was "fixed" but you still had to make a print. Give the same negative to 100 different photographers and you'll get 100 different prints. other than the mechanics involved, I just don't see how this all that different from the digital domain.

Sure, different RAW conversion software does produce different results, in some cases very different results. Add to that the variable of different workflows, and, guess what? If you give the same RAW file to 100 different photographers you'll get 100 different prints.

Moral of the story - there is no 'standard', there is no 'ideal', there is no 'perfect', and, nothing is 'fixed'. When it comes to RAW software, do your homework, make your choice, put your money on the table and then get on with it. Make prints that express what you have to say but always keep in mind that you are making 'traces', creating worlds, you are not making the 'thing' itself.

Consider yourself a poet and always remember - Poems are made by fools like me, But only God can make a tree.

Update on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 09:10AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Royce Howland wrote: "... Some photographers talk in terms of "getting it right in the camera", fixing the interpretation (allegedly) at the point of capture. Some don't mean anything more than that, while others mean that only image interpretation done in camera is "right". Personally I think just in terms of getting it right, period, where "right" means achieving my desired interpretation using whatever combination of tools, materials, media and techniques that seems appropriate ..."

Lush summer greens • click to embiggenEven though I no longer particiapate in them, I still get email notifications of posts/topics from a couple photo discussion forums.

Recently, I received a notice of a post titled, Do you get tired of Landsape and Nature images? The poster stated that he was "...exposed to so many images at the couple of forums that I check in with throughout the day, that I'm bored with all of them ... I even am now bored with my own ... they all look the same after a while..."

Ignoring the fact that almost all photo forums with a theme tend to promote group-think sameness, I think that the poster's delemma is related more to the idea of over-saturation that is part and parcel of the internet as a whole - google any topic and you get a zillion links to that topic. It makes me think that if A & E's sin was to sample the fruit of the tree of knowledge and humankind has created the all-pervasive internet as a fruit of knowledge, then what we have done is to build a tower of babble.

But, ignoring that concept as well, I wonder if the poster's issue is really more indicative of our culture's addiction to the quest of bigger, better, best. A 'quest' that is really nothing more than an ever-present lust for cheap and easy thrills/highs. Highs that can only by satisfied by bigger and bigger doses of, in this case, knock-your-socks-off pretty pictures.

Pictures which are all about the surface of pretty things but nothing about what lies beneath that surface. Just like shallow people, shallow pictures are, indeed, boring. There's nothing to hold onto. No reason to stay involved, so it's time to keep moving on - sort of like an endless procession of one night stands.

I also think that this person's delemma gives testement to the fact that Art is not a verb. Making Art is an activity, but, to the thinking person, if all someone is making is nothing more than a series of empty statements (no matter how self-gratifying the activity may be), the ulimate result is boring pictures and boredom.

If the only thing that matters in your attempt to make Art is that you are pleasing yourself ... well ... I guess that makes you into, not an artist, but kind of self-centered person, doesn't it?

PS - this entry is not in any way meant to reflect negatively on the personhood (or the photography) of the photographer who posted the forum topic. In fact, I think his 'confession' is his first step on the road to 'recovery'.

Update on Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 01:01PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Paul Maxim wrote: "Well Mark, I have to admit that this one is indeed thought provoking. I know you've made the same "statement" in different ways before but, for some reason, this one really makes me stop and think.

I certainly know the feeling of looking at images on online forums and thinking that it's all a huge case of "my picture is prettier than your's is". They do, in fact, all start to look the same. It's nothing more than a game of "one-up-manship". Images that do appear to have some underlying "meaning" are rarely commented on. They seem to make people nervous.

Last week, in fact, I posted a question on such a forum asking the photographer why they'd posted a particular image. What was the "message", I asked? I simply didn't "get it". I received a very curt reply that there didn't have to be a "message" - they just "liked it". Apparently, I'd hit some "artistic" nerve.

So I guess I'm agreeing with your statement that "shallow pictures, like shallow people, are indeed boring". Maybe we shouldn't give the photographer the benefit of the doubt. Maybe we should call it boring if it really is boring. And maybe we should let them know that we think it's boring. The hard part, of course, is turning the same "critical eye" on our own work.

