ku # 492 ~ I Luv NY, pt. 2

Stump with orange fungus • click to embiggenRe: complexity, James wrote about I Luv NY (pt.1 - the previous entry) that simplifying it would be "...removing the entire experience of exploring this place visually over time through the artist."

He also wrote; "...Isn't it interesting to pay attention to how your eye moves from one area to the next and how even that can change your experience or the "subject" as you uncover details? The more of this the better as far as I am concerned...I also think the real challenge is showing more and still making it feel like less...

Both of these statements are great observations, but I think his last statement is best - "I prefer to focus on the story that unfolds as you spend time with the work itself. A certain level of complexity allows for this I think and moves us away from the quick "wow factor" that we've come to demand and then just as quickly forget about."

And, in answer to his question - "It also respects your audience just a bit more, don't you think?", all I can give is resounding "yes".

Thanks, James.

civilized ku # 63 ~ I Luv NY

NYC - the view, lower and upper Manhattan, from E 4th St. • click to embiggenThere is just something about 'pure' urban landscapes that I love. I'm pretty certain that it's the crazy-quilt 'mathematical' patterns of line and form that dominate a 'packed' urban landscape. Which, when I think about it, is very similar to what I like about my natural world landscapes as well - the crazy-quilt patterns of nature, although, in nature's case, less 'mathematical' and way more chaotic.

In either case, it's the complexity, which stands opposed to the conventional photo-wisdom of 'simplify', that I like. And, I suspect that it that complexity, which doesn't seem to have an obvious or easily identified 'subject', that oftens causes difficulty for some viewers - they usually want to know/ask what the picture is 'about'.

It's worth mentioning that that question - what's it about/what's the suject - is most often encountered on photo forums, i.e. from photographers, and far less (if at all) from the 'general' or 'non-photographer' public. Although, it's also worth mentioning that there is a similar divide in the photographer ranks along the lines of fine Art photographers and camera-clubists.

In both cases, I believe the difference is between those who cling to the 'rules' and those who don't, or, in the case of the general non-photographer public, those who don't even know about the 'rules'. Or, put another way, those who care more about how a picture makes them 'feel' than how the picture 'looks'.

Not that the two aren't connected, because they are - how a picture looks can greatly effect how how it makes you feel. It's just seems that some let how a picture looks stand in the way of connecting to its 'feel'.

All of which brings me to this point - I think one of the best prescriptions for taking/making good pictures came from the pen of Brooks Jensen of LensWork;

Real photography begins when we let go of what we have been told is a good photograph and start photographing what we see."

urban ku # 136 ~ it's back

Winter delights • click to embiggenMy two favorite winter pastimes are back. One is winter itself.

The other is luge.

If I could, I would be sliding everyday. As it is, I am limited this winter to sliding every Saturday evening and, as far as I know there will be no competitions. This means that I will not be able to improve upon my back-to-back silver medals from two prior season ending regional competitions. Guess I'll have to be satisfied with the adrenalin rush and shaving a couple thousandths of a second off of my run times every week.

These pictures are from earlier today. Yesterday and today was the FLI World Cup Luge season opener - the top luge sliders in the world, men, women and doubles, compete in this World Cup event. Only the top luge sliders in the world are in this event.

Coasting to a stop • click to embiggenThe winner of the men's event, Italy's Armin Zoggeler, is pictured (on the left) coasting to a stop on the uphill straight after crossing the finish line. It takes quite a stretch for gravity to slow these guys down from speeds of up to 85 mph. Zoggeler set a new track record while recording his 37th WC victory.

Hugo was fascinated by the whole deal. He's ready to start "when I get a little bigger" and he set a goal of 'going fast like a motorcycle". That will be no problem at all.

civilized ku # 62 ~ fiction?

Neighborhood bar - Pittsburgh, PA • click to embiggenThe literary critic and academic Frank Kermode has stated that "... fiction calls for conditional assent and fiction, if successful, makes sense of the here and now." - a notion with which I wholeheartedly concur.

Many photographers use the medium's 'reality effect' to great advantage when creating 'picture fictions'. Jeff Wall is an obvious example as is Aaron Hobson and his Cinemascapes. The 'staged' events come across as 'real'. In some cases they may seem improbable and even though we know that the pictures may have taken months of planning, there is no denying their apparent veracity. They have the look and feel of a HCB 'decisive moment'.

For me, part of the appeal of these 'fictions' is the fact that they use with the medium's reality effect to play with the idea of photographic truth. The obvious message is simply that you can't 'believe' everything you see, picture-wise. But a more subtle 'message' for me is that the pictured staged event is a true representation of that event. My brain bounces back and forth between what I know to be 'true' - it's a staged event - and the apparent, implied, conveyed or imagined 'truth' of the picture which, of course, is a fiction. When all is said and done, inevitably, I give myself over to the imagined truth and it is that 'reality' that I carry away with me.

I will go to my grave believing that photographs can be 'true'. One last example of that and I'll drop the subject - many who viewed my pictures of Maggie in the ICU found them to be disturbing and very upsetting. Some, knowing that they were online, refused to view them.

Now, even though many would claim that they are 'subjective' and 'not truth', most viewed them as exceedingly 'real' both literally and in what they conveyed or implied beyond the merely visual. The pictures were not particularly gory but their connoted meaning was too true for many to handle - the truth about human frailty, the truth about the fear of serious illness and disease, the truth about the specter of death, the truth about the loss of loved ones.

