more evidence of past lives

Evidence of past lives • click to embiggenI received an email yesterday about a multi-year, multi-school reunion weekend in my hometown of Rochester, NY. Out of curiosity, I clicked on the link to see what it was about.

It actually seems like a fun event so I clicked on an Image Gallery link, thinking that it might have pictures from past reunions. Wrong. It was actually 6 galleries, one from each school included in the reunion event, of pictures from the good old days. And there, in amongst some from my school, I came across this picture which includes yours truly.

I have absolutely no memory of the pictured event. I'm totally clue less as to exactly what it was we were trying to convey. Although, there does seem to be an organizing concept of 'signs', not to mention eye wear, white socks and bare calves. I am absolutely certain that, whatever we were up to at that moment, it must have seemed like a damn good idea at the time.

Update on Thursday, January 24, 2008 at 02:39PM by gravitas et nugalis

Yep, that's me 3rd from the right. And, yo, as for gangsta signs, there was no such concept as 'gangsta' in the early 60s and, as for signs, the only one we knew involved the middle finger. Nevertheless, I and my fellow preppies will be happy to accept the mantle of avant-garde re: introducing the concept of gangsta and gangsta signs.

The 'reality' and 'truth' in this photograph is ample evidence of that.

still life # 4 ~ evidence of past lives

Bat, moth, and butterfly • click to embiggenRecently, Michelle Parent put a link on ku # 497 ~ 99.999% redux to an essay, Art and Communication, by L. Ron Hubbard. I won't even begin to touch on his belief system of Scientology, but his essay addresses the 'what is art' notion from a, if not an original perspective, narrowly defined, but not entirely unfounded, one.

Hubbard's definition of 'what is art' is simple - "When a work of painting, music or other form attains two-way communication, it is truly art."

He goes on to explain, "True art always elicits a contribution from those who view or hear or experience it. By contribution is meant 'adding to it' ... That work which delivers everything and gets little or nothing in return is not art ... While it is quite all right to commune with oneself, one cannot also then claim that it is art if it communicates with no one else and no other's communication is possible."

Hubbard also specifically addresses photography - "... one can ask if a photograph can ever be art, a controversy which has been raging for a century or more. One could say that it is only difficult to decide because one has to establish how much the photographer has contributed to the "reality" or "literalness" in front of his camera, how he has interpreted it, but really the point is whether or not that photograph elicits a contribution from its viewer. If it does, it is art."

Aside: It should be noted that the 'controversy which has been raging for a century or more' has actually been decided quite awhile ago. Photography has been accepted as Fine Art for decades.

Hubbard's position, re: 2-way communication, is IMO a valid one although I find his premise that it is the only criteria on which to determine what is or is not art to be seriously flawed if for no other reason than there is no room in that dictum for art that is created to be merely 'decorative' and 'relaxing'.

That said, It should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed The Landscapist, that I am in complete agreement with Hubbard regarding the value Art that establishes a connection with the viewer that serves as a trigger for 'communication'. In most cases the 'communication' is not an actual discourse between artist and viewer but more of a virtual one in the mind, heart and soul of the viewer.

In addition, in most cases (and of equal importance), there is also an actual communication / discourse amongst the viewers - to include critics - that "adds to" the work in question. This communication can significantly "add to" the understanding, meaning, narrative, and appreciation of the work, so much so, that the communication becomes an integral part of the work itself. It can be said that without this 2-way communication the work could be considered to be lifeless and sterile.

That, of course, is my opinion and it should be taken with Hubbard's admonition: "Art is probably the most uncodified and least organized of all fields. It therefore acquires to itself the most "authorities." Usually nothing is required of an "authority" except to say what is right, wrong, good, bad, acceptable or unacceptable."

still life # 2-3 ~ wherein I just can't help myself

Dead dry flowers, tomato and cherries • click to embiggenAs I mentioned once before, my commercial still life roots keep coming back to haunt me - that and my fascination with things as they loose their luster.

WARNING: wherein, in a horrific fit of self-contradiction, I write about painting and how it effects my photography.

Still life-wise, my attention has been drawn to 17th century Dutch painting - not so much the paintings themselves but more towards the cultural underpinnings of the Dutch painters and the appreciative Dutch 'general public'. It has been opined by those who should know (art historians) that two of the philosophical bases from which the Dutch artists worked were: that God's work is evident in the world itself; that, although things in this world are mortal and transitory, no facet of God's creation is too insubstantial to be noticed, valued, or represented.

Caveat: The Dutch Calvinist idea of God and my my idea of God differ considerably.

