civilized(?) ku # 17 ~ teenage postmodernism

Teenage Postmodernism • click to embiggenAs is often the case when I am reading something about photography and postmodernism, I run into some gobbly-gook which seems a bit obtuse. Consider this -

ASIDE - it might be helpful (or confusing) to know that simulacrum means an image or representation, an unreal or vague semblence.

...the Beaugourg Centre is a condensation of key postmodern themes: a monumental cultural and social implosion which causes a vacuum of meaning. It is a kind of mediafied black hole which draws in society, only to turn it inside out, creating an arch simulacrum: a copy of meanings and experiences that have no orginals."

Upon reading this, my first thought was to wander aimlessly, but thoughtfully - one could say 'contemplatively' - about the domicile only to stumble upon the above pro-filmic moment that seemed to somehow relate to the aforementioned excerpt. The question is, "How?"

I think the explantion is found in this little bit of bewilderment; '(in photography) ... any attempt to find some prior space of meaning can only be a naive illusion. All is just an image. A discourse of representations without origins: or rather, representations that are now theorized as orgins. For we are within the realm of the reality effect. The photographer doesn't capture an image of the world on celluloid, only an image of that which is already an image."

To cut to the heart of the matter (in English), I think what is being expressed is that in our media saturated culture, our brush with 'reality' is increasingly experienced through pictures. For many (most?) actual reality has been replaced by the 'reality effect' of photographs. In effect our knowledge of 'the real' is gained not by experiencing the thing itself but rather, through representations (simulacrum) of the thing. The meaning (there's that pesky notion again) of things is gained, not through experiencing the thing itself, but through the vicarious sensations derived from the representation (picture) of the thing - therefore, the representation becomes the origin of meaning.

Think about it. How much of your 'knowledge' of the actual world is not based on representations of that world? How many photographic images do you see in a day, a week, a month, a year, a lifetime? Magazines, television, movies, your photographs and those of others, the list goes on and on.

In a very real sense, All is just an image.

In another sense, it's all just a bunch of academic bs.

Mix and match or take your pick.

PS - So, how much of your personal 'knowledge' about things (life) is derived from your contemplation of your photographs? Is your photography part of your quest to 'understand' (gain info about the 'meaning of things' [life])?

Update on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 at 10:41AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: In response to "Is your photography part of your quest to 'understand' (gain info about the 'meaning of things' [life])?", Lori Witzel wrote; "...I think it's more about one aspect of mindfulness that echoes the Dutch memento mori painters, that echoes certain Buddhist-inspired Asian arts and crafts -- the taking in of the fullness of something while also taking in its evanescence, and (if I'm having a good moment/day) being transparent enough to share that with others while not weighing it down with myself.

Or maybe it's just too much fun to see and share what the world is full of...and all the aforementioned is just a convenient rationale!"

ku # 467

West Branch of the Au Sable • click to embiggenWhen last we spoke, Aaron mentioned that he doesn't really'think about composition AT ALL! ... I just like the way things "feel"...like deep down inside...it feels right...."

To which Ana added; "I think it takes time to learn to read your own work. My take on it, speaking only for myself, was that it did start out subconsciously. There were things that I was drawn to very strongly but I didn't know why and I didn't even have a mental framework with which to inspect what was going on. And a lot of my thinking about it was very vague and expressed in terms of just "having a feeling". But then after doing more and more work and being forced to confront it over and over again, I feel that I'm really starting to focus my own intentions. And a lot of my "revelations", as it were, are very clearly there in the earlier work it's just that it took time to be able to recognize them."

To which, Steve Durbin added; "... Some photographers seem to resist thinking about their work or trying to understand what they're doing. In my view, they're not only missing a lot that could be learned, but they're slowing their growth and diminishing their ability to make better photographs."

To which I would add, most amateurs seem to think think that the way to grow photographically is to 'learn' the rules, get the 'right' sharpening tool/RAW converter/software or camera/lenses/tripod/ball head, etc. - all the easy stuff. They pay little, if any attention to the 'mental framework with which to inspect what is going on' - they 'resist thinking about their work' in anything other than technical terms.

