Morley's dog

Morley's Dog is a Victorian-era statue that was washed away in the great Johnstown flood of 1889, but was recovered in the flood debris at the stone bridge after the flood and eventually donated to the city. Since then, Morley's Dog has become a beloved Johnstown icon.

He did not depict a real dog or hero who rescued a child from the flood, although there are stories of such a dog. In the book "The Fairytale of the Morley Dog", the dog is claimed to be seen saving children from the flood waters. Some now take this to be fact.

ku # 505 ~ the reenchantment of art

Winter ferry ride on Lake Champlain • click to embiggenI've found some more buried treasure during my move, a few way-back issues - from the late 80s when I was a contributing photography critic - of the New Art Examiner. The magazine ceased publishing in 2002 after a 30 year run. It was Chicago based and initially focused on the Chicago and midwestern art scene (considered an 'art backwater' at the time) - one which was all but ignored by the 'established' East/West coast art mags.

In the cache was my rather scathing critique - rarely have the words poured from my penny pencil with such feverish acerbic fluidity - of a landmark photography exhibition at Pittsburgh's Carnegie Museum of Art. The review opened with; "Either the art of photography as practiced in western Pennsylvania is generally unfocused, uninventive, and imitative in nature, or the curators of this landmark exhibition - John Caldwell (the Curator of Contemporary Art) and Annegreth Nill - are non conversant in the vernacular of contemporary photography." It got even better after that.

But the real treasure of the cache was an issue with an article, The Reenchantment of Art, by Suzi Gablik. The piece was an excerpt from the then so-to-be published book of the same title. I googled Gablik and found that she is still quite active and championing the basic tenets of the book - "the remythologizing of consciousness and the question of mythic thinking - whether it is possible at all today, and if so, in what way given the inevitable stream of cybernetic simulacra that is given and now accepted as social reality."

translation - cybernetic simulacra: the mechanical and electronic communication of a vague, unreal, or superficial semblance - in this case, of social reality.

Gablik goes on to say, "My present concerns have to do with how to give our culture back its sense of aliveness, possibility, and magic. It is an issue that I believe will find resonance in many minds, among all those who are similarly convinced that, in losing the ability to perceive the grand harmonies of the cosmos, our Western civilization has been thrown seriously out of equilibrium ... (having lost) a living cosmology to enable us to hold the spiritual dimension of existence in mind, the individual fails to establish a relationship with a larger context of meaning and purpose, or to keep a chronic sense of emptiness at bay."

Gablik wrote this in 1988 - a time that could now be considered to be the infancy of the age of cybernetic simulacra. If she thought that our civilization was 'seriously out of equilibrium' then, I can only imagine what she thinks it is now.

In addition to the then prevailing cultural paradigm, Gablik was also responding to the Post Modernist world of Art. In her opinion, it is no coincidence that a culture, which has lost "a living cosmology to enable us to hold the spiritual dimension of existence in mind", creates Art that is "cynical, selfish, and (has) a pessimistic view of existence." rather than Art "that speaks to the human need for meaning rather than to metaphysical despair."

It should go without saying that Gablik is suggesting that Artists, or a significant segment thereof, devote themselves to the reenchantment of Art. Art that "help(s) to expand our 'model' of reality and that challenge(s) these obsolete and constricting images of the self" - a sentiment that dovetails quite nicely with Hockney's statement "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."

I would really like to know if you guys 'n girls have any thoughts on this matter. Can Art help change a culture? Can artists help reshape thinking without becoming didactic propagandists? Is work created for such a purpose Art?

Do you even care? Or, are you under the thrall of 'metaphysical emptiness'?

Update on Friday, February 29, 2008 at 11:18AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: 2 different takes:

Stephen Connor wrote: "I'd be curious to know exactly which "living cosmology" it is that we've lost. Christianity? Buddhism? The Navajo cosmology? Ancient Egyptian? Aztec?

And what's meant by the "enchantment of art"? I find lots of contemporary art perfectly enchanting. Am I reading more into it than is actually there?

Or is Ms. Gablik, forgetting for a moment that she's sitting on a tiny little planet circling a tiny little star circling at the far edge of a tiny galaxy and therefore in no position at all to "perceive the grand harmonies of the cosmos", simply waxing overly-poetic while saying nothing particularly interesting or useful?"

