ku # 513 ~ see spot run

Hazy Spring view of Whiteface above the Au Sable • click to embiggenI recently read an interesting comment by the esteemed photography critic, A.D. Coleman, from a piece he wrote about Emmet Gowin:

Most photographers working within the snapshot aesthetic have gone the way of intentional incoherence, and have adopted the arrogance necessary to defend this posture. Emmet Gowin is one of the few who have accepted articulate communication as the obligation of the artist, and he has taken from the snapshot those qualities which increase the accessibility of his message rather than those which obfuscate it. (ed. emphasis added)

The idea of "articulate communication as the obligation of the artist" runs rather contrary to oft-voiced expression of, "I'm doing it for me. As long as it pleases me, I'm happy." - to which my response is simply, "That's nice." Apparently, this attitude is what Coleman refers to as "arrogance".

However, I hear that attitude much more as a response to a criticism, not of incoherence, but rather of a dumbed-down attempt at "pictured" coherence which is little more than an appeal to a base or simplistic emotion - a picture with high-impact visual appeal but with little or no intellectual / emotional content. I don't read this attitude as arrogance, rather, I see it as ignorance, or, perhaps more accurately, as a withering defense of a photographer's inability to create an "articulate" picture.

Personally, my preference in pictures runs towards the complexly articulate end of the spectrum. Although, as I have stated many times, I like pictures best when I can have it, at least to some significant extent, both ways - illustrative and illuminative.

A question for you - how "articulate" do you like your photography? By "your photography", I mean the photography that you make and the photography of others that you like.

We have a Grand Prize Winner

Reworked decay # 19 • click to embiggenAnd the winner is Nick S. His exact answer is;

It is not a "bucket" placed on the kitchen counter. it is a large galvanized wash tub Photoshoped onto to it. I think the contents give it away. (Dried up sunflowers, a fireplace grate and pick axe would be considerably larger than shown here.)

I am quite surprised that it took so long for someone to "see" it for what it was - a bigass galvanized wash tub that could not have fit on the kitchen counter. It's testament to the medium's "reality effect" that, because of its apparent size, everyone "saw" the object as a bucket despite the nearly overwhelming visual evidence to the contrary provided by the contents of the tub.

Early on in the "test", Martin Doonan asked; "And what's with those chopsticks?" I didn't answer (what I assumed was a rhetorical question) because one of the answers would have been "scale" - something that the sponge and knife also provide. I find it interesting, once a viewer discovers the scale mismatch, that the picture becomes somewhat disorienting and even visually "annoying".

I previously mentioned that there were "some very good notions about what identifies the "fake" - one of which caused me to fine tune the image" (the version I have posted here). In that comment, by Markus Janoush, it was observed that;

It seems the bucket was photographed under an open sky. The objects inside the bucket do not cast shadows like the chop sticks do. Also the light from the kitchen window leads to a light fall-off across the counter which should be visible for the bucket.

The tub was photographed under an open sky - no direct sunlight because that would mimic the light from my kitchen window. In this case though, the objects inside the bucket do not cast shadows like the chop sticks do because the contents of the tub would have received very little directional light (as the chopsticks do). The contents inside of the tub, if it had been on the counter, would have been lighted primarily with soft reflected overhead light (just like that from an open sky) from my white ceiling which would have created a near shadow-less quality.

For that same reason, there is little light fall-off in the tub. What little fall-off there is, is the opposite of that on the counter because the contents to the right side of the tub fall into a soft shadow created by the tub rim. Consequently, the contents to the left side actually receive a little more light than those on the right side - the exact opposite of the light falling on the counter. The left inside wall of the tub itself is lighter than that on the right for the same reason.

In any event, Markus' comments caused me to fine tune the "light' on the tub contents to more "realistically" give the appearance of how it should / would have looked if it had been on the counter - a little darker on the contents on the right, a little light-shaped contouring on the tub contents, and overall a little less bright on the tub contents. I also "shaped" (with shadows and highlights) the only objects that are above the tub rim - the dirt clump, the sunflowers and the sunflower stalk. These are the only elements that would have received direct, albeit very soft, window light.

If you take the time to embiggen both pictures and compare them, there really is quite a difference in the appearance and effect of the light on the tub contents.

FYI, the picture of the tub on the lawn (with soccer ball for scale) is not the picture I used for the composite image.

Attention Award Winners (that's anyone who guessed that the "bucket" was PSed into the image) - I need mailing addresses and your choice of decay picture. Allow 2-3 weeks for delivery.

