ku # 455 ~ 0 - 255

Cold,snowy and grey • click on photo to embiggen itOne thing that I have always disliked about Ansel Adams' photographs is that, no matter the weather or conditions, every day was a full-range day, tonally-speaking. There was very little visual difference between, say, a photograph created in the full light of day and one created in the indirect light found in a shaded canyon. He had 10 steps in his Zone System and, by god, he was going to use each and every one of them.

Now, there is no denying the radiant beauty of Adams' prints. They just seem to glow. But, that said, the reason that many of us feel a little "grey" on a grey day is because ... well ... because it's a grey day. On grey day, things are not all bright (literally and figuratively) and cheery. In fact, most things are rather leaden and cheerless visually-speaking.

That being the case, why is it that so much landscape photography, no matter the weather or conditions, is so bright and cheery?

Very few landscapists seem to venture out in less than ideal conditions. When some do, the photographic results almost always, in the digital age, exhibit maximum 0-255 range snap and punch - for those of you not digital darkroom conversant, that means a print with a tonal range from black with no detail to white with no detail (in a perfect Adams' world, the detail-less whites would be limited to small areas [specular highlights] of the print and the detail-less blacks would also be limited to equally small areas).

IMO, photographers who always print to the full-range, 0-255 standard are not making photographs which are true to the spirit of fact. Instead, they are making photographs which are true to the spirit of Adams, which, in my book, is a whole other thing.

publisher's comment: a good case in point

Joel Truckenbrod asked, "Do you have have some examples of other photographers who follow this train of thought?" - Joel, which train of thought - always using the full range, or not using the full-range?

ku # 454 ~ an "illusion"

Veteran's Memorial Highway and beyond - a view from the summit of Whiteface Mt. • click on photo to embiggen it The recent cell-tower discussion, mostly centered around non-photography issues, got me thinking. How can/does landscape photography speak to these issues? Frank Winters opined that "...to put a highway up and decide not to provide all the services people expect on a highway in the name of preserving wilderness is delusional..." Granting that that is a logical deduction (and I don't), are photographs which depict a visually apparent wilderness scene, but, in fact, obfuscate elements of humankind, "delusional"?

The photograph of Veteran's Memorial Hwy (and beyond) that accompanies this topic is a case in point.

With the exception of the highway, the scene appears to be that of a vast stretch of wilderness and, in fact, chunks of it are. However, "hidden" in the view are quite a number of private residences and small hamlets - no cell towers though. The visual evidence of the hand of humankind is not apparent. The experience that one has viewing this scene in person is commonly one of slack-jawed awe at the "endless" vistas (other views, N, S, E, and W) of "wilderness".

Now, I would assume that most who take in the view, having arrived by car and completed the "climb" to the summit, a 276ft ascent in cage-type elevator (walking an option) up a raw granite shaft - the elevator is at the end of a very narrow 426ft tunnel (45 degrees year round) carved through the same granite - understand that all is not as it appears to be. They seem to enjoy and appreciate the "delusion" nevertheless.

The photograph, however, does not describe any of those elements which on-site visitors experience other than the view. Does a photographer, who is interested in the spirit of fact, owe an explanation to his/her audience? Does creating the impression of pristine wilderness where there is none (or only some) help or hurt environmental and conservation interests?

FYI, I included the highway to deliberately introduce an element of humankind into the photograph in the interest of the spirit of fact - the fact that the hand of humankind touches every square inch of the planet, apparent or not. I will never understand why so many Serious landscape photographers, who profess to "love" the natural world, create photographs that support and maintain the "delusion" that all is well. Perhaps, they only love the "beautiful" and not the rest (the most) of "god's" creation.

ku # 181 ~ a matter of life and death

Cascading snow • click on photo to embiggen it an addendum to ku # 276 - It is estimated that over 10,000,000 people visit the Adirondacks annually. In the tourism industry the Adirondacks is considered a "rubber-tire" destination, meaning that most visitors come by car. Most also come from places that are less than a day's drive away, which is to say, most come from the densely populated NE (US and Canada) megapolis.

The first Adirondack tourism boom in 1869 was instigated by William H. H. "Adirondack" Murray, a Connecticut preacher. His book, Camp Life in the Adirondacks or Adventures in the Wilderness, published that year, started a rush of "Murray's fools" to the Adirondacks that has never really abated. The lure of the Adirondacks today is the same as that articulated by Murray in 1869 - the mental, spiritual and physical restorative powers of a "trip of a few weeks to these woods."

