crafted ku # 4 - the grid # 2

Commodities in a misty spring rain • no embiggen - it's a Polaroid

As I have mentioned previously, we are very fortunate here in the Adirondack Park to have a land use oversight agency, the APA, which governs all land - public and private - use. The APA is strict and thorough.

Of course, that doesn't stop private land owners from having self-serving subdivision wet dreams.

Interestingly enough, the most responsible land owners are the big corporations - primarily lumber and mining interests - whose land is mostly idle. Over the years they have worked with the state to grant easement rights for hikers and sportsmen and, as they divest themselves of their land holdings, they most often sell to the state and the land gets added to the public lands in the park. But, of course, it's not all about being good 'citizens' - tax breaks and other $$$$$ considerations provide a nice bunch of carrots.

The biggest problem are the small private land owners, who under the guise of 'property rights', believe that they can do anything they desire with their property. For them property is an 'investment' that is intented to maximise a return on the dollar. If putting up a 12 story tower - and destroying the character of the place - accomplishes that, well, it's their 'right' to do as they wish.

The really odd thing is that many of these idiots located here for the character of the place. But apparently when it's time to get theirs, it's f*** the rest and on with my show.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, thank goodness for the APA.

Update on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 11:32AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Ana asked; "Have you looked at John Pfahl? Your grid series reminds me of some of his work."

My response: You haven't been paying attention - I know John Pfahl.

crafted ku # 3 ~ the grid

Everything comes in threes • click to embiggenIn 1785 Thomas Jefferson proposed U.S. Rectangular Land Survey - commonly know as the grid. Anyone who has flown across the U.S. knows exactly what that means. Congress passed the grid system into law and from that point on this checkerboard pattern was etched from Ohio across the western U.S. - what has been called one of the most far-reaching attempts at rationalizing a landscape in world history.

This exercise was another step in the ongoing process of commodifying nature. It was, and still is, all about markets and exchange. Early settlers in America set about commodifying everything - beaver, deer, forests, water and land.

Nature as a commodity. I am not suggesting that the basic notion is wrong but I have absoutely no hesitancy in suggesting that the notion has been horribly perverted.

Update on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 09:06PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Eric Fredine wrote; "Up here in Western Canada our spaces are big. As I've spent time exploring and photographing these spaces one thing that has come to astonish me is how radically and pervasively we have molded these spaces to human needs. And the grid fascinates me as a tangible manifestation of this. I often think of my Horizons and Roads photographs as being at least partly about the grid and its manifestation on the landscape."

crafted ku # 2

a balmy spring late afternoon • lick to embiggenAfter 4 straight years of of creating 'pure'- but not classic - landscape pictures, I am feeling restless.

As many here know, I have, to go along with my ku, added urban ku, with a little civilized ku thrown in, to my picturing repertoire. As I have done so I have also been exploring the photography of others with an eye towards those photographers whose work includes a generous heaping of landscape along with some reference to or actual inclusion of people.

My reason for this is neatly summarized by Richard Misrach when he stated that "There’s a long history of people photographing clouds for their beauty, their formal beauty, and I just don’t think you can do that any more. They’re still beautiful but there’s no way we can look at them instantly and see beautiful abstractions and forms of light, because ... those sunsets, those beautiful reds are coming out of the pollution. Some of the clouds out there are completely man made. It’s a different time and a different way of thinking."

Things are changing within the 'landscape'. More than ever, the effects of the hand of man are everywhere even though they may not be visually apparent. I can no longer glide across the surface of an Adirondack body of water without thinking about the pervasive level of pollution that exists in othewise 'pristine' appearing scenes. Many 'pristine' appearing wilderness lakes and ponds are, in fact, dead as a doornail.

In the past, my 'pure' - no apparent signs of man - landscape ku focused on the commonplace/everyday aspect of the landscape world. The reason was to draw attention to the pervasive and 'overlooked' natural world around us. An attempt to develop an awareness of the beauty which is found in the commonplace and foster a realisation that it is the commonplace that needs our protection and conservation, not just the iconic set-asides of 'monumental' and conventional grandeur.

I am not about to abandon that 'mission'. But, I feel that I can no longer exclusively picture the landscape with only a connoted presence of humankind. This does not mean that I will be seeking out obvious signs of pollution/destruction of the landscape. I am more interested in pursuing a sense of humankind interacting with the landscape - most propably sometimes for the good, sometimes for the not so good.

