urban ku # 118 ~ scarey things

Ghosts, goblins and fresh vegetables and plants. • click to embiggenI received an email a few days ago from Gordon McGregor, who, if I remember correctly, used to call himself a stranger in a strange land, because (again, if I remember correctly) he is a Scotsman living in Texas. That sounds like a sure recipe for culture shock if ever there was one.

In any event, his email was in response to my mention regarding the 'silent' visitors to The Landscapist from The Radiant Vista where it was noted during a forum discussion about Aaron's Cinemascapes, that he was my son and I am not a fan of The Radiant Vista. In his email, Gordon states that; "...I'm also a friend of Craig's, having taken a few workshops with him and also having spent a bit of time with him outside of that sort of environment. He's a talented photographer with a real passion for teaching. That passion and inspirational side of his character comes across strongly in person - I'm not entirely convinced that it comes over at all well in his daily critiques. I know his aim is to try and give back what he's been lucky enough to get on workshops, by doing this - that's the aim - perhaps it gets lost in the execution ... His podcasts do also ramble a bit and the metaphysical leanings can be hard to swallow on occasion, but past that, he is good friend to me, an inspiration to my photography and always seems to find the positive when helping his students, no matter at what level they are at ... In the Daily Critique sense of things, people are actively asking him 'how he would have done it' - they are trying to learn, looking for an opinion, or some direction ... Maybe that isn't a valid way to learn. Perhaps our own vision should appear perfectly formed. Certainly eventually we should learn to reject the suggestions of others and present work, finished, as it is, how we feel it should be. But for the people aspiring to be decorative photographers, or in a more mainstream sense, commercially viable photographers, the guidance of someone who makes his living shooting landscapes to promote environmental awareness or sensitivity, doesn't seem to be a terrible place to start."

First and foremost, I would like to thank Gordon for his earnest and sincere response. He was the only visitor from The Radiant Vista to break the silence and I applaud him for that as well.

Leaving aside my thoughts re: The Radiant Vista and Craig Tanner's sincerity (which I do not doubt), I would like to address Gordon's point about "people are actively asking him 'how he would have done it'", and how that "doesn't seem to be a terrible place to start."

IMO, I think 'that place' is, indeed, a terrible place to start. It has been my experience that most people who start out that way, end up that way - once a follower, aways a follower. To a practitioner in the medium of photography, there are 2 important realms - one quite tangible - technique - and the other, very intangible - the vision thing. Of the 2 realms, technique is of lesser importance and it can be taught quite successfully. The vision thing is far and away the more important thing and, while it can not be taught, it can be fostered and encouraged.

The vision thing is very personal and it must come from within. At its root, it is the result of being your own person, or, put another way, the result of fostering your own individuality. Now, to my way of thinking, fostering your own individuality can not be accomplished by following the crowd - even if the crowd is being lead by a sincere and passionate leader. No matter how you slice it, you still have a ring in your nose and we all know how hard it is to get those things out once they're in there.

Here's the absolute bottom line that most 'teachers' refuse to teach -

a.) Technique/technical-wise, the medium of photography is not rocket science. In fact, it is quite simple. It can be easily learned and 'mastered' by just about anyone - and if it takes you more than 6 months to do it even without a 'teacher', I would recommend pursuing another hobby or profession.

B.) Vision-wise (the 'scarey thing'), it simply can't be taught because, quite frankly, it has nothing to do with photography. Vision is 'simply' (yeh, sure, sure) an outward expression of the inner you. It is 'simply' the ever-evolving manifestation of what you believe and how you live and think. As the sportswriter Red Smith is said to have claimed, "writing (or in our case, photography) is 'easy'. All you do is sit down with a typewriter (or in our case, pick up a camera) and open a vein."

So, my question to you is - how do you 'teach' that?

urban ku # 117 - the image has a life of its own

Bright red leaves and flag • click to embiggenPictures can be put to many uses and made with many intents. IMO, one of the most powerful forms of photographic expression is also the one that involves the least amount of thought and technique to create - the 'family' snapshot. I also think that it is amazing that I find the snapshots of families that I don't know very involving and captivating.

