The Holga thing - Walter Baron & Jim Jirka

Marconi Beach - Walter Baron • click photo to embiggen it
The Door - Jim Jirka • click photo to embiggen it I suspect that there is no middle ground when it comes to the Holga. You either like the photographs it produces or you don't. I do, a lot. Although, truth be told, I don't have a Holga in my krappy kamera collection.

I think that I have come to like Holga photographs so much simply because they are a kind of anti-digital thing. Sort of like my love affair with the Polaroid genre. Both genres have that traditional old-timey film look to them that digital doesn't have. Unless, of course, like I do, you work digital in Photoshop to a state that is a bit less "perfect" or "cold" than it tends to be.

But, it's not just the visual characteristics of Holga photographs that is different. The camera's gaze and seems so much more like simple looking than the studiously constructed results that most often come from employing more technically adept machines. The photographs have more of the feel of a serendipitous glance than a prolonged stare - less of the cool post modern attitude (which I like) more of a subtle tip of the hat towards pictorialism.

I wonder what Group f64 might have said.

Thanks and much appreciation to Walter Baron and Jim Jirka for their photo submissions.

Featured Comment: Steve Durbin wrote (in part); "...another question for Holga users: is your choice of subjects in any way different when using this camera?"

A bit of a rant

I recently added a link to the blog, Joe Reifer - Words, Rambling about photography. At first, I added it simply because he had a link to my blog, but of late, I have added it to my personal list of daily places to visit. One of the reasons I did so was this article about how the anti-copyright lobby makes big business richer. I mention this as a backdrop to this post.

In the article the author, Sion Touhig writes, "...I'm a freelance professional photographer, and in recent years, the internet 'economy' has devastated my sector. It's now difficult to make a viable living due to widespread copyright theft from newspapers, media groups, individuals and a glut of images freely or cheaply available on the Web. These have combined to crash the unit cost of images across the board, regardless of category or intrinsic worth..."

Another type of activity that is conspiring to crash the unit cost of images is the photo contest most of which require the "winners" to transfer all rights to the winning photograph to the contest sponsor. The value of any monitary award associated with "winning" is a pitiful pittance when compared to what used to be the fair market value of such a transfer of rights by professional photographers before the advent of the so-called internet economy. Simply put, the contests are nothing more than an on-the-cheap copyright grab by corporations who are using the internet economy to drive yet another sector of the American economy out of business (if not actually out of the country).

I have recently been made aware of a photo contest that is little more than another coptright grab by a major corporation, in this case HP. The really nasty element with this contest though is that the photo contest is being promoted as members-only by an internet photo forum, NaturePhotographers.net - a site which claims to be concerned with protecting the copyrights of photographers who post on the site.

In this case, the copyright grab is rationalized by NPN's editor thusly; "I began to think about my own collection of photos, and how so many of them sit in a slide storage container - or on a CD - never to be seen again. Many of those forgotten photos, while of limited value to me, may be just what HP is looking for. He also wondered how "many superb photos by other NPN members meet the same fate."

So, the contest was born and in exchange for all rights, "winners" receive a HP printer, media and ink "worth" approximately $1,000 MSR. Approximately, my ass. First, the printer, media and ink can be had at discounted prices well below the stated MSR. Second, the actual cost to HP is well below the discounted cost to the consumer. Good deal - for HP.

It is intersting to note that the announcement of the contest was met with skepiticism on the first posted response, which questioned NPN's support of such a copyright grab. Another post mentioned that the contest "...sounds like a cheap way for HP to gain image rights. The issue isn't whether it is worth while to an 'amateur', it's a matter of getting what an image usage is worth regardless of professional status. In addition it undermines professionals who would have otherwise commanded much better usage agreements."

The publisher's response was "...Another way of putting it would be that HP is simply “looking for more cost-effective solutions to conducting business.” and, as for undermining professionals, he states that "...If this contest didn't happen here, it most certainly would have happened elsewhere - and perhaps with less favorable terms. " Wow, a genuine All-American champion for "favorable terms".

He also trots out the standard corporate-side free-market rationale that "the times they are a-changin'" Of course, the free-market-excesses apologists always leave out the part about how all the little squirrels on all their little treadmills just have to pick up the pace in order to keep up with the changes.