I didn't photograph any of those things. I pictured Maggie in the ICU. Even if one considers the pictures to incomplete or inadequate representations the real world, the 'reality effect' of the medium was able to convey 'truths' about the human condition - some truths so real to those who did view the pictures that they cried or turned away.

PS In an interesting aside, Maggie, who has no memory of the ICU - she was in a coma - was very fascinated by the pictures. They made the event 'real' for her. She now uses one the pictures for her MySpace page and she has taken to calling herself 'coma-girl'.

urban ku # 135 ~ fiction and truth

History, fiction or both? • click to embiggenStephen Connor wrote; "... Jeff Wall's photographs are "true" in the sense that, yep, he accurately (very) photographed something in the real world. He photographed actual events. But, he truthfully photographed a staged event. The models were really there, really doing what Wall shows them doing, but what they were really doing was acting. So, where does the "truth" lie (so to speak) in these photos? Real photos of real actors really pretending to do something that they really weren't. Except that they were. But not really."

Which brings to mind the fact that fiction can more real than truth. It is the truth of a well-told story. It is true not to life but to a shared experience in imagination. 'Truth' that is imaginative without being imaginary.

Photographers are hard on themselves when it comes to 'truth'. We allow authors, film makers, poets, sculptors and other artists to create 'fictions' in which we can find any number of 'truths' - Tolstoy's War and Peace, Dylan's Masters of War, Picasso's Guernica are ripe with imaginative truths. But, show us an accurate photograph of an actual event, place, or person, one that also tells us a 'story' about that event, place, or person and we start to yammer on about how it isn't 'true'. About how, in fact, it can't be true because, as we all know, a photograph of a thing is not the thing itself.

Maybe it's that the Doubting Thomas' amongst us are too aware of the deceits of the medium to suspend their disbelief in order to enter the realm of belief.

Fiction is history that didn't happen and history is fiction that did. ~ George Orwell

urban ku # 134 ~ 'truth'

A truth • click to embiggenFor those of you who have not, as Paul Maxim opined, "avoided Mark's invitation to express their thoughts on "truth", like it was a visit to the dentist", let me offer the following for your consideration.

Amongst the many definitions of the words 'truth' and 'true' are these; 1. being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something; 2. conformity with fact or reality; 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.

In light of these notions, let me ask this question (as one example of a zillion I could ask) - have you never seen a photograph that not only accurately depicts the (pick one) visual ravages, tragedy, insanity, brutality, devastation of war and, by so doing, also conveys clearly and without reservation at least one human 'truth' about such things - something that every rational human being knows to be 'true' about war?

The fact that a 'truth' or something that is 'true' about war is not the whole truth about war does not make that 'truth', untrue or false. There undoubtedly would be more 'truths' about war to be discovered and to know but, once again, I do not see how that negates a truth that any given photograph of war might convey.

Update on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 08:14AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Sean McCormick wrote, "... I refuse to apologize for any manipulation I use on my images since, as a former chef, my view has always been that I'm doing nothing more than assembling a recipe -- one uniquely my own -- from raw ingredients.

If my work isn't your cup of tea, no problem. I thank you for the time you gave me and I hope the next artist you encounter is more to your liking."

my response: Sean, I'm not exactly certain what caused you to think that your work isn't my cup of tea. The 'truth' that I am writing about in my last few entries is the implied 'truth', the metaphoric 'truth', the content of a picture that is separate from the form of a picture - the 'truth' of the meaning that can be found in a photograph.

Hope you aren't about to abandon ship.

civilized ku # 61 ~ $57,000 worth of 'civilized'

A Burtynsky Quarry triptych • click to embiggenWhile we're on the subject of 'truth', I came across this from Pablo Picasso re: the act of putting pigment on canvas; "Something sacred, that's it. It's a word we should be able to use, but people would take it the wrong way. You ought to be able to say a painting is as it is, with its capacity to move us, because it is as though it were touched by God .... that is what's nearest to the truth."

Interesting words and thought from a Communist and a dedicated atheist.

IMO, it seems that the idea that photographs are not 'true' or contain no 'truth' is a fanciful invention of the academic art world - a dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin academic theory. A theory that actually seems designed to strip photography of one of its unique media-specific characteristics - its ability to create not only an 'accurate' description of the real world but also a snapshot of the 'truth' about it as well.

Before I go into this idea further, I would really like to hear some opinions on the subject for you. Please let me know some of your thoughts on the matter. If you don't have any, think about it and get some.

FYI - the price of this Burtynsky triptych is $57,000. 3 days after the shows opening, 2 had been sold (along with about 15 other individual prints - of about the same size as one of those pictured here - at $23,000 per). Ain't no starvin' artist here.

urban ku # 134 ~ abiding care

Leaving the American Museum of Natural History • click to embiggenWhile I was reading a review about a photographer's pictures, I came across a sentence that I liked very much wherein the writer stated that to view his pictures in a certain way "... would be to shrug off their (and our) abiding care for what we see in them, and the beauty that seems to emerge from such benign attentiveness as well ..."

Does 'abiding care' and 'benign attentiveness' fit into your picturing?