urban ku # 156 ~ big storm fun

All to ourselves • click to embiggenYesterday, smack-dab in the middle of our monster winter storm, the wife and I drove to the Olympic Winter Sports Complex at Mt. Van Hovenberg. On the way we noticed that; 1) we seemed to be the only ones on the road, 2) the snowfall had turned to freezing rain/sleet, and 3) trees were nearly bent over to the ground due to very strong gusting winds. We also realized that we had not phoned to see if the cross country ski complex - 90 km of trails - was actually open.

Undeterred, we motored on. Upon our arrival at the xc ski complex, the parking lot had only 2 cars in it. Not a good sign. Nevertheless, we walked to the lodge where we were informed that the complex was officially closed but, as long as we signed a waiver, we could ski. We were also informed that the trails were in superb condition. So, with the wind roaring in the background like a run-away freight train and a very frigid temperature - 12 degrees, feels like -5 degrees - we decided to give it a go.

It was delightful. The trails were near perfect and very well protected from the wind. Because of that, and once you built up a head of steam, the temperature felt more like a balmy 13 degrees. And, the solitude of having it all to ourselves was wonderful. There was a heavy and continuous sleet/freezing rain falling which added a slight crunchy-ness to the snow and a tinkling sound to the forest.

Altogether, it was a true winter wonderland experience. Now if I can only get the wife to let me hang my Decay pictures in the kitchen, everything would be perfect.

urban ku # 155 ~ a big storm

Big snow storm • click to embiggenIt's should be no secret to anyone on my side of the oceans that a huge winter storm has swept across the US from the central plains to New England. It hit us during Saturday night and all day and well into the night on Sunday. Throughout that time it just kept snowing and snowing.

We had some high winds and freezing rain thrown into the mix but, for the most part, there was little if any infrasture damage. So most people stayed warm and safe at home while the road crews worked round the clock.

FYI ~ last minute gift ideas (for kids and adults)

Books about the 'truth' • click to embiggenXmas day is fast approaching and I'm certain that some of you must be needing last-minute gift ideas. So, thanks to the wife who brought these delightful books to my attention, I thought that I would pass along these great reads - for adults and children alike - about everyday-life truth and realism.

urban ku # 154 ~ winter light and lights # 4

Early evening snowfall • click to embiggenOne of the first things to note about the subject of yesterday's 'assignment' is to point out that the essay is written by Christopher Bedford, an art historian, art critic and the Curatorial Assistant in the Department of Contemporary Art at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. He is not a photographer, although, in his curatorial capacity he certainly has more than a passing acquaintance with the goings on in the world of Fine Art photography.

This is important to know simply because it is relevant to understanding the perspective from which he approaches the subject of photography. Suffice it to say that Bedford comes from a very academic milieu. His primary concern re: photography seems to be to raise the bar relative to photographic criticism, that is, to the art and craft of writing about photography (and photographs) with an eye towards understanding and, therefore, appreciating it more completely. IMO, a very noble and long overdue pursuit.

Now, pertinent to that idea, I have made my opinion known that I think that the medium of photography, Fine Art Division, has been 'hijacked' by what I would label a lunatic fringe of academia. I must qualify that label by stating that, by, no means, do I think that all of art-academia is operating in the 'lunatic fringe'.

By 'hijacked' I mean that the prevailing notion of what is Art in the medium of photography has been laden with a lot of purely arcane and obtuse academic baggage and, further, that that baggage is designed and constructed primarily to serve the academic Art world. A world which is well along into the realm of becoming a modern-day 'guild' and, like the Renaissance guilds of old, their primary purpose seems to be to to protect the interests of its members - in this case, academic interests, aka academic tenure.

That said, I do like to hang around the fringes of the 'guild' because every once in awhile, if you are able to translate their writings into simple English, they actually have something to say that is of interest to non-academians. IMO, the essay by Bedford is one such piece of work.