It has also been recognized that the Dutch projected much national pride in their Art as evidenced by works that glorified their bourgeois culture, their appreciation for material goods, and their enjoyment of the sensual pleasures of life. Despite this preoccupation with the material world, or, more likely because of it (and their Calvinist beliefs), they were aware of the consequences of wrong behavior. Paintings, even those representing everyday objects and events, often provide reminders about the brevity of life and the need for moderation and temperance in one's conduct.

All of that said, I am not setting out to imitate 17th century Dutch still life painting, but I am stuck by the many similarities in the underpinnings of my contemporary photography and those of the 17th century Dutch. I have presented all this in the spirit of the more you know, the more you can know.

OK. Now you can shoot me.

civilized ku # 75 ~ whirling dervish-ness

Whirling dervish • click to embiggenThis past weekend Lake Placid was host to the Nature Valley / FIS Freestyle World Cup competition. Most of the world's top Olympic aerialists, men and women, competed in the Saturday night finals. The event will be televised on NBC this coming Sunday (Jan. 27) at 3:30pm. It's definitely worth a look to see the display of extreme / insane aerobatics these athletes perform - not to mention (if they televise it) the nasty / violent face-plant landing by one of the male competitors. FYI, he walked away from it.

Much thanks to Gordon McGregor for his link - on ku # 498 - the real 99.999% problem - to the 20×200 site. The marketing concept of 20×200 is very similar to one that I have been contemplating and discussing for awhile now - one large-sized print in very limited edition (2-4) at a 'high' price, one medium-sized print (of the same image) in a larger edition (15-20) at a 'moderate' price, and one small-sized print (of the same image) in a 'large' edition (150-250) at a very modest price.

The edition numbers and print prices that 20×200 has landed on are: large print edition of 2 @$2,000 ea.; medium print edition of 20 @ $200 ea.; small print edition of 200 @ $20 ea.. Interestingly, if each sized edition sells out, they each yield $4,000 in sales, $12,000 total.

Of the 3 photographers on the site, 1 (a mid-level 'name') has sold out all 3 editions (within 1 week), the other 2 (names that I do not recognize) have generated $4,300 - mostly from small-print edition sales.

I find these results to be very encouraging in as much as they lend a certain amount of credence to the idea that large-edition, reasonably-priced contemporary Fine Art photography will sell in decent numbers. There is, indeed, a market out there that is, for the most part, as yet untapped.

20×200's premise - large editions + low prices x the internet = art for everyone - is very close to the one that percolating in my head. I am delighted to see that someone in the contemporary Fine Art photography world (located in what is arguably the epicenter of the contemporary Fine Art photography world) is finally playing with the medium's inherent ability to make lots of originals.

My brain continues to grind on.

ku # 498 ~ the real 99.9995 problem

A light fresh snowfall in color • click to embiggenIn his commentary in the current issue (No. 74) of LensWork, Brooks Jensen laments the fact that 99.999% of the general public lacks appreciation / understanding of most contemporary Fine Art photography because contemporary photographers spend too much time gazing into their own navels and consequently they create pictures that too are 'elitist' for the general public to care about. IMO, there is more than a grain of truth in that assessment, but only as far it goes.

I think Jensen stops far short of the mark if his intention is to address why 99.999% of the general public not only doesn't appreciate / understand contemporary Fine Art photography but also doesn't acquire it. While Jensen never directly addresses in his commentary the idea of selling contemporary Fine Art photography, the idea kind of lurks between the lines. At least for me it does but perhaps that's because that notion as been on my mind of late.

The idea of selling contemporary Fine Art photography is on my mind for several reasons, not the least of which is my previously mentioned intent to open a photography gallery. Relative to this intent, I have been pondering the whole model of contemporary Fine Art photography as a 'limited edition', high-priced commodity versus the medium's ability to create and endless number of 'originals'.

It seems to me that a reasonable number of the general public do, in fact (and contrary to Jensen's notion), appreciate / understand a lot of what contemporary Fine Art photography has to offer. As just one example, just visit the Chelsea art district in NYC on a Saturday afternoon and witness the crowds that cruise the photo galleries. And while you're at it, try to count the sheer number of photo galleries in Chelsea and NYC, most of which are displaying 'elitist' contemporary Fine Art photography.

IMO, the real problem is not a lack of appreciation / understanding of contemporary Fine Art photography amongst a reasonable segment of the general public. The problem is getting that photography into the hands and on the walls of those so interested. The obstacle to that goal? One word - cost. If one is not prepared to drop, at the very minimum, $2,000 for a print, you're out of luck. Additionally, prints in the $5,000-$12,000 are the norm, not the exception and many photographers are successfully selling prints in the $18,000-$25,000 dollar range.