Which was why - back to Aaron - he grew very weary very quickly with online photo-site 'feedback' on his work. To quote Mike Lange, the NHL Hall-of-Fame voice of the Penguins, "How much fried chicken can you eat?". Or, to put a finer point on it, "How many times can you read, 'Wow. Love the colors. Nice choice of lens and post-processing.', without puking?

The point? Unless you're willing to dig deep inside yourself, all the How-To-Master-Landscape-Photography books in the world won't make you a better photographer.

Think about it.

urban ku # 48

Red truck on an early spring evening • click to embiggenSpring is trying to assert itself. It can definitely be felt 'in the air'. Even though there's still good skiing on Whiteface, snow is all but gone except in higher elevations. Nice.

Word has it that my hometown golf course here in Au Sable Forks, about 2 blocks from my house, is open. Nice.

I haven't beem able to answer any comments over the last 4-5 days (or check out if the golf course really is open) because I'm cramming - trying to get the Summer Guide out on schedule. I'm mere single-digit hours from mission accomplished. Nice.

Now, if they can just schedule the press run (in Pittsburgh, PA) to coincide with a Penguin home playoff game, everything will be even more Nice.

Tomorrow will bring a return to my regulary scheduled program. Should be Nice.

civilized ku # 16 ~ contemplation?

Spring time light • click to embiggenOver on photomusings Paul Butzi has been ruminating over the course of several posts on 'contemplation' and 'contemplative cameras'. At the root of it, the premise seems to be that some cameras create/help foster a more 'contemplative' picturing experience. Paul states, "If our goal is to have our photographic process be contemplative, and some cameras are more supportive of this than others, then it makes sense to invest some time and energy in understanding what features (or synergistic combinations of features) tend to add to the contemplative experience and what features tend to diminish it."

This notion is antithetical to my approach to picturing which is much more along the lines of Nike's exortation to 'just do it'. I find it much more advantageous when picturing to be in a 'receptive' rather than a 'contemplative' state of mind.

I know others feel the same. Consider this email which arrived yesterday with the subject of "?????".

Aaron wrote, 'so am I missing the point or is it just subconscious?

people comment a lot on my photos about things that make sense after I read what they say, but were not true intentions??? is it just something their mind see's or am I really creating it that way, just subconsciously???

example: the 3rd panoramic I uploaded to your site yesterday... someone complimented me on the great composition and juxtaposition of the "strong" boulder on the left and the "weak" fallen birch that takes the right 2/3rds...

I just went into the woods...walked around and saw many good spots, but the one I chose to shoot just "felt" right. I really don't think about composition AT ALL! Is that wrong??? I just like the way things "feel"...like deep down inside...it feels right...whether it be the photograph(ing) or the post-processing?!!'

The thing that gets me is Aaron's question, 'Is that wrong?"

Now Aaron's a photo-neophyte. He has been serious about picturing for only about 6-8 months. His photo 'education' consists of; several conversations with beer (with me), two 5-hour-car-ride photo "seminars' (with me), and most important, thousands of 'just-do-it' exposures. It's worth mentioning that he also spent a couple years during his home schooling apprenticing with me doing graphic design which gave him a huge headstart computer skill-wise.

Aaron can thank his lucky stars that he's learning in the digital domain. Except for the expense of purchasing a good dslr, he was already set up with a high-end digital darkroom and high-level skill set therein. Consequently, he could shoot his a** off and play with post-shoot processing to his heart's content, something he has pursued with a passion (maybe an obsession). Suffice it to say, he has crammed about 5 years worth of my early photographic 'fooling around' into a few short months.

Good for him. And, in answer to the question, No it's not wrong.

That said, my take on the 'contemplative' thing is this - do your 'contemplating' without a camera anywhere in sight. Be 'contemplative' while viewing your own pictures and those of others. Be 'contemplative' while reading about the aesthetics of the medium of photography. Be 'contemplative' while making decisions about what to picture (in a body-of-work/project sense) and how to do it (in a technique/techincals sense).

Then, camera in hand/on a tripod/perched on the top of your head/whatever, go forth and 'just do it' until it 'feels right'.

