urban ku # 65 ~ they're everywhere

Sluice on the Boquet at Wadhams • click to embiggenKent Wiley and Steve Durbin have been engaged in an interesting give and take on Kent's Truth & Beauty entry in the Guest Photographers Forum. It's an informed and thoughtful exchange, well worth reading (and you probably should read it to make sense of this entry).

The discussion revolves around a couple issues - 'truth' and 'idealized forms' - that have been the topic of many entries and discussions here on The Landscapist. I thought I would use this opportunity to try and clarify my position on these topics. A position, which, unless you have read every entry I have written since I started blogging, might be mis-understood by many. I'll try to keep it short and simple.

The 'reality factor' of photography, its inexorable connectedness to the object of the camera's gaze (the referent), is the one formal characteristic of the medium that truly distinquishes it from the other visual arts. In my picturing, I try to remain true to this characteristic of the medium.

In part, that is to say that my pictures conform (mostly) to the visual characteristics of the documentary style of picturing - they are true to the 'topographical' features of my referents (people, places, things). I picture in this manner because I have absolutely no inclination towards sentimentality and romanticism.

I have absolutely no inclination towards sentimentality and romanticism because, in part, my intent for my pictures (as mentioned in urban ku # 64) is to articulate concerns relating to contemporary global experiences and I don't believe that sentimentality/romanticism is the way to do it. IMO, looking at 'reality' with cool direct gaze is the only way to do it.

Does this mean that pictures which represent 'idealized forms' are sentimental dreck? Not necessarily so.

In fact, I consider most of my pictures to be 'idealize form's of expressing/representing reality. However, what they are not are pictures of idealized referents. There's a difference between the two, a huge difference. As one example, the world does not need another picture of moving rocks on Death Valley at sunset/sunrise. What it really needs are more pictures which 'articulate concerns relating to contemporary global experiences'.

Does this mean that pictures of moving rocks on Death Valley at sunset/sunrise (idealized referents) are sentimental dreck and have no value? No, not necessarily so.

But, frankly, in the scheme of articulating concerns relating to contemporary global experiences, they are little more than decorative photographic baubles.

Now listen up - this is important - I have quite a number of 'photographic baubles' just as I have lots of shmaltzy/kitschy trinkets and objects around the house. I collect them. They give me great pleasure. Many of them are in large built-in cabinet (with solid ornate wooden doors) which the wife refers to as The Museum.

I consider my photographic baubles and objects de kitsch to be decorative art. They are both pleasant to look at and, especially the pictures, ways to connect to pleasant memories of people, places and things. Far be it from me to say that they are 'valueless'. They just represent a very different kind of value from that which I am trying to infuse in my 'other' pictures.

Everyone has a need to 'disconnect' in a hyper-connected world. I am no exeception. My probelm with those who create nothing but decorative art (and more importantly, with the art itself) is simple - in a world which needs artists who articulate concerns relating to contemporary global experiences, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Update on Thursday, May 17, 2007 at 03:33PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Bill Gotz asked; "What does "articulate concerns relating to contemporary global experiences" mean?"

My Response - as it is being applied to photography, I would venture that it means to create pictures which say something about the state of affairs on the planet/in the world today. Things like war, social injustice, pollution, poverty and corporate greed, as examples although I wouldn't rule out, kindless, compassion, good deeds and a host of other 'positives'.

In the postmodrn view of things it would also include questioning just about everything in the social/cultural construct.

urban ku # 64/crafted ku # 6 ~ Parking lot at sundown

Parking lot at sundown • click to embiggenMuch thanks to Bret Kosmider for passing along info about the Toronto Photography Festival. The festival's theme is The Constructed Image.

The festival organizers describe the festival as this - The exhibition demonstrates how the constructed image has irrevocably transformed photography’s relationship to reality.

Whether photographs are composites of multiple scenes or of various disciplines, materials and influences, hybridity is now a fundamental feature of the medium. Images are digitally altered, theatrically arranged, artificially staged and fabricated. Fashion, advertising and marketing strategies, many of which, ironically, were originally influenced by photography, are now frequently reinterpreted by photo-based artists as a means of expression. This directorial nature of working has moved photography away from the objective documentation of the world, and aligned it more closely with the freedom and infinite possibilities that theatre, film, painting and sculpture have always provided. Constructed modes of working are essential for these artists as they articulate concerns relating to contemporary global experiences.

This tidbit from Bret arrived at about the same time I was reading this from Barry Frydlender (see urban ku # 5 for link), a photographer who creates constructed pictures; "David Hockney said that if you put five photographs of the same scene together, people look at them five times longer." Frydlender, when asked if his constructed pictures (which are made of many pictures) were/are an 'act of resistance to a culture increasingly focused on instanteous understanding and gratification?', responded, "Well, what could be more desieable? Do you want prople to just blink?"