Thanks for all the feedback and comments.

ku # 512 ~ faking it

Scraggy pine at dusk • click to embiggenFYI, the "test" ends later today. So far, there are no exact answers.

However, there have been a few interesting remarks:

Markus Janousch asked; "Interesting. What is more "faked/staged": bringing the bucket into the kitchen, setting up a kitchen around a bucket in the garden or merging two pictures taken at different locations and times into one?"

Ron Tom stated; "The Joy is fake because anybody who chooses to impose creative limitations on an artistic medium doesn't really know how to experience Joy."

These remarks are definitely related. Ron's statement is pretty much on the mark - anyone is free to do whatever they want with a given medium - obviously, that includes "faking it" with photography. That freedom, of course, does not preclude anyone else from liking or disliking - and so stating - what an artist has created with his/her artistic freedom.

Markus' question, regarding different forms of artistic freedom - photography-wise, raises interesting questions. Ones that are much on the minds of many in the photo world. IMO, bringing an object into the kitchen or creating a kitchen set in the garden (much more ambitious than the aforementioned set up) are both tried and true still life techniques. A still life picture is traditionally thought of as a picture of a "staged" or "manufactured" arrangement of things. No one really questions the truth or realness of the pictured referents. There is nothing new at work here.

Merging two pictures taken at different locations and times into one, when the intent is to create a picture that would be the same as that created by the aforementioned traditional still life methodology, is, IMO, merely a modern still life methodology that differs from the traditional only by means of process. In other words, the resultant pictures looks exactly the same no matter how they were created and they all possess and project the same level of truth and realness.

However, that said, we all know that merging two pictures (or more) taken at different locations and times into one can create a picture which creates a 'new' reality simply because separately pictured elements can be merged in ways that defy or differ from the "real" - in the case of my decay pictures, I could photograph a rusted car and placed it on a plate on my kitchen counter and the result, if skillfully created, could be a new reality along the lines of Jerry Uelsmann.

Hmmmm ....

decay # 19 ~ this is a test

<Green water and sunflowers • click to embiggenEveryone here knows of my 'thing' for the real / truth in photography. Unless, of course, you're a relative newbie and haven't spent the last 50 hours of your life reading the archives.

If you have been following my postulations, opinions, theories, and assorted folderol, you probably also know that I believe that the current rage of 'fake'/staged pictures can also contain truth(s) and an accurate representation of the real.

Furthermore, the medium of photography has a decided advantage in all the visual arts at conveying / suggesting truth and real simply because the referents in photographs look so damn 'real'.

So, that said, talk to me about decay # 19 ...

Update on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 03:15PM by gravitas et nugalis

ADDENDUM: Ok, let's make this a bit more interesting.

Anyone who passes the test gets an 8×8 (inches) decay print of their choice - there is no limit on the number of winners. Enter as many times as you like.

Hint: every single detail in the picture is both true and real. However, there is one not-so-small element of the photograph that is 'fake', although, some might say that, taken out of context, it really is a big thing.

Update on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 12:58PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Tom Frost wrote: "What do you mean, "faked"? Does that mean added in later and/or heavily manipulated in pshop, or does that mean an element that is not decaying, or what? The definition determines the response."

my response: Tom, answering your question pretty much gives the game away. On the other hand, there are several almost-winners who have figured it out but none have mentioned the exact answer so far. By "exact answer", I mean naming the "fake" element and the thing that truly identifies the "fake" element.

Indeed, there have been some very good notions about what identifies the "fake" - one of which caused me to fine tune the image. I will address a couple of the other notions when I repost the picture tomorrow.

FYI, the almost-winners are, in fact, winners. They will receive an 8×8 (inches) decay print of their choice. But, just to sweeten the pot, grand prize winners with the exact answer will receive a 12×12 (inches) decay print of their choice.

FYI ~ totally rad, dude

l-r, Aaron, The Landscapist, Jason - circa 1983 • click to embiggenHold on to your Hats, boys and girls. This one's a doozy.

I've mentioned Amy Stein before, specifically, her domesticated series. Well, now she's up to something else (Bunny Hops to F-stops) - getting a grant for the purpose of collecting and displaying (book? exhibit?) pictures of photographers who once rode BMX;

If you are a modern photographer genius who spent their youth doing tail whips, table tops and endos, let me know and please send me a photo. I think I can get a grant for this.