Frankly, IMO, if you can't 'just do it' and figure out for yourself (with a little help from your friends) when it 'feels right', maybe jigsaw puzzles might just be a better way to past the time. Then, at least when you finish one, you'll know that you 'got it right'.

urban ku # 47 - why I'm a postmodernist (sort of)

Vac • click to embiggen"I'm no art historian, Bret Kosmider wrote here recently, but I am aware of Straight photography (Ansel and the boys) as a direct response to Pictorialism. Pictorialism died away in the 19-teens replaced by Modernism. There's some debate as to where postmodernism fits into this ...

For those who are interested in such things, it's an interesting idea.

For those who are a bit confused by such matters, it's a change to learn something. So, first a couple very brief definitions (both of which are topics for never-ending discussion and debate):

Modernism - the 'modern' dates from the 18th century Age of Enlightenment with the emergence of and emphasis on rationality, technical progress and the explanatory power of emperical sciences - the basic hallmarks of Western thought and culture. In Landscape Photography, think of Ansel Adams as a consumate moderist.

Postmodernism - literally 'after the modern'. In Art terms, that means just about anything that challenges modern concepts and concerns. Think William Eggleston as a consumate postmodernist.

To further simplify photography-wise, modernist photography adheres to 'rules' and concentrats on 'grand-theme' subject matter. Postmodernist photography rejects the 'rules' and concentrats on 'banal' subject matter. Modern photography is filled with evident warm 'passion', postmodern photography is said to be 'dispassionate' and 'cold'.

Now, to be certain, there was, and is, lots of cross-pollination between the movements. Like life, it's a messy world out there.

All of that said, here's my point. I consider myself to be a somewhat messy, cross-pollinated postmodernist because (a few highlights) -

My photography stands in direct and deliberate contrast to modernist Ansel-Adams-ish landscape photography - I have deliberately rejected his 'grand-landscape' theme in my photographic pursuit of the everyday (considered banal by many). Photo-modernists overwhelmingly reject the pursuit of the 'everyday' under the oft-mentioned banner of 'who cares?', 'so what?', and, 'you can't just take a picture of 'anything''.

My much-questioned and oft-maligned corner vignetting is a very deliberate rejection of the photo-modernist pursuit of technical 'pefection'. Sure, I use the most modern of tools, but I thoroughly reject the notion of 'salvation' throught the pursuit of 'scientific' perfectionism. I obviously haven't spent enough time with lens-comparo charts. Anyone know what the 'best' aperture is on my Zuiko 11-22mm lens is?

My photographs are very often reffered to as 'accidents' by adherents of the modernist photographic tradition - surely, the camera was activated by 'accident' since the subject itself is not worthy of consideration and the 'composition' is so utterly random. Haven't I ever heard about the Rule of Thirds?

And, of course, adherents of photo-modernist photography most often find my photographs to be deviod of 'meaning', at least that's what I infer from the endless stream of 'what's-this-photograph-suppose-to be-about-anyways?' comments which my photographs elicit from them. What am I trying to 'say' anyhow?

So why am I bothering you with all of this personal drivel? Consider this.

All of the preceeding 'becauses' about my pictures can be synopsized in the most prevalent criticism leveled at postmodern photography - that it's all a silly, self-absorbed opposition-for-opposition-sake reaction to modernism. Re-active rather than pro-active. You know, being against something without knowing what you stand for. Little more than affecting the mantle of the 'enfant terrible'.

Bunk.

For some photo-postmodernists, I'm certain that is the case but you can't ignore the fact that postmodernism did not erupt in a culture-vacuum. It was, and continues to be, the honest product of a segement of the culture that, at the very least, questions the perceived foundations/wisdoms of the prevailing paradigm - societal, political, art and otherwise.

It's no mystery to me that photo-postmodernism emerged to prominence on to the world scene in the 70s. You know, right after the bomb nihilism of the 50s, the cultural unrest of 60s and the political mess of the 70s - the duck-and-cover, burn your bra and the flag era.