I also think that, for reasons attributable to a number of postmodernist influences, I will me 'manufacturing' or 'contriving' much of the human presence because I will trying to tell a story with photography which, while it may not be visually "truthful', will use the 'reality factor' of the medium to drive its point home.

Stay tuned. Please do not adjust your set.

BTW, I would very much be interested in reading about any thoughts you might have about your photography. Are you 'satisfied' with depicting just 'pure' landscapes? In today's reality, can 'pure' landscapes be anything more than a convenient un-truth which distracts us from the inconvenient truth of the state of the natural world? - this is a question, not an accusation.

Comments please.

Update on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 10:54AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: There are too many good comments to call out just one or two. Be sure to check them out.

Hugo sings...and sings...and sings...and sings...

Backseat serenade • click to embiggenHugo enraptures his 'captive' audience with a traveling serenade.

Do you ever turn your camera on family and friends? If you do, do you take 'typical' family propaganda pictures - happy, happy, smile, smile? Personally, I like looking for 'odd' everyday moments, slightly awkward off balance moments which amplify glimpses of the often observed but rarely preserved slices of life.

This may be getting a little too personal for some, but would you be interested in a new theme project gallery called Friends and Family?

FYI

Much thanks to Brett Kosmider for a link to an interesting interview with Richard Misrach by John Paul Caponigro. It's a good read which speaks to serveral notions which have been raised here on The Landscapist.

Read it here.

crafted ku # 1 ~ trees and flowers

relationships of the mind and other things • click to embiggenSomewhere between the lucid light of day and the murky mystery of night, resides my fascination with dead/dying plants. Flowers especially are much more beautiful and interesting to my eye and sensibilities as they fade and die than they are in all of their blossoming and mature glory. Fall is my favorite season, not because of the brilliant colors but rather due the prevalence of the state of decay which autumn brings. I like old houses and things that look and feel well used.

I have no exact idea why this is so but I am very comfortablee with the notion that I embrace decay. I sincerely and genuinely find it much more beautiful than ... well ... 'beauty', if you get my drift.

I thought about this the other day when, in a fit of self-flagellation, I listened to a nearly 1 hour podcast by Craig Tanner of The Radiant Vista titled, Fear of The Rules or Fear Itself. The podcast is basically Tanner's response to Mike Johnston's (theonlinephotographer) lampoon of online photo forum critiques - you know, the ones which natter on about 'how I would have done it' which are little more than mindless incantations of "the rules'.

In any event, in the podcast the notion of genetically imprinted (human division) preferences for 'beauty' raised its head as a justification for following 'the rules' in order to create photographs which, because they pander to commonly accepted/average ideas of beauty, will appeal to the broadest spectrum of people. He has a point - if your objective is to be successful in the Decorative art market, do your market research, determine what appeals to the masses, and picture accordingly, which is to say, according to the demands of the 'marketplace'.

Forget the 'inner voice'. That siren leads only to pictues which are far to 'eclectic' to appeal the masses.

So be it. I bring this up not so much to bash 'the rules' (and those who defend them) but rather to bash those who have criticized my work (and that of many others) on the grounds that it is merely a deliberate attempt to flout 'the rules'. The assumption that the pictures are merely an attempt to be different for being different sake. That we're all just a bunch of contarians.

Little consideration, if any, is given to the idea that I actually consider the referent in my pictures to be beautiful. And, I don't mean 'beautiful' in only the sense of that which my pictures connote. I mean, genuine visual beauty.

Maybe I have a genetic defect when it comes to notions of 'beauty'.

Consider this from Jeff Wall; ""The everyday, or the commonplace, is the most basic and richest artistic category. Although it seems familiar, it is always surprising and new. But at the same time, there is an openness that permits people to recognize what is there in the picture, because they have already seen something like it somewhere. So the everyday is a space in which meanings accumulate, but it's the pictorial realization that carries the meanings into the realm of the pleasurable."

PS - I am not recommending that you listen to the Tanner podcast. It's long and it's somewhat rambling. Instead if you want to a clear idea of Tanner's thoughts about photography, just listen to one of his Daily Critiques. They are amongst the most excellent of examples I have ever heard/read of utterly and completely sucking the life out of a picture with words.