All of that said, the single most ballsy rationale of all is that none of the aforementioned matters because HP/NPN state upfront that they're going to screw you, and therefore, no one is fooling anyone. It's up to each indiividual to decide whether he/she wants to voluntarily bend over or not. Of course, if one chooses to get screwed, he/she can always take solice in the fact that he/she is screwing someone else in return.

Caveat - In the interest of fair and unbiased reporting, it should be noted that I was a contributing editor, forum moderator and frequent photo poster on NPN. I ended my participation on NPN after the editor had issues with me and I had issues with him. So, lest anyone perceive this post as a revengeful hatchet-job, it should also be noted that I have been a tireless frontline soldier in the copyright wars since my first days in commercial photography over 35 years ago.

Featured Comment: Joel Truckenbrod wrote (in part); "...Are "the times they are a-changin'"? You bet, but that doesn't mean that we need to be lemmings. What a shame. I can't think of any other art form where the artists are willing to part with their work for so little."

UPDATE 01/25/07: A minor battle victory in a losing war - Due to unpopular demand the HP/NPN photo contest has been withdrawn from NPN. A number of "minor" pro players on NPN raised enough of a ruckus to put an end to it. Curiously, all of the big players on NPN remained completely silent on the issue, although I am certain there was a good deal of back-board discussion going on.

Kudos to the minor players who kept the pressure on.

Interesting aside: HP, like all high-tech sector companies, are zealous in the extreme about protecting their intellectual and product copyrights. Apparently, where they live, that street has a One Way sign posted on it.

FYI ~ the Group f64 manifesto

Thanks to Steve Durbin for the link to this.

The name of this Group is derived from a diaphragm number of the photographic lens. It signifies to a large extent the qualities of clearness and definition of the photographic image which is an important element in the work of members of this Group.

The chief object of the Group is to present in frequent shows what it considers the best contemporary photography of the West; in addition to the showing of the work of its members, it will include prints from other photographers who evidence tendencies in their work similar to that of the Group.

Group f/64 is not pretending to cover the entire of photography or to indicate through its selection of members any deprecating opinion of the photographers who are not included in its shows. There are great number of serious workers in photography whose style and technique does not relate to the metier of the Group.

Group f/64 limits its members and invitational names to those workers who are striving to define photography as an art form by simple and direct presentation through purely photographic methods. The Group will show no work at any time that does not conform to its standards of pure photography. Pure photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form. The production of the "Pictorialist," on the other hand, indicates a devotion to principles of art which are directly related to painting and the graphic arts.

The members of Group f/64 believe that photography, as an art form, must develop along lines defined by the actualities and limitations of the photographic medium, and must always remain independent of ideological conventions of art and aesthetics that are reminiscent of a period and culture antedating the growth of the medium itself.

The Group will appreciate information regarding any serious work in photography that has escaped its attention, and is favorable towards establishing itself as a Forum of Modern Photography.

FEATURED COMMENT: Frank Winters wrote (in part); "...This is the photo club mentality at its source..."

publisher's response: Frank, if I understand you correctly, you are right in stating that the Group f64 manifesto - which was considered completely revolutionary in 1932 - has become, in some ways, the camera club cliche manifesto of today. However, it must be understood/judged against the prevelent photographic paradigm of 1932. It really was a watershed moment in the medium's history.

And, I might add, that I am favorably disposed towards the tenet that photography, as an art form, must develop along lines defined by the actualities and limitations of the photographic medium. I have long been an advocate of photography by photographers who exploit and use the medium's formal characteristics - those qualities that establish photography as a unique form of artistic expression.

urban ku # 22 ~ the nature of truth

At the intersection of I87 and Rt 9N - Keesville, NY - click on photo to embiggen I find it interesting that in a political age dominated by truthiness, the word "truth" incites reactions of distrust, suspicion and, I might also add, relativism. Not necessarily unwarranted, but interesting nevertheless.

Certainly history is replete with disastrous examples of the populous letting their critical-thought quard down and jumping willy-nilly on to a bandwagon driven by someone without a proper driver's license. The inevitable train wreck that follows is always quite ugly (can you say I-r-a-q?).

