urban ku # 84 ~ everything every which way # 2, or, Popeye slept here

Sea Haven - Inet style • click to embiggenThe little hamlet of Inlet on the Fulton Chain of Lakes in the south-central Adirondacks is, in many ways, a perfect 'snapshot' of the Adirondacks both past and present.

First and foremost, the hamlet is surrounded by 'forever wild' forest. In addition, within the hamlet, there is a mix new developemnt (mostly renovations) and some properties and businesses that have been there since the late 1800s. There is also a high concentration of properties - motels, stores, camps - dating from the 30s, 40s and 50s. That era was part of the motoring heyday of the Adirondacks in the last century.

With the advent of the interstate highway system in the 50 and 60s, the Adirondacks experienced a severe decline in tourism as vacationists traveled much farther afield in their cars. Over the later part of the last century, many of the 'heyday' properties fell into economic and, consequently, physical decline. Some aged gracefully with a patina of character and nostalgic charm. Others just disappeared.

That said, everything every which way # 2 (Payne's Boat Livery/Air Service) is a prime example of a 'heyday' property and business that is still hanging on, some might say, literally 'hanging on'. FYI, everything every which way (#1) was pictured inside of the boat livery. For a view of the flipside, see Aaron's life jacket anyone? cinemascape.

Payne's Air Service (seaplanes) has moved across the inlet to newer more modern digs, presumely to instill a bit more confidence in those who are in the market for seaplane ride.

It is this unsanitized mixture of old and new that is sprinkled throughout the Adirondack Park in little villages and hamlets (I live in one which is much more patina-ed than new) that I treasure. It is one of the primary reasons that I live here. Even though the Adirondacks are an extremely resurgent tourist destination, the place still remains very 'real'.

civilized ku # 48 ~ county fair

Sunday afternoon at the county fair • click to embigggenLiving in the mountains as we do with fresh air and all, on ocassion we feel the need to be like city folks - spin around in circles, smell burning auto fluids and eat inside. The impulse usually lasts only for a couple hours and then, feeling just a bit queasy in the stomach and light in the head, we remember why we live here and return to 'real' life.

Sometimes we even call the whole affair 'having fun'.

note for Carol - I think we should use the picture on the right for the cover of next year's summer travel guide.

civilized ku # 47 ~ the $64,000 question, or, would I give myself a 1-man show at MoMA?

Everything every which way • clck to embiggenRobert asks; "So your own work, this photo in particular, where do you think it stands? Decorative or more than that?"

Robert was not actually referring to this picture - everything every which way - he posed the question on the green chair and towel entry of earlier today. But, here I sit on Friday night in an empty house - the wife and step-princess are off to the Jersey shore for a week of sweltering beach fun - so, with plenty of time on my hands, I thought the question important enough to warrant a journal entry reply.

Let me state right from the get-go that this is not an easy question for me to answer but I'll give it an honest effort. It's not easy for me to answer because, ultimately, I don't think it's for me to decide whether my picture(s) are 'Decorative or more than that' - that judgement is really for viewers of my picture(s) (not to mention the test of time) to decide.

That said, let me offer the following personal opinions about my picture(s).

First and foremost, my intention with my picture(s) is to illustrate and illuminate. To picture the object of my gaze (referent/subject) in a visually interesting/intriquing way, which serves as a 'prick' (the punctum) to engage the intellect and emotions of the viewer. To engage in a manner that is quiet and contemplative, not screaming with shock-and-awe phototechnics. To engage the intellect and emotions in a manner that attempts to reconcile Art with Life.

At the risk of sounding immodest (why not, I've rarely be accused of being a shrinking violet), I know from feedback and comments (online, gallery goers, portfolio presentations, etc.) that my picture(s) 'connects' beyond the obvious to many viewers. I also know from feedback and comments that my picture(s) make pleasing visual use of the 2 dimensional surface of a paper print. 'Unconventional' use, perhaps, but whatever else they might be, they just look good hanging on a wall.

So, I believe that my picture(s) serve both a decorative (illustrate) and a fine Art (illuminate) goal.

At least that's how I see it.

Update on Saturday, July 28, 2007 at 12:19PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Jame Robinson wrote; "I am glad Robert asked the question, becuase I was curious about this myself. Because I have a past that can relate to such a scene...thoughts and emotions that are capable of resurfacing because of a personal history in the Adirondacks...this was a way of looking at and being drawn to the familiar, some might say mundane. Not that I have never seen, necessarily, a green chair and towel, but the fact that something otherwise mundane just became attractive, emotional, and possibly even narrative based on my own Adirondack experiences makes it work for me.

I know "that light" and "that forest" and the beauty of stepping out of an island forest onto the smallest of beaches for a swim at dusk or at dawn. I have reflected on "that beach" endlessly...I never saw it through a photograph of a green chair and a towel hung up to dry. Based on what I bring, this one is Art for me."

my response: Jame, thanks very much for the response. FYI, all - opposing/other points of view are also welcome.

urban ku # 83 ~ green chair and towel

Green chair and towel • click to embiggenOften, when the subject of the art of seeing/talent, some seem to think that what is being suggested is that either you have it or you don't.