The book became one of the most influential books of the conservation movement of the 1800s. I treasure my signed (tipped-in) first-edition copy of this book.

I also treasure the modern-day Adirondacks. It is a place that is still very much as it was during Murray's day. In fact, with the protections afforded by the NYS Constitution and the APA (see ku # 276 below), the Adirondacks is arguably a better place than it was in 1869. The retched excesses of early industry (lumber and mining) and unrestrained "sportsmen", which plundered the natural wealth of the wilderness and extirpated numerous species from the region, are a thing of the past.

With its small-scale economy, tiny villages and hamlets scattered throughout the wilderness, and a life-style (for those who live here, and for those visitors who experience a bite-size chunk of it) dominated by the rhythms, cycles physical characteristics of the geology of the natural world, the Adirondacks truly feels like, and, in fact, is a land that time forgot.

I, for one, want to keep it that way. IMO, cell towers dotting the landscape are not part of the program. IMO, enough is enough - humankind has desecrated and destroyed the natural world in the name of convience and desire for long enough. IMO, death by car accident - always an individual human tragedy - is not a reason for infringing upon/destroying wilderness.

IMO, preserving and conserving the wilderness is a matter of life and death for both the planet and the human species as a whole. Arguably, it is the most important issue of our times.

Featured Comment: Joel Truckenbrod wrote (in Part): "...when I enter a wilderness area, my desire is to become taken by the beyondness of things. True wildness requires a disconnect from the "always connected" mentality of our age. For me, its allure is in the realization of the primal, not in an adventurous family-vacation or in picturesque sight-seeing. The grace of wildness is that we are given (sometimes gently, sometimes forcefully) perspective on our humanity and the social/cultural constructions that ordinarily surround us. How can one not gain humility and insight when the realization of wildness comes upon them?"

ku # 276 ~ a matter of life and death?

-15F, North Hudson, NY (the Hudson River starts here) • click on photo to embiggen I have a question for the environmentalists/conservationists in the audience.

Outside of the High Peaks region of the Adirondacks, the landscape is made up of tightly clustered mountains in the 1,550-3,000ft range. As I have mentioned before, all public land in the Adirondacks is protected as "forever wild" by an amendment to the NYS Constitution. In addition, the Adirondack Park Agency was established in 1972 to ensure that the lands were so protected. The APA also governs all private land use in the Adirondacks as a super zoning board of sorts. The net result is an inhabited wilderness that has emerged as a unique worldwide model of sustainability.

The other net result is that cell phone coverage in the Adirondacks is virtually non-existant. A few villages have managed to avoid line-of-sight restrictions by camouflaging cell facilities in church or town hall towers, but the reality is that, in an area bigger than the state of Vermont, cell coverage is the exception, not the rule.

The dilema is this: a few days ago, a couple from the NYC area was returning home from Montreal via I87, a 4-lane interstate that traverses the Adirondacks, inside its eastern boundary, through many desolate areas. Around 2:00AM they crashed, leaving the highway, essentially disappearing from view and ending up trapped in their car (by their injuries). They were not found until 32 hours later. The husband survived for 13 hours before succumbing to hypothermia. The wife, who tried to call for help using a cell phone, survived.

There was no cell coverage. The APA has been petitioned to allow cell towers in the form of those fake tree things which, around here, are called Frankenpines. To date, the APA has not allowed them on the basis that; they violate the "forever wild" restrictions on public land, and, on private land, they violate line-of-sight (and other) restrictions.

What's your take on the subject - Does the preservation of the wildereness and the wilderness character of private land justify an occasional (and very rare) death?

publisher's comments: hey gang, a well tempered discussion for such a hot topic. Thanks for all your thoughtful participation. One point I would like to make is on the notion of "consistency". It was suggested that one must be "consistent" and "non-contradictory" in making one's decisions about what is "good" or "bad", in this case, about what level of technologies to allow into a wilderness environment.

As an example, it was stated that if one has a desire to live in an area that "time forgot", "...why not go all the way and rip out the power lines, the paved roads, and anything else that smacks of "technological intrusion"?.