Critical analysis - vigilence - is a hallmark of a well-informed public. Discerning the truth of a matter is vital in all walks of life and doing so is not always an easy ride. What bothers me is the fact that so many people have given up the task and lapsed into relativism - one person's "truth" is as good as any other person's "truth". Just make certain that your "truth" is a comfortable fit with all of your prejudices and preconceptions and everything is hunky-dory.

All of that said, I don't want this to turn into a small-scale version of the cultures wars. This discussion is about photography in general and landscape photography in particular and the idea of creating a New Landscape Manifesto. A manifesto that expresses ideas about a photographic concept that is created in the context of our time - a time when, Truth be told, the landscape (a.k.a., the environment) is under assault from the acts of humankind like it never has been before. A time when it is fair game to ask, "Does Art matter?" A time when it is fair game to consider whether landscape photographers who aspire to create Art have a responsibility to pursue, if not the "truth", then, at the very least, the spirit of fact in the landscape that surrounds us and of which we are an integral part - not just passive slack-jaw-ed awe-struck bystanders standing in the shadow of the landscape's "grandeur"?

BTW, please keep in mind that my purpose here on The Landscapist is not to speak ex cathedra, but rather to bring up ideas and notions about the medium of photography in general and landscape photography in particular that I feel are worth considering and, hopefully, discussing.

FEATURED COMMENT: Paul Butzi wrote (in part); "...I think if not having a culture war is your goal, nearly all of it (this post) is on the wrong track. If you're not speaking ex cathedra and you want discussion, but you don't want the discussion to rest on a foundation of conflict, then voicing your own political opinions is probably not the best way to proceed."

publisher's response: Paul, good point and much thanks for the feedback. Let me clarify a little more.

My political aside (can you say...) was indeed a political statement but I didn't mean for it to politize my much more general premise regarding the consequences of letting one's critical-thought guard down. After last night's State of the Union event, it just popped into my mind as a ready example of the premise. Nevertheless, your point is well taken. The political aside probably did politize the general premise for many readers.

Re: not wanting the discussion to rest on a foundation of conflict - Actually, I do want to read conflicting opinions on the subjects raised here. If Art matters, then personal passions and convictions must be involved and some of them will inevitably be political in nature. I am not ruling out things political but I will always try to steer the discussion back to the photographic relevence of things political.

Case in point - Environmentalism and Conservation/Preservation have been politized. "Serious" photographers (see Group f64 manifesto in which the phrase "serious photographer" seems to mean [as I read it] someone who has moved beyond the pretty picture and for whom photography is more than entertainment) who have the landscape as their referent studium can not, or least, should not be ignorant of the fact that their connoted punctum will address (amongst other things) things political.

My hope is that differing personal passions and convictions can be discussed without resorting to unruly contentiousness. If not, there is always the moderator's delete button.

FYI ~ re: ku # 452

FEATURED COMMENT: John R. wrote (in part) regarding ku # 452; "...if you want to damn the entire genre of "grand and glorious landscapes" you are going to need to come to terms with the real artists in that genre. Can you so easily dismiss the entire Hudson Valley School...Are you prepared to say the Ansel Adams' spirituality is false...?

Publisher's comment: Perhaps you misunderstood, perhaps I didn't expalin enough. Let me clarify.

I am not dismissing the HRS of painting nor am I saying that AA's spirituality is false. What I am prepared to say is that both "schools" of addressing the natural world and humankind's relationship to it are the products of the cultural paradigms in which they were created. Paradigms, man-and-nature-wise, that are considered by many (myself included) to be outdated products of a by gone era. Some might even say that, in the present day, they are even harmful paradigms - that, in fact, they create "false" impressions of the state of the natural world and what humankind's relationship with it actually is.

Do I think, Soviet-style, that the works should be disappeared? That they need to be denounced or discredited? No, not at all, but I do think that they need to be viewed and understood and appreciated in the context of the cultural paradigms in which they were created and in the context of today's realities.

FEATURED COMMENT: John R. also wrote (in part); "...you consider your photos to be a form of prayer while others are worshipping false idols? Are you serious...?"

