ku # 473 ~ real life

A lucky happenstance • clcik to embiggenI should clarify that this was a 'lucky happenstance' for me, not the cow. I assume that luck had little to do with the situation, although, I'm not very familiar with the circumstances of breeding Holsteins.

In any event, I was out yesterday scouting for the 'perfect' cow to photograph for reference for a county fair logo ilustration I am creating.
Fair logo • click to embiggen I spied a likely referent far from the road near a barn and drove back to see if I could find a human who might grant me permission to picture the cow. None was to be found, so I went ahead and coaxed the cow into a favorable pose and grabbed the picture.

As I was back in my car about to depart, there was tap on the window and there was the farmer/breeder. I quickly explained my mission and his response was, "Want to take a picture of a calf being born?" My answer was, "Yes", and there you have it.

Today, it's a hunt for piglets. - ahh, the glamourous life of a wilderness/rural creative director/designer/photographer/illustrator guy.

ku # 472 ~ gardening casualty on gravel, grass and soil

Gardening casualty/'square' root of 3 • click to embiggenEvery once in awhile a single topic takes hold of the photog blog arena like a virus and it seems that everyone must comment on it. Witness the recent Jeff Wall Affair.

The most recent topic, albeit a minor epidemic, involves the idea of Droit de Suite - a French term that translates as "Right of Continuation" or continuing rights - which is basically a market mechanism (or 'government cohersion' as the ever-whining privledged class likes to call it) for awarding an artist a piece of the profit action (a royalty) based on the public (dealers, auction houses, etc.) secondary market resale of their work. Typically, the 'piece of the action' is a relatively minor amount. In France, for example, the artist receives between 1% and 3% of the resale price.

As is often the case on the blog-o-spere, there is much mis/dis-information on the subject. If you are interested in a full account of of Droit de Suite, it can be found here.

I am not interested in responding to all of the various feints, dodges and outright distortions of the unfettered free market robber barons (Greed and Avarice Division - our motto, Nothing Exceeds Like Excess). The only point which I wish to make is simple - free-market nazis want to turn everything into a commodity, subject only to market forces. In their view, nothing is worth anything, more or less, other than the monetary price which it fetches on the open market. The market and its 'invisible hand' - you know, 'invisible', like the corporate special-interest lobbyists in DC - fixes everything.

And, oh yeh, what ever you do, don't piss off the priviledged class (the privledged class, not the wealthy class. There's a big difference between the two). Just trust the same market which commodified the earth's resources as nothing more than unfettered fodder for profit (and f**k the consequences).

For them the notion of a Moral Economy just doesn't exist, or, if it does, it serves as little more than a commie-pinko bogeyman who gets hoisted up the flagpole (and saluted) everytime the undeserving/underachieving/lazy-ass-SOBs try to 'steal' their money.

The phrase that comes to my mind is the one about people who know the (monetary) price of everything and the value of nothing. I guess that's why most of them sell their souls - and dragging anything else they can along with it in the process - to the devil.

Any questions?

Update on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 09:31AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Bill Gotz wrote; "I read the article "A Moral Economy" you linked to above. It hit me as the clearest statement I've hear of the right way, the moral way, to proceed in this world.

The question for me is how do I, as a landscape artist, begin to tell 'the story'?"

My response: Bill, I would think that the first step is to decide what 'story' you want to tell - most likely something which both concerns and interests you.

ku # 471

West Branch Au Sable River • click to embiggenAnother picture from last evening's target-rich environmant.

A tip o' the hat to Paul Butzi and his photomusings blog for referencing my urban ku # 49 and suggesting that those who indulge in a 'new' post-postmoderism kind of photography be labeled New Landscapists. Sounds good, especially since a 'landscape' need not be of the traditional kind - it also be a 'landscape' of the mind, ala Aaron's Cinemascapes.

But, that said, the problem still remains (from an excerpt found on Tim Atherton's photo-muse) - "She was doing her best to suppress her irritation — defending contemporary art photography from the longstanding “style over substance” charge was an awful chore .... She had felt skeptical of much of what had happened on the photography scene in the past few years, particularly the return of expressions and attitudes from before the postmodernist breakthrough; her old nagging doubts about whether photography could be considered a critical (and not simply decorative) medium were coming back..."

IMO, the answer to the 'nagging doubts' reside in the notion of photography as a 'critical medium'. A return to pretty pictures just isn't going to cut it. Like it or not, photographers are going to have to think a lot more - think about 'concept' within the bounds of what-do-my-pictures-say-not-only-about-my-referent-but-also-about-picture-making-in-a-picture-saturated-culture. And, oh yeh, don't forget about the social/political and economic cultures.