Michelle Parent wrote: "The way I read this, is to find the soulful/spiritual connectedness between all things (not a specific religion per se) and the magic to be found everywhere if you just look (or know how to look). We may be connected through the world wide web, but there is still a lot of "emptiness". Science and our current culture of "me" has left us with no "magic" and there is a coldness to it that leaves my soul feeling barren, sterile, empty, and unconnected in a deep, meaningful way.

I feel that in the past, Artists truly did influence culture. Especially when an artist was the only person who could put paint or other media on paper (or canvas/wood, etc.) and "capture life" while the majority of the population could not do so. These artists in the past where also very connected to their religion, where very few today seem to lack a deep spiritual connection to something greater than themselves. I am not trying to be judgmental, so I hope I am not coming across that way, but the majority of work I see (on the web) seems to lack that type of connection. It all seems very empty to me (and very much it is all starting to look the same too). In some ways, I think the web has hurt art a lot. It has homogenized the different styles to such a degree, that it has become very sterile to me ...

I know this is a bit of a ramble, but it something I feel strongly about, as I am trying to steer my own work in a deeper, more soulful connection. I want to find the "magic" in all around me."

The rest of you wrote nothing. Apparently you're all under the thrall of 'metaphysical emptiness".

Bonfire of The Inanities # 1

Staring into the void • click to embiggenThe wife and I have a little game in which we stay attuned during sports broadcasts for the seemingly inevitable and totally inane comments that issue from the mouths of sports-type talking heads.

For example, during the recent Dubai Desert Classic (golf), a commentator opined (when the golfers seemed to be lacking intensity on a specific hole) that, "maybe they should be playing for a car" (as an incentive). Apparently, the fact that they were competing for a total purse of $2,515,541 - winner's share = $420,192 - simply wasn't enough of an inducement to 'try harder'. Nope, not at all. Without a doubt, a car would do the trick.

The phrase, "maybe they / he /she should be playing for a car" has now become the go-to expression in our house whenever someone fails in sporting event - the Penguins' goalie is giving up too many goals in a shootout, "maybe he should be playing for a car". The NE Patriots loose the Super Bowl - "maybe they should have been playing for a car". The possibilities for inanity are endless.

In any event, I think it's time to introduce a photography / art Bonfire of the Inanities category. I think this because I have read more than a fair share of highly suspect comments on the subject - not ones with which I disagreed - but ones that are rather ludicrous no matter how you look at it.

And, FYI, the floor is open to contributions. So, in that spirit, here's my first offering.

Over on The Luminous Landscape, in an article about Composition, Alain Briot states, "Art is not a necessity. Art is something we want, not something we need. Artists create art because they want to, not because they have to ... Any of us can live without making ... art."

Briot qualifies the phrases 'is not a necessity' and 'can live' by stating that "... we would not perish the way we would if we did not have food, clothing or shelter."

Yeh. Sure. Fine. Duh. Art, Decorative or Fine, is not a 'necessity' for sustaining the life of the body. But, unless you are committed to the life of a zombie - the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, there is a thing called the 'life of the mind and soul' that is a necessity to living a life.

So, in order to justify his 'necessity' statement, Briot essentially falls back on the much discredited idea that the life of the body and that of the mind / soul can be severed and that a holistic integration of the two is not a 'necessity' for 'life'.

I find that rationalization as caveat / pre-supposition for any discussion / tutorial about art to be totally, completely, and utterly inane.

Add to that the rather curious fact that, coming as it does from a self-professed artist, Briot's statement essentially reduces the arts and the activities of artists to the status of a mere (not born from 'necessity')'want' or 'desire'. While that attitude does not quite render arts/artists inane, it does push them somewhat into the realm of the frivolous or, at the very least, the non-essential.

I, for one, can not accept or abide by that notion.

Most serious artists with whom I am familiar are not making Art because they 'want to' - they are, in fact, doing it because they have to. As David Hockney stated, "Most artists work all the time, they do actually, especially good artists, they work all the time, what else is there to do"? Sound like someone doing it because they just 'want to'?

I also believe that Briot's statement ignores the power of Art throughout history to not only illustrate and question the prevailing cultural paradigm but to influence and shape it as well. They weren't painting those pictures on the ceilings of the Vatican just to entertain the populous. Without a doubt, those pictures were painted with the purpose to influence and shape the culture of the period and, for awhile at least, they succeeded.

Again, David Hockney; "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.”