I appreciate and understand most of this contemporary Fine Art photography and would dearly love to hang some on my walls but the best I am able to do is acquire books of contemporary Fine Art photography. They are nice enough but viewing a Burtynsky in a book is a very different experience from viewing a 6'×8' Burtynsky on a wall.

All of that said, here's another fly in the ointment relative to getting contemporary Fine Art photography in the hands and on the walls of a reasonable segment of the general public. My experience tells me that many of those who appreciate / understand contemporary photography are not seeking out and acquiring much more reasonably priced yet very good stuff created by 'unknowns'.

An example - I sell my work, primarily 9×12 and 12×12 prints (editions of 50), at well below NYC gallery prices - typically $250-$350 for a matted print, $450-$550 framed. These are my regional gallery prices of which the gallery typically takes 40-50%. On the other hand, Aaron sells his Cinemascapes on the national / international market at $1,800 a print (editions of 8).

In the 6 months or so since Aaron emerged onto the world stage, he has eclipsed my entire life's total of print sales income. While there is a danger inherent in extrapolating conclusions from a small sample and applying them to a broader realm, IMO and broader experience, this example does lead to some valid conclusions about the contemporary Fine Art photography market.

Caveat - please keep in mind that I am writing about the contemporary Fine Art photography market, NOT the contemporary Decorative Art photography market.

The one conclusion that most interests me is that, once one dips below the bottom end, price-wise, of the 'big time' contemporary Fine Art photography market, the market is very 'soft' to say the least.

Why? Well, IMO, one very important reason (and to use a sports analogy) is that there are very few 'minor league' photo galleries devoted to showcasing the work of, if not up and coming, very accomplished contemporary Fine Art photographers whose work might not or will never make the 'big time'.

Why is that? Many reasons, no doubt, but foremost amongst them are the cost of gallery overhead v. the volume of product that must be sold to pay the piper. This is further complicated by the fact that little has been done to determine what price the market will bear for 'minor league' contemporary Fine Art photography. Will the established gallery marketing modality of very limited editions work in the 'minor leagues'?

Unlike the rest of the world, market-wise, it seems that contemporary Fine Art photography sells well only at the very high end of that market - unlike car, home, and other retail commodity markets where the largest market segments seem to sit somewhere in the 'middle range', price-wise. A 'middle range' where low(er) margins and high(er) volume are keys to marketing success.

Photography, unlike virtually all the other visual arts, is perhaps uniquely situated by its inherent ability to create 'unlimited' originals to explore and maybe establish a new marketing modality for contemporary Fine Art photography.

Maybe. Maybe not. It would be nice if someone gave it an honest shot.

My brain continues to grind on.

ku # 497 ~ 99.999% redux

A sunny winter moment # 2 • click to embigenThere were a number of comments re: ku # 496 ~ 99.999% from various individuals that touched on basically the same core idea - 99.999% of the general public relates best (in a way that is not overtly elitist-intellectual) to 'Decorative Art' and, even though that Art is not as 'esoteric' as that appreciated by the 'elite' 0.001%, what's wrong with that?

IMO, nothing is wrong with that. Decorative Art does, indeed, serve and satisfy a somewhat universal human need, that of the Sigmund Freud's pleasure principle - the drive to seek pleasure and to avoid pain.

However, it is interesting to note that it has been opined that, as one matures, one begins to learn the need sometimes to endure pain and to defer gratification because of the exigencies and obstacles of reality: "An ego thus educated has become reasonable; it no longer lets itself be governed by the pleasure principle, but obeys the reality principle, which also at bottom seeks to obtain pleasure, but pleasure which is assured through taking account of reality, even though it is pleasure postponed and diminished." ~ Sigmund Freud

IMO, I believe that the majority of humankind is guided solely by the pleasure principle and that (amongst many other things) their appreciation of Art is based solely on that principle. They seek out Art that is solely suited to relax, sooth, and pleasure the senses.

I am struck by Freud's aforementioned quote and its similarity to a common description of what constitutes a 'good' photograph, i.e. a picture that is able to hold one's attention and reveal new and expanded meaning well after the initial thrill (the visceral reaction) is gone.

Aside: Please notice my emphasis on the word 'solely'. It makes an important distinction , not so much about Decorative Art v. Fine Art, but rather about those who pursue DA, and only DA, solely as a means of escape from and subsequently not dealing with 'reality'.

2 quick points - Gordon - the best Art is both Illustrative - aka 'decorative - and Illuminative - aka, addressing the eternal quest for the meaning of life, our relationship to the world and beyond.

Paul - re: You've started down the path to "elitism" (a state that you personally often attack when speaking about ART CRITICS). I have no problem at with art critics many of whom write and critique on an 'elite' level. After all, I was a nationally published one myself for awhile so that is why I only personally attack the 'lunatic fringe of art academia' - altogether, an entirely different breed.