No more, 'I-don't-know-why-I-do-it' statements. Time to figure it out, gang. Time to put much more time into the dreaded and oft-maligned artist statement. Time to think critically, as in dictionary definition #3 - ...involving skillful judgment as to truth, merit, etc.. - about why and what you're doing photography-wise.

That said, and on the basis of my 'it's-not-what/how a-picture-is-created-it's-who-created-it' premise, if you don't live a life based on critical thought, your photography will be ever assigned to the ubiquitous dust bin of the merely decorative.

Comments please.

Update on Saturday, April 14, 2007 at 12:25PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Bret Kosmider wrote; "Clearly there's some pushback on the tough-love "get with it, people" insistance on thinking more critically of one's work..."

my response: I asked for it...I got it. And, much thanks to all who commented.

This is exactly the type of 'push back' I enjoy - it is great fodder for thoughtful discussion, but, note to all, while many of my opinions may be profferred with emphatic emphasis, they are opinions and, as such, they are meant to incite critical thought and resultant 'push back'.

It is through the exchange of thoughtful ideas and opinions, that I temper, modify, solidify or even abandon some of the tenants of my 'religion', photography-wise.

That said, I will be responding to many of the good points and questions raised on this topic. In fact, I'll post one later (within an hour or so) in order to leave you all with something to chew on while I and the limelight-grabbing boy are away in Pittsburgh for tomorrow's Penguin playoff game.

ku # 470

The Flats • click to embiggenThursday evening - sometimes living here is such a bitch but, then again, someone has to do it.

Nature, in its current season-challenged state (is it winter? ... is it spring?), put on a nice display of 'odd' light for a very brief moment or two. That odd kind of twilight light which is most often encountered post-storm with a pretty solid overcast. You know that somewhere above the clouds there's a nice sunset happening because a gentle, soft and warm light blankets the land.

To say that, for a few minutes, I was in a target-rich environment photography-wise is an tremendous understatement. Dinner and the long-suffering wife just had to wait.

PS - this picture is a 6 frame stitch.

ku # 469

Spring ice • click to embiggenAbout 2 weeks ago Spring was coming on big time, but, for the last 7 days, it has snowed everyday. Night time temps are in the mid to low teens. We wake up to complete snow cover which is then gone by sundown. I love Winter but I'm ready for Spring.

I recently came across this quote from Edward Steichen - "When I first became interested in photography, I thought it was the whole cheese. My idea was to have it recognized as one of the fine arts. Today I don't give a hoot in hell about that." - and, after some of the recent ruminations about moderism/postmodernism, meaning and other 'heavy' photography/Art topics, this quote has struck a resonant chord somewhere in my psyche.

Hmmm.

Update on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 at 10:54AM by gravitas et nugalis

A follow-up re: "Hmmm." - "Many people, photographers among them, view postmodernism with some hostility, tinged in most cases with considerablbe defensiveness. (see this from Paul Butzi as an excellent example) ...Postmodernist art acccepts the world as an endless hall of mirrors, as a place where all we are is images ... where all we know are images ... There is no place in the postmodern world for a belief in authenticity of experience, in the sanctitiy of the individual artist's vision, in genius or originality. What postmodern art finally tells us is that things have been used up, that we are at the end of the line, that we are all prisoners of what we see. Clearly these are disconcerting and radical ideas, and it takes no great imagination to see that photography, as a nearly indiscriminate producer of images, is in large part responsible for them." ~ Andy Grundberg, from his anthology, The Crisis of the Real

ku # 468

Rain drops on branches • click to embiggenSince the switch to SquareSpace, I have been relatively pleased with the number of comments and visitor/guest participation here on The Landscapist. The number of page views and visitors also continues its steady rise as well aided by occasional spikes from recommendations/links such as the one from George Barr. My thanks to all who, in my eyes, are helping make The Landscapist a most enjoyable labor of love.

On the subject of comments, relative to Steve Durbin's comment - '... some photographers resist thinking about their work or trying to understand what they're doing..." - it's interesting to note that most topics and discussions on The Landscapist are aimed at inciting the act of thinking about the medium of photography, its import, its possibilities, its movements/history, its character and its qualities. I am quite happy and somewhat proud to note that the ever popular topic of gear hasn't raised its dreary head.