I lived through that time. While some jumped onto the Peace Train for the party and the free ride, many (a distinct minority of the baby boom, baby generation) did not. They (include me in) were profoundly effected, and continue to be, by the times and the questions. While they may have not known precisely what they stood for, they knew what they stood against. They and their heirs and descendents continue to this day to pursue, in all walks of life, the self-knowledge of what they stand for.

The Arts are no exception. Photography, as the most modern of arts, has been very instrumental in this pursuit. If you will, call it 'postmodern' in its current state. Everything has to have a name, right? But, in my mind, it's just another round in the Culture Wars.

So, when I hear the accusation that, with my photography, I am just being-different-to-be-different (sorta postmodernist), I am tempted to respond, "F**kin' A, man. Bummer. You're stepping on my trip, man. Chill out and free your mind. This is heavy s**t, dude."

civilized ku # 15 - the one-eyed monster

One-eyed monster • click to embiggenSize matters,or so it seems in the Art world these days, especially in the medium of photography.

I've never been a fan of big prints (see quiet photography), but then again, I always thought that 20×24 inches was big. Now I know better - 12×18 feet is a big print. Sure, I've seen my photography printed to 40×60 inches (printed by Kodak's in-house pro lab using a liquid-gate enlarger) for display in the Kodak Gallery (now gone) in NYC, but those photographs seemed to be big just for big-ness sake, not for any real aesthetic reason.

Then, about 2 years ago, the wife and I were doing a gallery crawl in NYC and we came across the photography of Massimo Vitali. One of his beach scenes, printed to approx. 6×8 feet fried my brain. It just 'worked' in so many ways - from a distance, moderately close, up close, whatever, the effect was varied but no less captivating. It got me to thinking.

So, I thought and thought and eventually, nada, I stopped thinking about it. Then the Jeff Wall thing erupted and, once again, I started thinking. Thinking about BIG.

Then and now, much of my thinking has been done right next to my 8×10 one-eyed monster which is situated within arms length (literally) of my digital darkroom throne. It just stands there, with its silent gaze, beckoning and taunting - although, I swear I can ocassionally hear a faint refrain along the lines of "try getting that from your digital crap", and, "film is not dead, film is not dead...".

In case you're wondering about the 'monster' moniker, it's simple - everything about shooting 8×10 is monsterous. The cost of film and processing, the cost of a high quality film scanner for 8×10, the cost of the processing power to handle really monsterous files, the cost of printing BIG and not to mention the increased size of my bulging hernia.

Fortunately, my investment in the equipment was made years ago. Fortunately because, for example, at current prices, you can either buy 10 8×10 film holders (how many I have) or, say, a Canon 5D body.

Nevertheless, the time has come to pack it up and put it in the car. Not as my primary weapon of choice, but rather so it's there when I'm picturing with my digital crap and I just know that what I'm picturing is screaming,"BIG, really BIG."

PS - not to scare the wife, but...I intend to 'restage' the Which came first? pro-filmic moment, because I want to see it 5×5 feet on the dining room wall.

ku for u

Covers • click to embiggen
Intro spread • click to embiggenAt times I feel a bit like Michelangelo - not just because he was often called Il Divino ("the divine one"), but because, like him, I have 'patrons' who are very supportive of my art.

I would be very remiss (and in deep s--t) if I didn't include the wife as my 'Medici Moma'. The roles of Medici Popes though are played by the prez and v. prez of the Lake Placid Convention & Vistors Bureau who, for a number of years, have left it up to me to create and present the public image of our Adirondack region to the world.

Over time, the various tourism guides, ads, trade show booths, et al which I design and produce have come to resemble a personal portolio of my ku photographs - never more so than this year's Summer Guide. So it has occurred to me that for those of you who don't wish to pop the $100 for ku, the book, you could just request a free copy of this year's Summer Guide and have a decent look at my ku in print and judge for yourself if my ku weaves a spell of the place which makes you want to come here.

In about 2 weeks time, you can visit ForeverAdirondack.com and request a free travel guide. Go for it.

civilized ku # 13 - which came first?

Which came first? • click to embiggen "My photographs are not planned or composed in advance, and I do not anticipate that the onlooker will share my viewpoint. However, I feel that if my photograph leaves an image on his mind, something has been accomplished." ~ Robert Frank