I like the fact that Bedford (and others that he mentions) are "... keen to establish photography’s currency as a more determined, intention-laden industry than is commonly presumed." He points out that the "credibility of so-called “traditional” or documentary photographers in the context of art criticism" is undermined by the current prevailing attitude in the academic and curatorial world because "the essentialist, “observe and record” model of photography" is believed by most in that world to be "too ineffable, and too intuitive to qualify as an intelligent and intelligible conceptual strategy according to the imperatives of the contemporary art world, where a premium is placed on conceptual sophistication ... such work is assumed to be 'weak in intentionality.'"

The work is considered to be 'weak in intentionality' because (Bedford has made the admission that he and his fellow art historian, art critic, curatorial brethren don't know s--t about the manner in which photographers work) "... the nuances of the photographic process are poorly understood in the art critical community—the present author included—and this shortfall radically limits the discourse."

In other words, Bedford is saying that the methodology we, the essentialist, “observe and record” photographers, employ as common practice - in his words, "the most prosaic aspects of conventional photography (... the ebb and flow of intentionality through the process from choice of film or digital back through to print type and size) - needs to be "re-theorized" in order to understand how "these factors shape the image, direct the viewer’s attention, and contribute to the production of meaning: in effect, to remake the technical and conceptual discourse around traditional photography within art criticism."

Holy Shit!!! I'm stunned. This is a monumental shift from how the 'lunatic fringe' has thought about photography. They actually want to know about the 'mundane and pragmatic' technical choices that photographer makes in making a picture because, surprise surprise (to the academic world), those choices effect how an observer reacts and relates to a picture. He actually admits that this ontology should rank right up there with authorship and concept. Authorship and concept having been raised (in the academic art world) to a level of fetish, nearly to the exclusion of all other considerations surrounding a photograph.

However, the fly-in-the-ointment that is really going to f--k them up in their quest to elevate their understanding of the process is the fact that most photographers (of all stripes), after some time spent learning the craft, tend to (when they are picturing) 'forget' what they have learned and apply it 'intuitively'. Which is not to say that using it intuitively is not an 'intelligent and intelligible conceptual strategy'. It's just to say that something which done 'intuitively' is very difficult for the 'lunatic fringe' to latch onto, obsess about, and then analyze to death - an exercise that is part and parcel of their ontology.

Addendum: If you have been thinking of attending an Adobe Photoshop or Nikon camera seminar / workshop, I suggest that you make your reservation now. There is certain to be a horde of anxious and eager art historians, art critics and art museum curators queuing up to get in.

FYI ~ how's your ontology doing?

My projects - a 'warning' from the wife • click to embiggenOK class, today's assignment is to read this little ditty.

In truth, it's not really a 'little ditty'. It's a long-ish essay that is written in some (at times) rather obtuse academic-speak but please don't let that discourage you from reading it - just open up a dictionary (http://www.dictionary.com) and dive in.

The reason I encourage you to read this piece is simple - just about everything you need to know about photography as an Art form is contained in this essay. Really. I'm not kidding around. More than a month's worth of fodder / food for thought for journal entries on The Landscapist can be had in this ultimately interesting and challenging piece of writing.

Update on Friday, December 14, 2007 at 11:25AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Steve Durbin wrote; "Bedford takes three pages to say that there's no good art criticism of photography because art critics--including himself--don't understand it. I'd pretty much agree. (Of course, I happen to think most photographers don't understand it very well, either.)"

my response: I also happen to think most photographers don't understand it very well, either.

civilized ku # 67 ~ first and last

Song and dance routine • click to embiggenYesterday was a day of firsts and lasts. It was the last day of my grand jury duty and it was also the first day of my new grandson's life - Helmut, an 8 lb. 3 oz., 19.5 in. addition to the Hobson clan.

My grand jury term of 3 months was an experience like no other I have ever had. It was by turns boring, tedious, emotionally taxing, depressing and downright stupid. My fellow jurors and I deliberated on 40 cases and handed down almost 200 indictments running the gamut from simple low-level drug sales, a surprising number of child sex-abuse cases, DWIs, assaults, stabbings, weapon possessions, identity thefts, to criminally negligent homicide. I learned that a DA can get just about any indictment he/she asks for, proving the prosecutorial adage - one that makes me very uncomfortable - that "you can get an indictment on a ham sandwich".