If comments were the only thing I wanted on The Landscapist, I'd be using words like Canon, Nikon, Leica, Ebony, CMOS, Foveon, resolution, pixel count, prime, zoom, calibration, noise, etc., etc., etc... but I don't. (Ok, I just did, but for illustration purposes only.) I, for one, really don't care that some people prefer x over y with the accompanying and endlessly repetitive reasons why.

That said, IMO, one of the primarily reasons so little Art is created by the great unwashed horde of photographers is simple. Photography is amongst the most mechanistic of the arts and that characteristic lends itself well to those who like to tinker with, own, and take pride in owning things. That's why gear makers flourish with a never ending parade of 'better' stuff.

But, good photography is not about what created it, it is about who created it. Simply put, the more fully developed a would-be artist is as a person relative to their understanding of self and to what they want to 'say' - that which is 'interior' - the better their chance of creating Art with full and rich meaning.

Sure, gear must be matched to the 'vision', but, that said, the simpler the better. Get what you need and forget about it. Then get on to using the most important items in your 'kit' - your brain and your soul.

Then, just show me the pictures, please.

ku # 467

West Branch of the Au Sable • click to embiggenWhen last we spoke, Aaron mentioned that he doesn't really'think about composition AT ALL! ... I just like the way things "feel"...like deep down inside...it feels right...."

To which Ana added; "I think it takes time to learn to read your own work. My take on it, speaking only for myself, was that it did start out subconsciously. There were things that I was drawn to very strongly but I didn't know why and I didn't even have a mental framework with which to inspect what was going on. And a lot of my thinking about it was very vague and expressed in terms of just "having a feeling". But then after doing more and more work and being forced to confront it over and over again, I feel that I'm really starting to focus my own intentions. And a lot of my "revelations", as it were, are very clearly there in the earlier work it's just that it took time to be able to recognize them."

To which, Steve Durbin added; "... Some photographers seem to resist thinking about their work or trying to understand what they're doing. In my view, they're not only missing a lot that could be learned, but they're slowing their growth and diminishing their ability to make better photographs."

To which I would add, most amateurs seem to think think that the way to grow photographically is to 'learn' the rules, get the 'right' sharpening tool/RAW converter/software or camera/lenses/tripod/ball head, etc. - all the easy stuff. They pay little, if any attention to the 'mental framework with which to inspect what is going on' - they 'resist thinking about their work' in anything other than technical terms.

Which was why - back to Aaron - he grew very weary very quickly with online photo-site 'feedback' on his work. To quote Mike Lange, the NHL Hall-of-Fame voice of the Penguins, "How much fried chicken can you eat?". Or, to put a finer point on it, "How many times can you read, 'Wow. Love the colors. Nice choice of lens and post-processing.', without puking?

The point? Unless you're willing to dig deep inside yourself, all the How-To-Master-Landscape-Photography books in the world won't make you a better photographer.

Think about it.

ku # 466

Spring break-up • click to embiggenIn a recent email, Brett Kosmider asked; 'I just noticed in the sidebar on The Landscapist you say, "the landscape photography of photographers who have moved beyond the pretty picture". Who might that be for you?..."

Interesting question and, as I try to ponder an answer, the notion that keeps coming to mind is a recent statement I made on The Landscapist about there being too many picture takers and not enough picture makers, especially in the Landscape genre.

In that context, I am still looking for candidates for my 'new elite'. I still cling to some of my old favorites - Meyerowitz, Eggleston, Shore, Adams (Robert, that is), et al. I would also include Burtynsky, Sze Tsung Leong, Geoffrey James, Grusky, and other more recent practitioners in my 'old favorites' in as much as they seem to be somewhat derivative of the former.

That said, I'm looking for even newer practitioners. One who strikes my fancy is Nuri Bilge Ceylan, but even he strikes me as derivative, or, as very-very-very-nice-but-I've-seen-it-before.

I admit to being a little jaded these days. Chalk it up to flickr, photo.net, the blogosphere, et al overload... the sheer number of photographs. Where does one begin?

I also admit to being under the thrall of Jeff Wall at the moment. His pictures are so packed with meaning that they are, at first viewing, overwhelming. He is truly making, not just taking, pictures. Viewing his work at MoMA has left me dazed and confused. I want to continue working in the Landscape genre, but want to start making pictures.

To that end, I am searching for the work of others who might be making Landscape pictures, not just taking them.

PS: in my 'dazed and confused' state, I have in no way given up on my 'straight' photography (or the power thereof) or that of others.