Just to be clear, IMO there is a very broad spectrum on the have-it-don't-have-it curve. Is there any doubt that this is true, as Paul Maxim opined, across the spectrum of all human endeavors?

In the domain of art/Art (photography-division), does that mean that those who make decorative art (which the Art world tends to rank 'lower' on the Art spectrum) 'lower' on the what-it-means-to-be human spectrum? Absolutely not. And, while their art may viewed with little regard in the Art world, there is little doubt that it is valued in the rest of the 'real' world.

It is also worth mentioning that, while I consider (as an example in the landscape genre) Galen Rowell and his legions of camera club clones/wannabes to be a decorative artists, one has to admire his/their dedication and hard work.

Update on Friday, July 27, 2007 at 08:32PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Sebastian wrote; "Either side you sit on, there is always room for debate and things to learn. Great food for thought the last few days. Thanks for bringing it up."

my response: Sebastian, thank you and all the others who chimed in this week. Good stuff,one and all.

ku # 482 ~ do or die, or, sometimes I act like a hamster

On our little island on 6th Lake • click to embiggenYesterday's discussion was fun and informative. Good stuff and I hope it can continue.

Special thanks goes to Mary Dennis (who, fyi & imo, has a great gift for seeing) for bringing our attention to this passage from The Art of Seeing Things-Essays by John Burroughs;

"I do not purport to attempt to tell my reader how to see things, but only to talk about the art of seeing things, as one might talk of any other art. One might discourse about the art of poetry, or of painting, or of oratory, without any hope of making one's readers or hearers poets or painters ot orators.

The science of anything may be taught or acquired by study; the art of it comes by practice or inspiration. The art of seeing things is not something that may be conveyed in rules or precepts; it is a matter vital in the eye and ear, yea, in the mind and soul of which these are the organs. I have as little hope of being able to tell the reader how to see things as I would have in trying to tell him how to fall in love or to enjoy his dinner. Either he does or he does not, and that is about all there is of it. Some people are born with eyes in there heads, and others with buttons or painted marbles, and no amount of science can make one equal to the other in the art of seeing things. The great mass of mankind are, in this respect, like the rank and file of an army: They fire vaguely in the direction of the ememy, and if they hit, it is more a matter of chance than of accurate aim. But here and there is the keen-eyed observer; he is the sharpshooter; his eye selects and discriminates, his purpose goes to the mark."

This statement flys directly in the face of this rather ridiculous (IMO) notion, which, in a nut shell suggests that artists are not different/special in any way. The art that they create is merely the result of hard work and dedication.

IMO, this idea serves well those who work hard and are dedicated to creating a lot of stuff, most of which is decorative, little of which is Art. Most of those I know who are creating Art, do so more as the result of an obsession rather than of dedication. They could no more stop the creative process than they could stop breathing.

Does a caged hamster spend countless hours running on its wheel because it's 'dedicated'? I think not. Rather, it's acting out a preternatural impluse/drive to do its running thing - it's acting 'intuitively/instinctively'. In a very real sense, if it doesn't run, it dies.

I would also contest the idea that creating Art is 'hard work'. In the words of the modern philosopher George Carlin - "Hard work is a misleading term. Physical effort and long hours do not constitute hard work. Hard work is when someone pays you to do something you'd rather not be doing."

Most Artists I know, dispite the sometimes exhausting physical and mental/emotional effort and long hours they 'endure', would call what they do more a labor of love rather than hard work.

urban ku # 82 ~ a nautical oddity

A submarine on an Adirondack lake • click to embiggenDetails, details. If you're not paying attention, they tend to be invisible.

About yesterday's everyone's an artist entry, Paul Maxim wrote; "... 'Genius in the details'? Sorry, I don't see it my friend ... sometimes 'everyday life' is just that - it's something we see everyday; it is, in fact, boring, and in no way inspirational to anyone other than the photographer. An old green trailer sitting in front of an old barn is nothing more than what it is. If it has some special meaning for you (you used to own it or something), then the image has intrinsic value for you. But I can wander around rural Monroe County and find similar views of similar scenes. They are no more "special" than this one."

Well, on the surface of things, it is, indeed, a picture of 'An old green trailer sitting in front of an old barn'. The picture's referent (the studium/denoted) is as plain to see as the nose on your face and, as such, it does make reference to the 'old trailer/old barn' cliche and, if that's where one stops 'looking', then that's all one will 'see'. As the Rock Man from The Point said; "You see what you want to see, you hear what you want to hear."

Now, on the other hand, after reading Paul's critique (IMO, honest and sincere) Mary Dennis had a different take; "I think the word "details" is important here. I'm wondering how many old parked trailers there are that are painted with what appears to be very fresh green paint AND a personalized adirondack type canoe/water landscape. Not too many I presume. I think about the "who" and the "why" when I look at this (ed. emphasis) and believe it to be relatively atypical of the old-parked-travel-trailer genre ... I think a hippie painted it."