Thought provoking, indeed. I'm not sure whether I should thank you or curse you...."

My response: Thanks much for the thanks/curse feedback. Honesty is always the best policy.

A word of advice about ... Maybe we should call it boring if it really is boring. And maybe we should let them know that we think it's boring ... - from my experience this is the fast lane to harassment, flame wars, all-around distain and, in some cases, outright banishment on photo forums, especially nature photography forums. The mantra on those forums is inveriably, "message, smessage... if I like it, it's art and that's all that matters ..."

On the other hand, if you find something here on The Landscapist that you find boring/trite/cliche, feel free to say so and offer opinions why you think it is so (as you already have). Those opinions are always welcome and are great fodder for discussions about the medium we all love.

ku # 476 ~ Marcy Dam

Marcy Dam and Mt. Colden • click to embiggenHot on the heels of yesterday's Pavlovian thing, I had another 'awakening' last evening relative to the way things used to be, photography-wise.

Before a late day round of golf, I dropped off a cd with my Spawn of Cinemascape picture on it at what used to be a photo store with one-hour processing place. At one time they sold a few cameras, lots of film and ready-made picture frames along with a ton and a half of one-hour prints. The store manager was pretty photo-knowledgeable and would, upon request, pay special attention to my processing/print orders. Not quite like going to a 'pro' lab but the results were very good.

A couple years ago, the owner of the store saw the death-of-film handwriting on the wall. She proceeded to build a new hobbit-style store (I'm not kidding - instead of High Peaks Photo it's now called There and Back Again)) and stock it full of upscale tourist memorabilia. As far as I can tell she nixed the film processing .. but ... she did install a Epson 7800 setup.

So, after Aaron had a print made of his Buscemi Cinemascape at the store (with very good results) I decided to give it a try. I ordered a 46×20 inch print of my ode to cinemascape. Here's where it got a more than a little weird for me.

The old photo guy was gone. In his place is a trio of cute gum-snapping teenage girls, It wasn't busy when I went in so they greeted me as 'team' at the counter. I explained what I wanted, they said, "Fine. It will ready in 30 minutes."

30 minutes!!! If, in the 'old days', I had walked into a 'pro' lab and asked for a print in 30 minutes, they would have stared at me like I had lobsters crawling out of my ears. Then they would have laughed hysterically. Then a manager would have stepped up and said (without laughing), "Sure, that'll be 8 billions dollars."

But seriously, the length of the process to make just a single test print alone would exceed 30 minutes. And, normal delivery for a print from a custom lab was at least 24 hrs, if not 2-3 days. A print could be had sooner with 'rush' service - which would double or triple the cost. That situation was one of many reasons I had a full blown E6, C41 and bw/color print darkrooms in my studio.

That said, at a custom lab, the print would be made by skilled lab technician - usually a wane pasty-face person (too much time in the dark) who knew all the tricks of the printing trade. Last night, one of the cheeky gum-snappers would be the 'technician' and put my cd in the computer, open it in PS and hit "Print".

One round of golf later, at around 9pm, I went back to the store. They are open until 10pm - try finding a pro lab with those hours. One of 'team' took me into their viewing room and, lo and behold, there it was - a remarkably accurate 4 ft print on Epson Ultra Premium Luster paper. After inspecting it, I felt it needed to be a bit darker. No problem. Over to the computer, a little curve adjustment (by me) and 14 minutes later a near perfect print.

Total cost for the venture (I kept both prints) - $80. I was so impressed that I am creating a custom calibration for their 'system' and with any luck at (and with my skill), I should be able to drop off a cd and return 30 minutes later to view and pickup a perfect print.

Holy cow. It's brave new world out there.

And, yes, I am beginning to warm to the idea of cheeky gum snapping 'technicians'.