There is a prevailing world view that, if we want to survive as a species without destroying our environment, we must 'change our world view'. IMO, any art that that can help change our world view is not a 'want'. It is, in fact, a necessity.

So there you have it - my first entry into the Bonfire of the Inanities category. How about you guys/girls out there - have any favorites?

PS Alian Briot can be found here

And, if I were writing an essay on composition, instead of 8 separate essays on the subject like Alain Briot is doing, mine would read exactly like this;

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." - Ansel Adams. "Composition is the strongest way of seeing." - Edward Weston.

End of essay - now, go out and "Just do it" - Nike.

Update on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 01:26PM by gravitas et nugalis

A contrarians opinion (from the wife); "You don't see many political prisoners going on an art strike, where they threaten to become martyrs by refusing art. Ergo, the fellow must be correct."

ku # 504 ~ pressing on

Near the summit of Algonquin • click to embiggenOne of the joys of moving, even if it's only from one room to another, is discovering buried treasure. Today's picture is a case in point. I've been looking for this picture for quite some time. It was tucked away in a hanging folder with some other 'miscellaneous' pictures. Unfortunately, the folder wasn't hanging - it was buried in box.

The picture is of my winter backpacking companion, Jim Minardo (from Rochester, NY). Jim has since retired from winter backpacking. The details: very late day just below the summit of Algonquin - notice the scrub pine and emerging bare rock, -10F, 30 mph wind with gusts of 40-60 mph, blizzard conditions - my kind of winter hike! Within another 30 ft of elevation, we were in white-out conditions and the wind was so strong and loud that we could only communicate by shouting.

FYI, Algonquin is described as; "Although this lacks the prestige of making it to Mount Marcy, the trail to the summit of Algonquin Peak and the view from the top, at 5,114 feet, are better and the trail is probably the most challenging in the Adirondacks, if not New York." That, of course, describes it in the summer.

At that point the decision was made to retreat about 100 ft of elevation to a tiny clearing, pitch the tent and ride it out. For those of you not experienced with winter mountaineering, it should be noted that, once in a winter tent, you are a snug as a bug in a rug - hang a small backpacking lantern in the peak of the tent, light the stove in the cooking vestibule, get water on the boil (for tea, hot chocolate, soup and dinner) and the next thing you know you're shedding clothing by the layer. It's not hard to get the tent up to a balmy 35 degrees which seems genuinely toasty compared to what's going on outside.

And, IMO, one of life's great pleasures is riding out a roaring blizzard high - 5,100 ft - on a wilderness mountain top while sipping hot beverages, eating a hardy stew, warmed fruit cup, warmed chocolate pudding, and just hanging out with a good friend.

Climbing out of a warm sleeping bag and into -15F temperatures is a whole other story.

it's all over now, Baby Blue

Old electric fan • click to embiggen
Pittsburgh's strip district • click to embiggen
Flowers at Woods Hole • click to embiggenAs has been reported elsewhere, Polaroid has given up the ghost, film-wise. I had previously mentioned the end of the line for SX-70 (Time Zero) film, but this is the end of the line for all film-related photography products - including all of their professional sheet films. What a pity.

In my commercial studio heyday, I used Polaroid professional sheet films like it was going out of style. Dollar-wise, I spent way more on Polaroid film than I did on Kodak film. Polaroid was the only testing / pre-shoot proofing method around. I was fully invested in Polaroid holders and backs for every format I had - 35mm, 120, 4×5, and 8×10. I'll wager that you never knew there was a Polaroid back for Nikon 35mm slrs.

While I was never a hardcore BW guy, one of the best 4×5 bw sheet films on the planet was Polaroid Type 55. Not only did you get the instant print, but you also got an instant negative as well. Sure, the negative needed be treated in a clearing agent and washed, but the advantages of dust-free film packets was wonderful. If you worked in the field, you just shot as much as you wanted and saved the instant processing for later.

And the negative? Polaroid Type 55 negatives are the most buttery smooth (tone-wise), sharp and grain-less, extended dynamic range bw film that I ever used. The resultant prints were simply gorgeous. It's really a shame that the experience of using this film is about to disappear, most likely forever (unless someone buys the manufacturing rights).

Me, I'm grateful as hell that another firm is continuing the manufacture of Polaroid film for the SX-70 and Spectra class cameras, even though the film for the SX-70 is not Time Zero film - the only Polaroid film that let you really play around with the emulsion - it stayed squishy malleable for hours.