It seems that Mary 'looked' beyond the denoted and got a glimpse of the connoted, which, in fact, was a part of my motivation for making the picture. For her, the picture had both studium and punctum (studium denoting the cultural, linguistic, and political interpretation of a photograph, punctum denoting the wounding, personally touching detail which establishes a direct relationship with the object or person within it - 'I think a hippie painted it.' I can't stop LOL).

I can also layer on a number of my personal punctum(s) which mostly concern notions about what it means to be human (which I believe would be shared by many others who view the picture). I'll mention just one - since the dawn of humankind, art/decoration has gone hand-in-hand with human evolution. Early cave art is an obvious example and I see the 'art' on this trailer as a direct 'descendant' of that early human need for art/decoration.

And, of course, I love the postmodern irony that this picture is also a result of my desire to make art/decoration by picturing the results of someone else's desire to make art/decoration.

So, while at times it is true that a cigar is just a cigar, in the Art world things are so much richer when things are more than they seem to be.

PS re: today's detail - for those of you in the NJ and PA area, in these parts a long skinny sandwich is called a 'sub' which is short for 'submarine'. So, to get the joke, please think of the hoagie as a submarine.

Update on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at 01:43PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Paul Maxim wrote; I cannot let the "You see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear" remark pass unchallenged. That's just an easy way to not so subtly suggest to the viewer that if you don't get it, then you're simply not "seeing" it. You haven't achieved that elevated state of nirvana that allows you to truly see the world in all its richness.

my response: Paul, I am neither saying or suggesting that 'if you don't get it, then you're simply not "seeing" it.' What I am suggesting, as I have previously, that what observers get out of a picture is directly proportional to what they put into it. All Art is that way. The meaning(s) and appreciation that one gleans from a picture is very dependent upon the knowledge, experience, desire and openess one brings to the viewing experience.

Does this mean that all pictures have 'deep' meaning? No. Does this mean that all pictures have only one 'right' way to view, understand and appreciate them? No. Does this mean that if one doesn't see a picture the way others see it that he/she is a dumbass? No.

It is apparent from the comments so far that everyone's an artist has a variety of meanings for those who view it. Some, such as yourself (I assume), see only that this 'emperor has no clothes'.

That's ok with me, because I don't believe that I have 'achieved that elevated state of nirvana that allows you to truly see the world in all its richness.' Not at all, but I do know that I see things, both literally and figuratively, that many others don't see. Whether any of those others choose (see what you want to see...) to be engaged by my vision is entirely up to them. And I say that without a hint or suggestion of condescension.

urban ku # 81 ~ everyone's an artist

A scenic in a scene • click to embiggenDuring her brief but meteorically brilliant tenure as guest host, Chantal wrote this about the 'seeing eye' - 'The act of ‘Seeing’ seems to be an innate ability to see Life fully: the good, the bad; wonder in the tiniest of things, splendor in the ordinary or even beauty in things others would find unsightly. Those who See understand that its more about looking with your eyes, its about knowing, and appreciation, and in that, there’s a desire to want to communicate what we see, how we perceive our world. For many, it’s a near spiritual experience.' - to which I can only add, "Yup."

Then, yesterday, in a private email, I received this regarding yesterday's totems picture - 'My first thought when I saw this photo was: "Did he really have the balls to ask this woman to stand there?" - and then I thought, "No, he didn't, this is just one of those strange detail things he found and snapped a picture of...."' - to which I can only add, "Yup."

For me, it is all about details, especially the everyday details of everyday life. The things that almost everyone 'sees' but doesn't pay any attention to. Part of what I am trying to accomplish is to bring attention to those seen-but-not-seen details because I fervently believe that the genius really is in the details.

civilized ku # 46 ~ totems

Rainy day at the Old Forge hardware store • click to embiggenMike Johnston's recent post, The Moon and Venus, on his blog, theonlinephotographer, raises the issue of '.... Like it or not, I would say that for most people who use cameras, most of our pictures have purely personal meaning. Take this shot for instance ... chances are you'll have forgotten it completely by this time next week ...'

Well, I'm like 'most people' - my pictures do have personal meaning but I also like to think that they are not so much of the navel-gazing variety as to not speak to the 'universal'. That said, I also think that my strength, photography-wise, is in my body of work. Sure, I have some very nice 'stand-alones' but, for me, projects and series are the thing.

Here's my current dilema. I have returned from last week's trip with over 500 pictures, at least 45-50 of which make a very nice series about the experience of a place called Inlet. Now, if I doled these pictures out, 1 or 2 a day on The Landscapist, it would take a month to convey a real sense of the place - way too long to test anyone's attention span on the fast-and-furious blog-o-sphere.

So stay tuned. There's an Inlet Gallery on the way.