Aaron has already sent this picture to Amy, but I just have to ask - are there any BMXers out there amongst you guys / girls? If so, do you have a picture to share? Come on dudes and dudettes (also known in the BMX world as powderpuffs), fess up.

civilized ku # 82 ~ a real original

An original at the shore • click to embiggenLast evening I was presented with a difficult choice. I had settled in to watching the Pens try to eliminate the Ottawa Senators when, between periods 1 and 2, I discovered another program, Seneca Ray Stoddard, An American Original (click on the video preview for a taste of the production), that was on at the same time. For me, this presented a serious dilemma.

I have mentioned Seneca Ray Stoddard before. As a photographer (he also wore many other hats - writer, illustrator, map maker, publisher), he was, at the very least, the equal of Jackson and Brady. In his lifetime he made over 10,000 photographs, most of which were of the Adirondacks. Needless to say, I have been interested in both the man and his photography for a long time. In fact, I appropriated his name and that of another early Adirondack character, Nessmuk, for my canoe-based guide business - Nessmuk & Stoddard.

In any event, I found myself unable to fully commit to either event and so I clicked back and forth between the two. Since this a photography blog, not a sports blog, I'll fill you in on the Stoddard program.

First, let me say that the program is worth viewing. In order to do so, you will probably have to purchase the DVD/video and, for $19.95, it's a good investment in learning about what came before. The photography of the early Adirondacks alone is worth the price of admission. The presentation follows the Ken Burns historic documentary formula. Lots of still pictures with pans and zooms, voice-over narration, and the obligatory interviews with 'authoritative' talking heads.

Unfortunately, none of the talking heads give us any insight into the photography beyond the obvious - Stoddard was a photographic pioneer, he was prolific, and he made very nice photographs, which, over time, have also become historically significant. What I kept waiting for, but never came, was for someone to make the connection between what Stoddard did way back then and what some are doing today.

While Stoddard's photographs look like 'spontaneous' pictures - they all tend to have a modern, hand-held "decisive moment" look to them, they are anything but spontaneous. By itself, the nature of the mechanics of photography, circa mid 1800s - early 1900s, dictated long exposure times that meant that people (most his pictures had people in them) had to hold poses for lengthy periods of time in order to be rendered without motion/blur - so much for spontaneity.

At a carryIn fact, Stoddard was as much a producer / director of 'staged' photographs as any modern-day photographer of so-called 'fake' photographs. Think Crewdson, Wall, and, for that matter, the Cinemascape-ist, Aaron Hobson as examples. Stoddard was also known to regularly add clouds to otherwise empty skies. Photoshop as the modern-day evil that is destroying photographic integrity? Gimme a break.

But, here's what really frosts my cookies - the art-history curatorial class, lunatic fringe division, crap all over themselves drawing parallels between Wall's photographs and paintings, between Crewdson's photographs and motion picture works, between nearly any modern-era photographs and virtually anything else except other photographs that came before. It is as if, for them, in a their frenzy to discover and bloviate about something 'new', they have decided to deliberately ignore or, more probably, are ignorant of the art history of the photographic medium itself. Gimme another break.

From the stern seatTo be sure, Stoddard did not, as part of his authorial intent, make pictures laden with irony or 'cool' post-modernist angst (some of his writings did exhibit such tendencies) but his photographs, when viewed with today's knowledge of the past that he depicted, evidence irony aplenty. One of his favored subjects, people-wise, was the now legendary, then heroic, figure of the Adirondack guide. A class of hail 'n hardy outdoorsmen who, well before the end of 1800s, singlehandedly brought about the local eradication of such species as the moose, the lynx, the wolf, to name just a few. Nature 'lovers', to be sure.

I love the story about Stoddard asking Mother Johnson, who ran a lumber camp / lodge at the Raquette Falls carry, about what delicious species of fish he was dining on at her establishment. Mother Johnson replied that she didn't know because, since it was after September 15th and it was illegal to catch trout after September 15th, the fish had no name. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.

A guide and a 'sport'All of that said, and relative to the 'raging against the machine' in order to make something new topic, the more you know about what has come before, photography-wise, the more you come to realize that maybe it has all been done before. Maybe, just maybe, all that's left is for us to do it all over again - hopefully, with a new sense and sensibility.

And, oh yeah, the Pens won, sweeping the series, 4-0, and advancing to the 2nd round of the playoffs.

decay # 18 ~ a game against the machine

Spring bounty, decay-wise • click to embiggenFirst, a note to the wife; while moving some stuff on the upstairs porch, look what I found - a little bit of decay heaven. I will, really I will, try to remove it from the kitchen counter before your arrival.