My answer to Frydlaender is an emphatic, "No". But then again, how many of you out there want 'people to just blink' when viewing your pictures? No One? OK, but the question is, how do you get and hold viewers attention?

Those photographer-artists who work the found/unaltered side of the photographic street are faced with the monumental task of standing out from the overwhelming photographic clutter of the instant communication age. It was ever thus but now it is exponentially more so, especially considering the fact that there is some damn good stuff floating around in the clutter. These photographer-artists must find either 'new' referents or very new ways of seeing 'old' referents. Otherwise, it's 'blink' and they're gone.

Those artists who use photography to create 'constructed' pictures (in all of their guises) have an advantage on the new playng field - at least when it comes to attracting attention. The naturally curious and eager-to-learn on the planet are inevitably attracted to these pictures because of the ambiguity most often found in constructed pictures. Pictures that are usually packed with information and possibilities just waiting to be explored. Of course, I have always thought that what distinguishes decorative photography from fine art photography is that the objective of the former is to turn off the brain and that the objective of the latter is to engage it.

So, I for one welcome the challenge of picturing in a way which 'transform[s] photography’s relationship to reality' and which 'articulate[s] concerns relating to contemporary global experiences'. In fact, although no one seems to have picked up on it, I have been posting quite a few 'constructed' pictures. Hint: if it says 'crafted' it's constructed (in some fashion).

PS - anyone interested in going with or meeting me in Toronto for the festival? Looks like there's at least a couple days worth of gallery cruising available.

FYI ~ make them an offer they can't refuse

Lake Lila sinset • click to embiggenI have thought about this for a bit and have now decided to extend an offer - If any of you are interested in a get-together, I am willing to provide all that is needed (with a little help for food expenses) for a 3-4 day canoe trip into the Adirondack wilderness. I have all the gear for up to 10-12 of you. All you have to do is get here.

I made this offer to a group before but, for a variety of reasons, it never quite got organized.

If you are interested, please respond within the next 10 days so that there is ample time to agree on a time to do this - this was the main obstacle the last time around.

If you haven't been to the Adirondacks, why not come for a visit and see how a sustainable economy in the largest wilderness in the eastern U.S. works? Hell, you might even want to bring a camera and take few pictures.

Update on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 04:00PM by gravitas et nugalis

For those who have inquired so far, August is the best summer month and late August is better yet. The bugs are all but gone. My absolute favorite time is the first 2 weeks after Labor Day. Warm days, cool nights (nice for campfires), crisp mornings and the water is usually plenty warm for swimming. And, just like the bugs, most tourists are gone as well.

FYI, the reason for the 10-12 person limit is that wilderness campsites are limited to a max of 8 persons but frankly, at most wilderness sites 8 persons would be stacked like firewood. So, if we get 10-12 volunteers, I can split the tents up between 2 sites - for sleeping only. We can still eat and hangout together at the 'kitchen' site.

Hope to hear from more of you soon.

BTW, you can respond on this journal entry or use the 'email me' link on the sidebar to respond

crafted ku # 5 - 2 for 1

Drive thru - phone orders only • click to embiggenOne of the primary reasons for which I started blogging was to have a conversation about photography. The emphasis has been on 'landscape' and, over the 6 months since The Landscapist has been around, the notion of 'landscape' has evolved, in my mind, to a somewhat broader meaning than the 'traditional' idea of landscape photography.

Much of this transition has come about because of my 'thinking out-loud' here on The Landscapist and your reactions and responses to it. To those of you who have contributed to that process, pro and con - thanks very much. Your feedback and opinions have been much appreciated.

That said, where all this has lead to for me is this - I now have a much refined focus and sense of purpose for my photography. To wit:

For much of my adult life I have been drawn to the Adirondacks simply because of its natural beauty and my first photographic impulse after moving here was to picture that beauty. I have gone about doing that in a very personal way - picturing, in my own pecular photographic way, what I thought and felt was important and meaningful. In that sense I feel that I have accomplished much of what I set out to do - discover more about myself and my relationship to and with the natural world. Along the way I also think that I have created pictures which meet Robert Adams' three verities of landscape pictures - geography, autobiography, and metaphor.

But, time marches on and now I think that photography ain't worth the effort if it's all just about me. For sure, I have been trying (and succeeding) to 'communicate' with others on my path to personal discovery, however, I have had a feeling that something important has been 'missing' in my landscape photography.

That is why this recently struck a chord - Peter Galassi, the chief curator of photography at MOMA, said about the work of Barry Frydlender: the '...open descriptiveness of [his] style, which has its core the notion that facts are symbols, full of socially interpretive information ...', and, his pictures demonstrate a "... willingness to address a big question outside of [him]self."

I want to include in my pictures a big question outside of myself. That question for me is humankind's relationship to the land, aka, 'nature' because, IMO, there is probably no bigger question for our times.