Well, my answer is a simple matter of discernment, I want to use electricity and drive (mostly) on paved roads. However, because I want to use electricity, it does not follow that I have to own and use every electronic device known to man. I can be discerning in how I use electricty. I am also grateful that the paved roads the Adirondacks, with the lone exception of I87, are paved two-lane roads that conform the lay of the land and don't bulldoze their way through it. The fact that I choose not to embrace cell technology and support a position that limits cell use in the Adirondacks is an act of discernment regarding what level of "technological intrusion" I want in my life and in the community in which I live. It in no way contradicts or is inconsistent with my use of electricity and paved roads.

The people of NYS, acting through their elected representatives, have expressed their discernment regarding what level of "technological intrusion" they want in the Adirondack Park. They decided over 100 years ago that the public lands within the park will be free of all commercial use, i.e., "forever wild". This desire was expressed, not with an "opinion", but with the full protection of an amendment to the NYS Constitution. It is enshrined in law - law that can not be changed without the full rigor of the constitutional process. More recently, the APA was created by duly elected representatives to oversee these protections of public land and to protect the wilderness character of the whole of the park. The APA is empowered to discern, according to its mandate from the people of NYS, what level of "technological intrusion" to allow within the borders of the park.

The creation of the APA was an act of discerment by the people of NY which essentially determined that protecting the wilderness/wilderness character of the park was an environmentally and economically sound position to take. The environtmental benefits shuld be obvious. The econimic benefits become apparent with the realization that the region's economy is based on tourism.

That said, here's an interesting update: Politicians, state agencies, some residents, and other groups (Brooklyn Orthodox Jewish community demands cell coverage) have latched onto the tradegy. Many are excoriating the APA and environmental/conservation organizations as culpable in the deaths and as obstructionists. What they are conveniently ignoring is the fact that 4 years ago the APA, with the expressed backing of environmental and conservation groups, approved a plan for 32 30ft cell towers (less coverage per tower, hence, more visually discreet towers) along the remote stretches of I87 - a compromise that balances the interests of public safety and the lawful requirements of the NYS Constitution, the oversight interests of the APA, and those of conservation groups.

Now here's the kicker - the project, a joint venture with the State Police, the Dept of Transporation, and Crown Technologies, was scrapped because it was deemed economically unfeasible by the cell-phone company.

Ahh, the free-market at its very best. But that's another story.

ku # 453 - thinking in multiples

Sky # 1 • click on photo to embiggen it
Sky # 2 • click on photo to embiggen it I am an inveterate peruser of the www, primarily looking for interesting photography. One of my first stops when I'm out cruising is Tim Atherton's blog, Muse-ings (there's been a link on my Links of Interest page since the site was launched). He does a very good job of bringing attention to what I would label "recognized", although somewhat lesser kown, artists (photography division) - photograpers who have books, big-institution/gallery exhibits, etc.

My interest, though, lies in finding the unknowns. Photographers who are not working in (or probably even aware of) art/academic-world defined genres. Guys and girls just blunking around, albeit with evident passon, with their cameras creating interesting, and here's my topic, bodies of work. I suspect that most of them wouldn't even call them "bodies of work". For many, they're probably just taking pictures.

I find most of this photography refreshingly free of artistic affection.

The place that I frequent the most is flickr. It is one gigantic pile of photography. There's lots and lots of chaff but also a surprising amount of wheat. All the photos are taggged, most with multiple tags, so if you are looking for something specific, it's easy to narrow the search to, say, 1,000,000 photos (as opposed to 1,000,000,000,000.... photos). I usually start with a link to flickr that I have come across (somewhere) and go from there.

One link that I came across recently, I found right here on The Landscapist. David Bellinger was kind enough to leave a Site Feedback comment (and he also filled in a web address in the comment box), so I checked out his flickr space. I found his The Ground Glass Locomotive stuff pretty interesting, especially in the wake of yesterday's Holga post. David has a very inventive mind.

I also liked his The Heros of Motorized Light, about which he states - "Motorized light has nothing to do with it."

But, on the topic of bodies of work, David obviously understands the concept. He has many distinct "sets" (the flickr word for "body") of photography. Using The Heros of Motorized Light as an example, it's not difficult (for me) to identify a few "greatest hits" in the set - photographs that can stand apart from the set and command a good deal of interest and staying power. If he were to do a book, one of these might make for a good cover choice.

That said, though, I would be much more interested in the book as a whole than any one photograph it might contain. There really is strength in numbers. For me, the criteria of a strong and cohesive body of work is becoming the single most important factor I use in determining what I do and don't like photography-wise. I want my attention to be seduced by an extended serenade, not a single sharp stick in the eye.