Publisher's comment: To my eye and sensibilities, I am indeed serious. As for others, to each his own, although...in answer to your other related question - "Has any good ever come from calling someone else's focus of worship false while putting forth your own as the true belief? - of course good has come from many such judgements. Witness, as one outstanding example, the American Founding Father's beliefs versus those of European monarchies.

I would also opine that more good has come from a "true" understanding of various passages in the bible (like Bertrand Russell, I am not a Christian) which address "man's dominion over all living things". An understanding which includes the "true" notions of responsible stewardship rather than the "false" notions of irresponsible consumption.

And, photography-wise (which this discussion is ultimately about), IMO, the f64 Group, a group devoted to exhibiting and promoting a new direction in photography that broke with the Pictorialism then prevalent in West Coast art photography, did a good thing for the medium of photography.

In any event, dispite the use of phrases and words like "the divine" or "prayer", ku # 452 is not in any way meant to be a religion rant. I hope this adds some clarification to my comments.

ku # 452 ~ more talking about landscape photography

Fresh snow in the forest - click on photo to embiggen it I have always found it impossible to separate what you do from who you are. The Amish, as an extreme example, consider their work/life to be a form of prayer. What they do shapes and defines, not only who they are, but also their individual realtionship to their idea/ideal of the divine. At the root of it, that is why the Amish keep their life so simple and themselves so rooted in humility. A simple life has more "signal" and less "noise".

Part of Amish simplicity is the rejection of ornamentation and ostentation. These notions directly contradict their directive for humility. I find it very interesting that, unlike most religions, the Amish built no edifices to the divine. Amish communities have no churches, no religious shines. Their homes are devoid of religious displays. None of that matters.

I mention all of this because I have, for quite a while now, considered my ku photographs to be a form of prayer. They are a visible manifestation of my attempt to connect with the divine. That is why I shun photographic ostentation both technical and visual. That is why, even though there is a bit of the preternatural in it, I chose to photograph the simple everyday facets of natural world/life. That is why I prefer quiet photography and small(ish) prints.

I find much more beauty in photographic truth than in photographic fiction. That is why I shun the ubiquitous grand and glorious landscape - as it is commonly portrayed in the "camera club" style - as a kind of false idol. An idol that may hint at traces of a lost truth but primarily obfuscates the real/present truth. An idol that is meant to draw more attention to its creator that the supposed object of its attention/intention. An idol that works in service of the fictions of humankind, not in service of the truths of the divine.

So, my question is - do notions of the divine have a place in your landscape photography (nature/urban/civilized)? Should notions of the divine have a place in the New Landscape Manifesto?

FEATURED COMMENT: Steve Durbin wrote (in part); "I prefer the word "spiritual" to "divine," which has connotations of organized religion I'd prefer to avoid..."

Publisher's comment: I use the phrase "the divine" to suggest a sense of "other-ness" that lies beyond the boundaries of and is greater than self. No formal religion is implied or endorsed, especially those of western man.

FEATURED COMMENT: Frank Winters wrote (in part); "All of Nature is spiritual and that includes human nature. Photography can show this to be true...Not always but its worth trying."

No response required for that one, Frank.

ps - a really good read about the Amish culture is The Riddle of the Amish Culture by Donald B. Kraybill, The John Hopkins University Press

FYI

In case anyone was wondering why I didn't post this past weekend, I was in south Jersey, and even though I took a disk with a few photos for posting, I found myself without an internet connection. Hard to believe in the center of all that "civilization", but...

a very old urban ku # 21

A trip back in time - click on photo to embiggen it On the trip back from south Jersey yesterday, we finally had the opportunity to introduce my grandson Hugo to his namesake's house - the Hugo Freer (my 14xgreat grandfather) house in New Paltz, NY. Hugo Freer and 11 other Huguenots founded the village of New Paltz 1677. Today Huguenot Street is the oldest continuously inhabited street in America with its original houses. Hugo Freer's house dates to 1692.

I especially like visiting the house at night when I seem to be better able to sense the presence of things past. Hugo (28 months old) seemed to be more interested in standing on the front seat and "driving" the car. He'll be back again many times and I'm sure that he'll grow to appreciate his connection to something special.