I have also realized that by picturing as I go about my daily life in a park - which happens to be not only the largest wilderness east of the Mississippi but also the largest state park in the lower 48 (bigger than Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Everglades and Yosemite Nat'l parks combined) - I am creating a diary about one of the planet's few examples of a functioning, not theoretical, sustainable economy.

The notion of a sustainable economy flies in the face of our current economic model, as practiced by both producers and consumers, which emphasises desire over need and depletion over conservation. If we don't want things to change for the worse, then things must change.

I want to be part of a change for the better and as David Hockney has opined; 'If we are to change our world view, images have to change. The artist now has a very important job to do. He's not a little peripheral figure entertaining rich people, he's really needed.'

So, there you have it. I am not changing the name of my blog to My Life in a Park but that is where my picturing is headed. I do think, however, that that will be the title of my book.

FYI a good read about Robert Adams

urban ku # 63 ~ Wadhams, NY

Boquet River ~ Wahdams, NY • click to embiggenBefore we moved to the Adirondacks, I had spent all of my time in the Adirondacks on the water (2,500 lakes and ponds, 20,000 miles of waterways) and in the forest and mountains. All together that accounts for about 95 percent of the Adk Park.

One area which comprises a large part of the rest of the park, and one to which I had never ventured (before moving to the Adirondacks), is the Champlain Valley region. In fact, the entire eastern border of the park is the Lake Champlain shoreline. This region is rolling fertile farmlands - lots of apple orchards and grain - dotted with tiny lakefront quaint New England-style villages and hamlets.

Wadhams is located a few miles (as the crow flies) from the Lake Champlain. It use to be a mill town. Now it's just a tiny-tiny hamlet with a fantastic coffee/bakery shop and a few homes. The old dam on the Boquet still makes electricity which is sold to the 'grid'.

urban ku # 62 ~ a church in Essex

A church in the village of Essex • click to embiggenYesterday, on Royce Howland's Sodium Vapor Night Life picture Bill Gotz wrote; 'What is the definition of grand or iconic or pretty ... I often see stuff on this site that that I regard as grand, iconic and at least beautiful if not pretty. And strong denials that it is so. Do I have a different understanding of these words. What's wrong with me? (Or you?)'

My response: It is true that on ocassion a picture of a grand (sweeping scale) and iconic (executed according to a convention or tradition) nature is published here on The Landscapist. Why not? Those who hang out here are an open-minded bunch and I know of no prohibition against it. Although, I must state that most pictures do not have conventional icons (that which is the object of great attention and devotion) as their referent.

Re: 'beautiful' - of course, as the blog subhead implies, all of the photography seen here aims at being true, not at being beautiful because, what is true is most often beautiful. I consider the 'beauty' that unites all of the pictures here to be an underlying affection for life in all of its manifestations.

At least that's how I see it.

8x10 Provia ~ Doyle Thomas

click any photo to embiggen

While working in the pristine landscape the intent of these images is to remove the normal "rules of composition" and leave it to the viewer to find their own way around (hence the round aspect ratio (no pun intended).

Doyle also wrote; "I hope you can see your way to posting these as I would very much enjoy to read what more open minded people might think about them."

All right people, you read what Doyle called you. Now get on with it and tell him what you think.

I think that by ignoring 'the rules of cropping' he has altered considerably the way I perceive and relate to these pictures.

Sodium Vapor Night Life ~ Royce Howland

Sodium Vapor Night Life • click to embiggenRoyce Howland wrote; I've been a serious photographer, whatever that means, for a couple of years. Lately I'm trying to pull into my work a lot more of the non-technical side of the equation -- the art of it, encompassing whatever goes beyond the use of tools and mechanical execution. Technical mastery doesn't take that long, but all that lies beyond it will take the rest of my life, I guess.

Anyway, the discussion in the above thread prompted me to send this particular image. I called it "Sodium Vapor Night Life". Last December, a friend & I went up to Vermillion Lakes, near Banff, Alberta, for a bit of night shooting. A sunrise or sunset over Mt. Rundle and Vermillion Lakes is one of the iconic Banff area shots, and many days you can find a metric boatload of photographers lined up along various points on the shore, especially for sunsets. As soon as the "main event" is over, almost always everyone bails back to town for hot supper or whatever. My friend wanted something different and suggested that we shoot well after dark. We were the only ones out there, besides the night critters.

Weather conditions were bad, but we know that "bad weather makes good photographs" so we pressed on. This photograph was like nothing I expected when setting out. Speaking as a technical critic, it has some flaws. And of course it's not really grand, iconic, or "pretty". But it hit me in a good way, as serendipity sometimes does. Instead of a classic view of the mountain with rich, sunset-lit clouds, a rising full moon reflected in the water, etc., we have murky tones, hazy clouds, and weird artificial colors from the street lights of Banff. During the day, looking in this direction you wouldn't really know all of that developed area is over there, since it is masked behind the trees. Part of the constellation Orion is visible above Mt. Rundle, but the stars can't compete with the town lights on this night.