My mother inlaw has labeled Bob Dylan, Johnny-One-Note (her opinion, not mine). I have to say that Johnny-One-Notes just don't hold my attention any more.

And, oh yeh, did I mention that I think David is having way too much fun.

FYI ~ re: ku # 452

FEATURED COMMENT: John R. wrote (in part) regarding ku # 452; "...if you want to damn the entire genre of "grand and glorious landscapes" you are going to need to come to terms with the real artists in that genre. Can you so easily dismiss the entire Hudson Valley School...Are you prepared to say the Ansel Adams' spirituality is false...?

Publisher's comment: Perhaps you misunderstood, perhaps I didn't expalin enough. Let me clarify.

I am not dismissing the HRS of painting nor am I saying that AA's spirituality is false. What I am prepared to say is that both "schools" of addressing the natural world and humankind's relationship to it are the products of the cultural paradigms in which they were created. Paradigms, man-and-nature-wise, that are considered by many (myself included) to be outdated products of a by gone era. Some might even say that, in the present day, they are even harmful paradigms - that, in fact, they create "false" impressions of the state of the natural world and what humankind's relationship with it actually is.

Do I think, Soviet-style, that the works should be disappeared? That they need to be denounced or discredited? No, not at all, but I do think that they need to be viewed and understood and appreciated in the context of the cultural paradigms in which they were created and in the context of today's realities.

FEATURED COMMENT: John R. also wrote (in part); "...you consider your photos to be a form of prayer while others are worshipping false idols? Are you serious...?"

Publisher's comment: To my eye and sensibilities, I am indeed serious. As for others, to each his own, although...in answer to your other related question - "Has any good ever come from calling someone else's focus of worship false while putting forth your own as the true belief? - of course good has come from many such judgements. Witness, as one outstanding example, the American Founding Father's beliefs versus those of European monarchies.

I would also opine that more good has come from a "true" understanding of various passages in the bible (like Bertrand Russell, I am not a Christian) which address "man's dominion over all living things". An understanding which includes the "true" notions of responsible stewardship rather than the "false" notions of irresponsible consumption.

And, photography-wise (which this discussion is ultimately about), IMO, the f64 Group, a group devoted to exhibiting and promoting a new direction in photography that broke with the Pictorialism then prevalent in West Coast art photography, did a good thing for the medium of photography.

In any event, dispite the use of phrases and words like "the divine" or "prayer", ku # 452 is not in any way meant to be a religion rant. I hope this adds some clarification to my comments.

ku # 452 ~ more talking about landscape photography

Fresh snow in the forest - click on photo to embiggen it I have always found it impossible to separate what you do from who you are. The Amish, as an extreme example, consider their work/life to be a form of prayer. What they do shapes and defines, not only who they are, but also their individual realtionship to their idea/ideal of the divine. At the root of it, that is why the Amish keep their life so simple and themselves so rooted in humility. A simple life has more "signal" and less "noise".

Part of Amish simplicity is the rejection of ornamentation and ostentation. These notions directly contradict their directive for humility. I find it very interesting that, unlike most religions, the Amish built no edifices to the divine. Amish communities have no churches, no religious shines. Their homes are devoid of religious displays. None of that matters.

I mention all of this because I have, for quite a while now, considered my ku photographs to be a form of prayer. They are a visible manifestation of my attempt to connect with the divine. That is why I shun photographic ostentation both technical and visual. That is why, even though there is a bit of the preternatural in it, I chose to photograph the simple everyday facets of natural world/life. That is why I prefer quiet photography and small(ish) prints.

I find much more beauty in photographic truth than in photographic fiction. That is why I shun the ubiquitous grand and glorious landscape - as it is commonly portrayed in the "camera club" style - as a kind of false idol. An idol that may hint at traces of a lost truth but primarily obfuscates the real/present truth. An idol that is meant to draw more attention to its creator that the supposed object of its attention/intention. An idol that works in service of the fictions of humankind, not in service of the truths of the divine.

So, my question is - do notions of the divine have a place in your landscape photography (nature/urban/civilized)? Should notions of the divine have a place in the New Landscape Manifesto?

FEATURED COMMENT: Steve Durbin wrote (in part); "I prefer the word "spiritual" to "divine," which has connotations of organized religion I'd prefer to avoid..."