B/W ku # 1 ~ feminist metaparadigm of post-modernist independence

A light fresh snowfall • click to embiggenOnce again, in the current LensWork (No. 74), regular contributor, Bill Jay / End Notes, writes a really good send-up of current photography criticism. FYI, I continue to buy LensWork because Bill Jay's End Notes alone is worth the price of admission.

In his piece, Jay wonders why it is that pornography, given that it is such a dominate photographic genre, has 'escaped serious aesthetic criticism'. For those of you who are not about to run out and buy LensWork, here's the gist of it -

"...many of them (pornographic photos) are are richly endowed with visual iconography that, to dedicated artistic anthropologists, such as myself, reveal many mystical underpinnings of symbolic resonance, or something.

The image construction is ironic as well as iconic. The viewer must ask why, for example, is Muffy's tube top around her waist and not across her ample bosom, and why her knickers, only around one thigh? She makes eye contact with the viewer as if to denote her disregard for her dishabille. One can only admire Muffy's insouciance and feminist metaparadigm of post-modernist independence.

A significant signifier is the fact that Muffy is pulling on the end of her long blond tresses, as if removing an errant piece of chewing-gum although its visual reference owes tantalizing references to Renaissance mythological heroines."

Although the piece is not nearly as verbose, obtuse, and arcane as most photo criticism from the lunatic fringe of art academia, but it pretty much hits the nail on the head.

ku # 496 ~ 99.999%

A sunny winter moment • click to embiggenIn the current issue (No. 74) of LensWork, Brooks Jensen has worked himself into a fine tizzy about the current state of photography, Fine Art Division. He starts his Editor's Comment admitting that he is in a 'sour and cynical mood' brought on by a visit to the photography section of a bookstore.

Perusing the offerings on hand, he comes to the 'startling revelation' that 'Too much of photography is about photographers. He goes on to explain that 'the creative act in photography is supposedly the photography's skill in seeing what others do not, but this is simply not sufficient - and can lead to a lot of trite photography ... what counts is what a person makes, and - most importantly - expresses.'

Those who have followed my ramblings here on The Landscapist might suppose that Jensen and I to be simpatico on this point and, up to this point, we are in basic agreement. But .....

Jensen's fear and loathing, re: the current state of photography, seems to be centered around the fact that too many photographers, especially those whose work is published and/or exhibited in galleries and museums, are expressing themselves about 'trite and mundane stuff' about which 99.999% (Jensen's estimate) of the general public could care little, if at all. He asks, 'At what level of elitism have we crossed a line that makes our work meaningless.'

It is at this point that Jensen loses me because - since when has it been the point of making Fine Art to please all of the people, all of the time? That goal is more to the point of making Decorative Art.

To be fair, Jensen states that 'I think that art - the best art - tends to be about lofty things. perhaps I should use the term meaningful things.' But .... he then goes on to define 'meaningful things' by listing a 'who's who' of 'biggies' from 'the eternal quest for the meaning of life, our relationship to the world and beyond.'

OK, sure. But .... again I think we disagree on the idea that it is only by exploring and expressing ourselves about the 'big stuff' (and ignoring the 'mundane stuff') that we can imbue our photography with 'meaning' that is worth considering.

Nevertheless, the main point of his commentary with which I completely disagree is that somehow, if we only can choose the 'right' meaningful stuff to picture, we can and will engage that 99.999% of the general public who currently thinks that our pictures are full of meaningless self-centered crap.

I've got news for Mr. Jensen - 99.999% (for the record, my estimate would be more in the region of 93%) of the general public thinks Fine Art, any Fine Art (not just photography), is full of crap. The absolutely last thing they want in their 'art' is to be engaged in contemplation about 'the eternal quest for the meaning of life, our relationship to the world and beyond.'

They look to 'art' for an escape / diversion from their relationship to the world and beyond - things that they can place in their homes to make them a nicer place to be. In short, Decorative Art.

In addition to that hurdle, IMO, 99.999% of the general public simply doesn't consider photography to be art. Period. A picture is something you take while you're on vacation (to hang on the refrigerator) to remind you of what a great time you had or something you take to remind you of a birthday or other event.

Maybe I'm just in a 'sour and cynical mood' but I tend to think of it as being 'realistic' - Fine Art has always been in the domain of the 'elite'. Some of it has even been too trite and mundane or, at the very least, arcane and obtuse for the 'general public' to grasp or care about. Some of it has been too concerned with 'the eternal quest for the meaning of life, our relationship to the world and beyond' for the general public to want to grasp or care about it. And some of it just requires to much effort and education for the general public to understand it.

It just seems to me that that is the way of the world in most areas of human endeavor.

Any comments?