Spend some time with the Basil family (thanks to Joe Reifer) and also browse the pictures over at bighappyfunhouse - found photos. free pie. and let me know what you think.

urban ku # 116 - it's a national holiday

Rain in the gloaming with street light • click to embiggenIt has been said that Henri Cartier-Bresson said that it doesn't matter if something was in focus ... as long you got the image - something with which I agree for the most part.

This notion about 'focus' is the reason why pictures made with Holgas, fixed-focus Polaroids, Kodak Instamatics, lores digitals, and other so-called 'krappy kameras' tend to work for me. The thing that I like is that the pictures made with these cameras, because of their lack of detail and specificity, become very fertile grounds for rumination and the imagination. 'Meaning' for the observer can be even more personal than it is with straight pictures.

All of which was summed up neatly by a quote from Oliver Culmann of the French photographer's collective Tendance Floue; "The image has a life of its own. Just because you take the image, it doesn't mean it belongs to you. How it is received, how it is distributed - all that stuff - means the image is an object that develops a life apart from you."

... which, IMO, does not in any way negate the notion that a photographer can make pictures with a 'suggested - inferred - implied' meaning or meanings that many observers will 'get' and, for the 'thinking types' amongst them, expand upon.

civilized ku # 57 ~ non sequitor

Remains of the day before • click to embiggenI can't even begin to explain why, when I was retting-up the kitchen this AM and I opened the garbage for the 3rd or 4th time, my immediate and only thought was, 'where's the camera?'.

But it was, so here it is.

I suspect that it has something to do with being easily amused. Or, just maybe, it is somehow related to yesterday's picture. I don't know exactly other than, as they say on the popular photo forums, "I like the color(s).

Can anyone recommend a good analyst?

urban ku # 115 ~ sunflower

This has been a good week on The Landscapist - lots of page views, new visitors and comments. Thanks to all. I really appreciate all the comments no matter what side of the fence you're on..

I will be launching the Wildness Close to Home Gallery with the next couple days - we have 5 participants so far but I'd like to double that. Those who have indicated participation must send me an email (click email me in right column) This is so I can send you the login and password info for the gallery.

Also, regarding the guidelines -

1. within a 1/2 mile of home, more or less, nobody's measuring
2. walk if you can, but some of you might live in a walking-unfriendly suburban environment, so get there however you can
3. signs of humankind are allowed to any degree you deem fit

urban ku 114 ~ photography that is more than entertainment

The walk to the 17th tee • click to embiggenFor me, photography is more than a fun hobby that provides an entertaining way to pass away idle hours. My photography springs from and is integrated with my deepest beliefs about life and living. I can no more separate one from the other than I can my eyes from my head.

I blame this on my Catholic education, first from nuns and their Mission Babies and then from Jesuits whose philosophy, at the school I attended, reads in part;

...The McQuaid Jesuit community is called to engage in an ongoing struggle to recognize and work against the obstacles that block or limit freedom including the effects of sinfulness, while developing in young men capacities such as self-discipline and discernment, that are necessary for the exercise of true freedom. Such freedom requires a genuine knowledge, love, and acceptance of self, combined with a resolve to be rid of excessive attachment to wealth, fame, health, power or even life itself. It would also include freedom from distorted perceptions of reality, warped values, rigid attitudes, or surrender to narrow ideologies. Consequently, to work toward true freedom, one must learn to recognize and deal with the influences that can promote and limit freedom – both those arising from within oneself and those resulting from the dynamics of history, social structures and culture ..."

Which is not all that different from William Cronon's philosophy re: wilderness;

"... Learning to honor the wild—learning to remember and acknowledge the autonomy of the other—means striving for critical self-consciousness in all of our actions ..."