Publisher's comment: I use the phrase "the divine" to suggest a sense of "other-ness" that lies beyond the boundaries of and is greater than self. No formal religion is implied or endorsed, especially those of western man.

FEATURED COMMENT: Frank Winters wrote (in part); "All of Nature is spiritual and that includes human nature. Photography can show this to be true...Not always but its worth trying."

No response required for that one, Frank.

ps - a really good read about the Amish culture is The Riddle of the Amish Culture by Donald B. Kraybill, The John Hopkins University Press

ku # 451- Talking about landscape photography

Lake Placid (the lake) from Whiteface - Click on photo to emgiggen it
"I'm starting to come to the conclusion that perhaps landscape photographers don't actually know how to talk about landscape photography." ~ Tom Hogan, writing about The Luminous Landscape on his Recommended Products page.

About a month ago, I was tempted to write a rather scathing post about Michael Reichmann's The Luminous Landscape and this little tidbit brought back my focus to the subject. Actually it was to be about Mr. Reichmann's stated self-dillusional claim that the TLL "site is completely (his emphasis) non-commercial". That claim is immediately followed by 2 large ads for; 1)a subscription to The LL Video Journal - $179.95 for 9 issues/DVDs, and 2) his hard cover book, Bangladesh - $29.95. Clicking on "What's New" will take you to a rich assortment of "openings" on Mr. Reichmann's various photography travel/expedition workshops - book now, they're filling up fast - and other book (ex. - How To Master Landscape Photography) and workshop offerings from a favored few associates.

Now, perhaps Mr. Reichmann's definition of "commercial" is different from that held by the rest of the world, but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck...

To be fair, there is an assortment of articles, but, to quote Tom Hogan again, "Michael doesn't quite seem to know what he wants the site to be when it grows up, so it tends to follow his latest curiosity and gear interest at the expense of consistency and focus. Given the name, you'd think this would be a place where you could easily answer the question "how do I take the best possible landscape photos?" Sometimes you'll get pieces of that answer here; other times you'll just get highly subjective gear lust pieces."

To which I would add that most of the photography-related articles (non gear-related) are of the "camera club" variety - heavy on technique that is slanted towards creating "masterful" ("perfectly" exposed and composed), "luminous" (it's all about the light, folks), and "artful" (I distort [romanticise] the reality of the landscape because I am an artist and it's how I see it) photographs.

All in all, I would have to say that Mr. Reichmann has a very popular and successful commercial enterprise that caters well to the photo hobbyist. I have no problem with that. It's his incessant insistence that TLL is something other than that which irks me. He also thinks himself to be an Artist. I think he's an artist, but we won't venture into that bailiwick/boondoggle.

But, back to Tom Hogan's statement re: don't actually know how to talk about landscape photography.

I like looking at landscape photography more than I like talking about it. However, when I do talk about it - be sure to visit my blog, The Landscapist, to see what I'm talking about - I tend to talk more about the medium of photography in general than landscape photography in particular. That said, I have been somewhat possessed for a while to contibute ideas and notions aimed towards creating a New Landscape Manifesto.

That is to say, a manifesto that reflects the reality of times. One that addresses David Hockney's assertation that "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..." One that addresses the notion that what is true is most often beautiful. One that addresses intent and responsisibility. One that admits that if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

In short, a New Landscape Manifesto that recognizes that photography matters, not only to the Artist who makes it, but also to the culture that embraces it.

Anybody want to talk about that?

PS. If you do, start here on this post, but, if the interest is there, I will open a Manifesto Discussion Forum so the topic stays on view in the Navigation section.

FEATURED COMMENT: Joel Truckenbrod wrote. "Mark, off topic a bit, but I wanted to mention that your "Lake Placid from Whiteface" photo is..."

Publisher's comment: Joel, thanks very much for the positive feedback on my photograph. I appreciate it very much, but I do want to mention (for all of you out there) that commenting on my photographs is most often not "off topic" in as much as the photographs that accompany my commentary are; 1) chosen because they relate in some way to the topic at hand, or, 2) the topic at hand is a direct by-product of the accompanying photograph.

NOTE TO ONE AND ALL - please feel free to comment on any photography posted on The Landscapist. More than anything, the photography is ultimately what it's all about. Although, I often wonder about Carl Donahue's question, "What if the hokey-pokey is what it's all about?"