One thing that I absolutely did not expect to learn from my grand jury experience was the intricacies of clog dancing. However, thanks to our more than willing legal stenographer, performances of such were presented on a fairly regular basis.

urban ku # 151-153 ~ winter light and lights

Changing winter light (with lights) • click to embiggenAt the end of our anonymous emailer's comment, she wrote, "... it's the fire (outcome, deliverable, art) that is of the most importance." In other words, it's not how you make it, it's what you make that matters.

That's a premise with which I basically agree. Photography-wise, whether you're working with the medium's 'reality effect' or its 'tethered to realism' characteristic, it's the end result that matters. And, if you are producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces, you are practicing photography.

That said, what about this photography by Binh Danh?

Binh Danh's series is titled One Week's Dead. Danh collects photographs and other remnants of the Vietnam War and re-processes them in a way that brings new light to a history marked by painful memories. A main source of the images is the 1969 Life magazine article, Faces of the American Dead: One Week's Dead. Portraits of two hundred forty-two young American men, casualties in one week of the war, were presented in a yearbook-style layout ... Danh uses photosynthesis to incorporate these portraits in the cells of leaves and grasses, symbolic of the jungle itself bearing witness to scars of war that remain in the landscape ... Danh is able to capture the images onto leaves, not by printing onto them, but by capturing the images within the leaves ... The final product, leaves imbedded in resin, transform the source images into precious, yet permanent artifacts. ~ from the exhibition catalog.

As far as I know, Binh Danh has created a new print medium - the Chlorophyll print.

Is it photography?

urban ku # 150 ~ you can email, but, you can't hide

An ugly 'truth' • click to embiggenI occasionally get email comments about topics / entries on The Landscapist. There is no problem with that but don't let that make you thing that I won't use my 'Sunshine' prerogative in order to shed a broader light of day upon the thing.

That said, here's an interesting take on the a pile of steaming stinking meadow muffins entry -

I have to say that this entry has gotten Ray and I talking quite a bit and all we do is come up with alternate questions.

The first is: "When did photography become art?"

Let me go back and say that Ray believes that the gist of the matter is that: using Photoshop and other means to modify an image that was taken alters said image - and thus, the image is not a true "photograph"... a true "photograph" would be created when one set up their camera at 4 am - to capture the correct light, choose the right lens for the shot ... click - develop - print and voile you have a photograph.

His belief is that photographers of old would adjust their images in the darkroom - and that to a certain degree was "cheating."

So the thrust is that technical advancement has undermined photography.

OK - so another question of mine - or a corollary to the original is: wouldn't the use of a lens or filter then also be a technical advancement that undermines true photography? Wouldn't all photography have to be taken from a box with a couple of holes in it? - and anything else would be "art photography"?

In your blog - you are discussing an article that: The author, the painter and gadfly art critic Peter Plagens, wasn't really asking if the entire medium of photography was dead. No, whether he meant to or not, he was really inquiring if that segment of the medium known as 'straight' photography - 'the last art form to be tethered to realism' was dead.

He's a painter, you say. This is a statement regarding oil painting from a person on the web who is a oil painting purist: Stop looking at modern art and stop loving it. Modern bright colors and hue contrasts destroy the subtle vision of the painter who risks to study classical painting in our time.

Original oil painters ground mineral and then mixed them with a drying oil. The Flemish technique (1400's) is the first true "technique" developed - it includes a 7 layer process that is considered by purists of the art - "the only true way to create a painting." - complete with: Before each new layer the canvas (ideally dried during 7 weeks) is carefully wiped with a half of an onion (in order to prepare the dried surface to absorb better) and then with linseed oil.

All the new advancements of pre-mixed paint are aberrations to some - but certainly, this isn't the thought of the majority.

Another thought that Ray and I discussed was, "If you're camping in the woods and need to make a fire. A purist would demand that you hunt for two rocks - which when struck together would spark and thus, ignite your kindling. Others may choose to pull out their Bic and light the thing. You have created a fire, it's still warming you, you can still cook by it, it's still creating the same ambiance as the alternate fire would. The importance of the act is determined primarily by the person lighting it...."

In my opinion, lighting a fire with rocks is a neat trick - but, it's the fire (outcome, deliverable, art) that is of the most importance. (end of email)

Any comments, of the non-email variety?