For me, adopting either of these philosophies leads inevitably to this -

... It means the deep reflection and respect must accompany each act of use, and means too that we must always consider the possibility of non-use. It means looking at the part of nature we intend to turn toward our own ends and asking whether we can use it again and again and again—sustainably—without its being diminished in the process. It means never imagining that we can flee into a mythical wilderness to escape history and the obligation to take responsibility for our own actions that history inescapably entails ... If wildness can stop being (just) out there and start being (also) in here, if it can start being as humane as it is natural, then perhaps we can get on with the unending task of struggling to live rightly in the world—not just in the garden, not just in the wilderness, but in the home that encompasses them both." ~ William Cronon

And, from that, my photography flows.

PS it should be noted that, long ago, my notion of 'sinfulness' had digressed from many of the tenets of the Jesuits regarding 'sin', although that, by no means, absolves one from being a 'sinner' (in a more secular sense). It's amazing how often this change in attitude about 'sin' is the result of a Jesuit education. I quess it's the effect of all that 'freedom from distorted perceptions of reality, warped values, rigid attitudes, or surrender to narrow ideologies' that they preach so religiously (pun). BTW, the wife is also the product of a Jesuit education (Georgetown).

It should also be noted that the Jesuits are rather 'practical' regarding the notion of 'sinfulness' - case in point - Maggie, who attends a Jesuit university, could obtain birth control pills from the campus pharmacy as long as they are prescribed and used for the control of the physical and emotional effects of the menstrual cycle and not for contraceptive purposes. You just gotta love that kind of 'flexibility'.

Update on Friday, October 5, 2007 at 11:35AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Brett Kosmider wrote ; "Ironic you're showing a golf course coupled with a Cronon quote, I mean, it's no secret golf courses are probably one of the bigger consumers of water and pesticides for the vanity of perfect greens etc. Sorry I used to live in the desert and golf courses in Arizona drive me nuts. At any rate, I'm sure there's golf courses out there that try to practice "green" friendly maintenance; using less water and pesticides/fertilizers, but a golf course isn't really a model of sustainability, IMHO"

My response: Actually, I intended it to be more perverse than ironic, but, either way, I suspected that it would incite a 'golf courses are bad' response of some kind. Yours is actually quite thoughtful. Most that I have experienced are downright hostile and accusatory, as in, how can you be an conservationist and golf?

I was going to address this notion in my entry but I was afraid, as the wife put it, of filling up the internet but here goes nevertheless -

You are correct in your assessment that there are "green" golf courses and, here's a surprise, the one I belong to is a certified in the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses (More than 2,110 golf courses worldwide participate in the ACSP). What that means at my club is that irrigation is done with reclaimed water from ponds constructed on the course. Only approved pesticides are used and only in minimal amounts on the greens, not the fairways. Throughout the 2 courses, there are off-limits wetlands and wildlife habitats which makes golfing there a joy - coyotes, fox, deer, heron, hawks and variety of other wildlife sightings are commonplace. And, in my case, I always walk.

So, I would disagree with your statement that golf courses are not models of sustainability. Some are, some are not. It is eminently possible to design and build (mine was built over a 100 years ago) a 'sustainable' golf course with a minimal impact on the environment in which it is placed. It's all a matter of discernment and intent.

FYI ~ comment-posting problems

I have received a number of emails about the inability to post comments over the past few days - more today than previously.

I have contacted SquareSpace support about this and I am awaiting a reply, although the wife seems to think "... that you wrote so much you filled up the internet and there is no room to comment."

FYI ~ Cinemascape fallout

Over the past few days, there has been a small but steady flow of visitors to The Landscapist from The Radiant Vista community as the result of this forum post about Aaron's Cinemascapes.

It's interesting to note that someone over there was able to recognize that "Aaron is actually the son of Mark Hobson of The Landscapist blog... who isn't exactly a fan of The Radiant Vista." Then someone was kind enough to link to this Landscapist entry to put an exclamation point on the not-a-fan notion.

What I find interesting, although typical of when I get a mention on another site that creates a flow of new visitors, is that no visitor from The Radiant Vista has had anything to say about anything. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Now I know the problem doesn't lie with me - my musings are brilliant, informative and sometime provocative, and, my pictures are also brilliant, creative and superb. So, I often wonder what the deal is?

PS - and, oh yeh, my thanks to Aaron for letting me ride on his coattail.