I wonder how soon the day will come for the end of the line of all photographic film?

FYI ~ done deal

Moved in • click to embiggenEven though my old office still has a lot of stuff (especially books) to sort through and move/store, I am moved in and operational in my new office. While there are still some details to attend to - handles for the cabinet doors, a few holes to drill, a light under the top cabinets - it feels like a new beginning.

Everything pretty much turned out as planned. There's plenty of storage and counter space so I'm finally getting really organized. My biggest success was a recessed channel at the back of each counter that has a 6 ft. strip of electrical outlets. The idea was to end the endless crawling around under desks / counters to plug or unplug the seven trillion cords that seems to be an ever-evolving rat's nest of entanglement. The added bonus is that all the cords are out of sight as well.

I happy as a clam.

decay # 11 ~ truly or falsely

More decay • click to embiggen"'A mere transcript of nature' is one of the stock phrases of the art critic, and many artists of a certain school. The precise meaning attached to it puzzles us; were it not always used as a term of reproach, we should believe it the highest praise that could be bestowed upon a picture. What adds to our perplexity is that the phrase is generally applied by the critic to work which has nothing in common with nature about it: and is used by artists who themselves have never in their lives painted a picture with the simplest values correct, as though transcribing nature to canvas were a stage in the painter's development through which they had passed, and which was now beneath them. The critic must have but a very superficial acquaintance with nature who applies this term, as it is frequently done to work in which all the subtleties of nature are wanting. we have heard of pictures in which no two tones have been in right relationship to one another, in which noisy detail has been mistaken for finish, and the mingling of decision and indecision in fine opposition - the mysterious lost and found, the chief charm of nature - has been utterly unfelt, described as 'transcripts of nature'. Those artists who use the phrase, adopt it as a convenient barricade behind which they may defend their own incompetence." ~ T. F.Goodall

All photographers would do well to lay these remarks to heart. Instead of it being an easy thing to paint "a mere transcript of nature", we shall show it to be utterly impossible. No man can do this by painting or photography, he can only give a translation or impression, as Leonardo da Vinci said long ago; But he can give this impression truly or falsely. ~ from P.H, Emerson's Naturalistic Photography for Students of the Art

Update on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 06:53PM by gravitas et nugalis

Mary Dennis, who has finally updated her website, wrote: I can't help it---I've got the voice of Rex Harrison as Dr. Henry Higgins from My Fair Lady running around in my head as I'm reading this. Arrrgh!

My response - I feel your rain, er, ahh ... I mean, pain ... on the plain .. in Spain ...

ku # 503 ~ more PH Emerson

Cloud bank on Whiteface • click to embiggenI totally agree with Martin Doonan's comment - "There is certainly a lot of good material in Emerson's book." The more I read, the more 'good material' I find.

I am currently reading Chapter IV, Hints on Art, which is like a stream of consciousness list of thoughts about Art. Much of it reflects my ideas and thoughts on the same subject. It is very interesting, and a bit unsettling, to read the thoughts, written 120 years ago, of another that so closely match my own. Throw in the fact that he also photographs with a technique that also is based on exactly the same methodology as mine and it all gets a bit creepy.

A few nuggets mined from Chapter IV:

• Do not get caught by the sensational in nature, as a coarse red-faced sunset, a garrulous waterfall, or a fifteen thousand foot mountain.

• Avoid prettiness - the world looks much like pettiness and there is but little difference between them.

• Do not mistake sentimentality for sentiment, and sentiment for poetry.

• The value of a picture is not proportional to the trouble and expense it costs to obtain it, but to the poetry that it contains.

• The greater the work the simpler it looks and the easier it seems to imitate, but it is not so.

• Art is not to be found by touring Egypt, China, or Peru; if you cannot find it at your own door, you will never find it.

• Many photographers think they are photographing nature when they are only caricaturing her.

• When a critic has nothing to tell you save that your pictures are not sharp, be certain that he is not very sharp and knows nothing at all about it.

• The undeveloped artistic faculty delights in glossy and showy objects and in brightly colored things. The appreciation of delicate tonality in monochrome or colour is the result of high development. The frugivorous ape loves bright colours, and so does the young person of "culture", and the negress of the West Indies, bur Corot delighted only in true and harmonious coloring.