Update on Saturday, May 5, 2007 at 12:05PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Stephen wrote; "'The rules' are not genetically imprinted. A fast look through art history will clear up that misconception real fast. And, as a biologist dangerously armed with a camera, I can tell you for certain that they're not. Proteins are, RNA is, but there's no gene saying, 'Why, yes, the Rule of Thirds is Nature's Way.' Aren't we all glad?"

Paul Maxim wrote: "... your comments concerning Craig Tanner and The Radiant Vista. I used to follow his critiques and podcasts faithfully when they first started - it seemed to be pretty good stuff. But then I "publicly" questioned his fairly rigid interpretation of the "rules" and said in one of my own posts on the RV that photographers would be much better off if they forgot the so-called rules whenever they stepped out the door. Follow your instincts, I said. Blasphemy!

I also questioned some of his metaphysical interpretations of how the universe works (as in the podcast you mention). That also didn't help my standing in the "Community". He even called me on the phone to discuss some of our differences.

You're absolutely right - his daily critiques can "suck the life out of a photograph". They can also, I'm afraid, suck the creative life out of a "beginner" photographer. Just go to the website and watch how they "critique" each others images. It's absolutely frightening. I also find Craig's patented phrase "In a perfect world..." utterly annoying. It's just a cute way of saying "If it were my image, I would do this and this". How irrelevant! But because he's an "expert", people listen (and attempt to copy his style and philosophy). Very, very sad."

urban ku # 61 ~ Muffin

Today - Muffin • click to embiggenTo take photographs means to recognize - simultaneously and within a fraction of a second - both the fact itself and the rigorous organization of visually perceived forms that give it meaning. It is putting one's head, one's eye and one's heart on the same axis. ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson

HCB also stated that We photographers deal in things which are continually vanishing, and when they have vanished there is no contrivance on earth can make them come back again. We cannot develop and print a memory.

To which, Jeff Wall responds (indirectly); I didn’t want to spend my time running around trying to find an event that could be made into a picture that would be good ... and, his photographs ... are pictures whose subjects were suggested by my direct experience, and ones in which I tried to recollect that experience as precisely as I could, and to reconstruct and represent it precisely and accurately. Although the pictures with figures are done with the collaboration of the people who appear in them, I want them to feel as if they easily could be documentary photographs. In some way they claim to be a plausible account of, or a report on, what the events depicted are like, or were like, when they passed without being photographed.

Those things having been stated, I have passed by (without being photographed) Fran Betters flyfishing shop a zillions times.
My idle curiosity kicks in • click to embiggen It is a local, regional and even national landmark of sorts. Recently, Fran has moved his shop - a rambling ramshackle edifice - about a quarter mile down the road into a newly renovated bluiding complete with his own restaurant (managed by his wife) and 8-unit motel. It's a mini all-in-one flyfishing resort right by the legendary West Branch of the Au Sable River.

As upscale (relatively speaking) as it is, it still retains the slightly off-center character of its proprietor. It is still a rambling and disjointed place. I like it a lot. So, I decided after 7 years to take a photograph - one that captured a bit of the flavor of the place.

My question to you is this; Is it real or is it Memorex? Does it matter if signs were moved for dramatic and/or humorous effect? What if the daily special was fried batter and not "Muffin"? Would changing the word (pre or post picturing) matter? Would the photograph have more or less meaning for you if it were pictured 'as is' or 'set up'?

What do you think? Is it real or is it memorex?

Update on Friday, May 4, 2007 at 10:59AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Amongst many other fine points, Royce Howland wrote; "... Photography has a relationship to reality in a way that painting doesn't. But I still feel the Picasso quote applies -- "We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth, at least the truth that is given to us to understand."

Kent Wiley wrote;"It's certainly a set-up." - In fact, it is not. It was pictured exactly as found. Why "Muffin" is leaning up against the ice machine is a bit of a mystery, especially since I had to wait to picture this scene while someone removed 'Muffin" from in front of the ice machine - so someone could get ice - and replace her in the exact same spot.

urban ku #60

Row, row, row your boat • click to embiggenThis is the reason that I left my happy home in the Adirondacks this weekend past and went down-state to Westchester and the Bronx. A glorious spring weekend just right for golfing, biking, canoeing or just finishing the clean up of the backyard's winter worth of dog piles.

FYI, I will be reintroducing the found v. contrived topic of yesterday (which vanished into the family-harmony ether) later today. Stay tuned.