Now, on to business - I want to express thanks to all who have contributed of late to The Landscapist with your all your comments and feedback. I've enjoyed hearing from some new voices as well as the 'regulars' and I sincerely hope that you are all appreciative of the added value that this brings to the site. Thanks much.

One particular comment that especially interested me was that from Ana regarding yesterday's limited imagination - ouch! entry.

I think you'd enjoy reading "towards a philosophy of photography" by Vilem Flusser. It's all about creative (as opposed to redundant) photography as a game against the machine (where, by machine, he means the entire technology and infrastructure behind photography). The work of all the photographers who have gone before have, to a certain extent, entered the arsenal of the machine --they become limiting and redundant. The point of the game is to outwit the machine by opening up a possibility that hasn't been seen before.

To which I will add, "Exactly." I'll probably buy (and read) the book, if for no other reason than Ana (she's a smart cookie) suggested it. Although my insatiable curiosity is a driving factor as well.

I have always been a fan of raging against the machine, any machine. Just pick one and I'll most likely be game to try and 'outwit' it in one fashion or another. Hey, ask the wife, I'm aways trying to outwit her machine. And, I really like Flusser's notion of thinking of the idea of "originality" as a game (of opportunity / possibility) as opposed to just trying like hell to be "original".

Another idea that seems to be implicit in Ana's synopsis of Flosser's philosophy is one of my favorite ideas of what it takes to avoid being redundant - the knowledge and understanding of what came before, or, as he (you?) put it, of the what, who, why, of the arsenal of the photography machine.

A question for all - how many of you have made an effort to really know and understand the arsenal of the machine, aka, the history of the medium? Do you think that it's important for your photography to do so?

FYI ~ "don't scrimp on the sound"

A few days ago Kent Wiley offered up an opinion on plasma vs lcd flat panel tvs wherein he also suggested, "don't scrimp on the sound".

The ever-vigilant wife didn't skip a beat with her response; "It is very nice of you to comment on the blog, but the last thing on the planet that I want you telling my husband is 'don't skimp on sound.' He really should be looking for advice about how his photos should be cropped." Kent then offer his regrets because he did not "mean to add fuel to a family disagreement".

So, in order to clarify matters, let me just say that there is no family disagreement, per se. It's just that the wife is operating under the misguided notion that a person who has $3,000 worth of wire in his audio system doesn't really need to be encouraged to not "scrimp on the sound". She is simply not mollified by the fact that one could easily have spent 3x as much on wire (and, yes, I can hear the difference between $3k and $9k wire).

In any event, even if I were inclined to spend $9k on wire, I'm afraid that the 'price' would be too high - if you get my drift.

Update on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 01:01PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Mary Dennis asked: "So Mark, when you're in a room with other audiophiles, is it the emotional impact and honesty of the output that gets discussed or is it "my woofer's bigger than your woofer?"

my response: First of all, I have never been in a room with other audiophiles. I don't even know if such rooms exist and, if they did, I'd avoid them in the same way that I avoid ... um ... say ... camera clubs. This should come as no surprise to most because, just like my interest in photography - the pictures, not the gear, my interest in audio is the music, not the gear. I love music. And, just like my preference for the 'real' as reproduced in pictures, my preference in reproduced sound is for music that sounds like the 'real' thing.

That said, unlike my interest in photography, one must spend a lot of time auditioning audio gear to determine what sounds best to your ear, because, once you get beyond mass-market dreck, gear-wise, there is a considerable difference in how reproduced music sounds when processed through different components - and that definitely includes the difference in sound of wire.

So, unlike photography wherein I use a camera system with all of the components from a single maker, my audio system is made up of components from different makers - my amp, pre amp, turntable, tone arm, phono cartridge, cd deck, tuner, speakers, sub-woofer, wire and interconnects are all from different makers. All of those components were selected based on how they sound and, more importantly, how they sound together.

That's why most high-end audio dealers, especially the ones I like to patronize (smallish, sole proprietorships), let you take a component home in order to hear how it sounds in your system before you lay your money down.

An interesting aside - as fantastically real as the music sounds coming from my system, I learned a valuable lesson about 'real' sound when I found myself alone in a small room with Andres Cardenes, the Concertmaster of the Pittsburgh Symphony. I was photographing Mr. Cardenes for the high-end audio store (from which he [and I] purchased audio gear - in his case a $20,000 CD deck) when he pulled out and fired up his Stradivarius.

I swear to god, every hair on my body stood straight up and started to tingle. I almost peed myself.

It took a long time after that for any audio system to start sounding 'real' again.