PS - today's picture is of Marcy Dam which is located about 30 miles as the crow flys from my house. It is a very popular wilderness hiking destination on one of the trails into the high peaks wilderness. The dam was built in the late 1800s by the same company that operated the derelict mill in my village that I have recently been picturing. It was built as an impound for logs harvested from the area around the dam during the winter months. In the spring the logs were released and they made their way down stream and river to Au Sable Forks and the mill.

ku # 475

A back bay along the Raquette • click to embiggenIt seems like it's been awhile since I've posted a plain old ku. It also seems like it's been awhile since I held forth on things photographic. So, consider this -

More convincingly than any other kind of picture, a photograph evokes the tangible presence of reality. Its most fundamental use and its broadest acceptance has been as a substitute for the subject itself - a simpler, more permanent, more clearly visible version of the plain fact.

Our faith in the truth of a photograph rests on the belief that the lens is impartial, and will draw the subject as it is, neither nobler nore meaner. This faith may be naive and illusory (for though the lens draws the subject, the photographer defines it), but it persists. The photographer's vision convinces us to the degree that the photographer hides his hand. ~ from The Photographer's Eye by John Szarkowski.

Szarkowski wrote this in 1966. Much has changed. However, even in the era of Wall-esque 'constructions', the above still holds true. If the goal is to make a more clearly visible version of the plain fact, the photographer had best hide his hand, not his brain, just his hand.

But, of course, in evoking the tangible presence of reality, a photographer with a brain can learn that ... the appearance of the world [is] richer and less simple than his mind would have guessed. He can discover that ... his pictures could reveal not only the clarity but also the obscurity of things, and that these mysterious and evasive images could also, in their own terms, seemed ordered and meaningful.

urban ku # 73 ~ a walk in Wadhams

A walk at the Wadhams Strawberry Festival • click any photo to embiggen

As any of you who have been around for awhile know, I have always been a fan of picture series. Seems like I have been picturing that way since forever although my ku body of work is not organized in that manner. While many of the pictures were made in a 'mini-series' fashion - same location, same 'shoot' - they are all just lumped together under the ku banner.

I have created many triptychs from mini-series shoots. You can see many, but no means all of them, here. I like triptychs (mine and those of others) quite a bit, but, as my mill 'walk' series (more to come, just taking a break) demonstrates, there is nothing like employing an extended series of pictures to create a world/sense of place.

Today's pictures are from a very short walk in Wadhams where we spent some time yesterday afternoon at the strawberry festival. All the pictures were made within no more than 100 yards of each other. While they create a small sense of the place called Wadhams - it's really tiny - they also create a sense of the greater place called the Adirondacks by demonstrating how close a relationship man and nature have within the park.

ku # 474 ~ things with hooves and thinking out loud

Elk and Scottish Highland cattle • click to embiggenNo luck yesterday finding any referents for pigs - plenty of elk, Scottish Highland cattle, alpacas and assorted other animal oddities (including my favorite - exotic chickens), but no pigs.

re: thinking - I am re-reading An Adirondack Passage, The Cruise of the Canoe Sairy Gamp by Christine Jerome. The book is about a modern-day (1990) redo by Ms. Jerome of the 1883 trans-Adirondack solo canoe trip of Nessmuk, aka George Washington Sears. She follows a 180 mile route that very closely approximates that traveled by Nessmuk. In the book, Ms. Jerome quotes many passages from Nessmuk's writings about his voyage as she seeks out the same locations and places that he visited in 1883.

I am re-reading this book because I am seriously considering the same trip this summer. The fact that Nessmuk did it at the same age as I am now (forever younger than springtime) is an interesting incentive. The trip has been under consideration by me and the wife for a couple of years, but we never seem to be able to find the time to do it together, but the more I think about it, the more I think that I, like Nessmuk, should go it alone. Maybe the wife can join me for a few legs of the trip, which would be very nice.

The trip is really an interesting one because it slices diagonally, lower SW to upper NE, across the heart of the park. The route traverses stretches of wilderness and human habitation, which affords the opportunity to spend nights out under the stars together with nights on a featherbed in a 4-star lodge. Likewise with dining - cooking on the lightweight camp stove or dining at a lakeside eatery (4-star to diner).

I think that this something I just have to do, and my goal is to produce a lavishly illustrated book (and maybe a documentary film [video]).

BTW, since the route touches civilization nearly everyday (if I want it to), I can take my laptop along for the ride and use it to post almost daily updates - pix and text - along the way.