FYI ~ re: ku # 452
Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 03:15PM 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 Paradigms, man-and-nature-wise, that are considered by many (myself included) to be outdated products of a by gone era.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.
Reader Comments (2)
While all of this conversation has been interesting, I have to admit it frightens me a little as well. And what frightens me is the almost casual use of the word "truth".
Truth. Throughout history, it has been those who lay claim to having the "inside track" to truth, those who claim that what they believe is the truth, those who claim that all else is false, who have been largely responsible for the world's misery. When two sets of diametrically opposed "truth" clash on a grand scale, we all suffer for it. Virtually all wars were (are) the result of multiple views of the "truth" about religion or culture or race or the control of wealth. The irony, of course, is that when the war's are over, the "truth" is still unknown.
None of us can possibly know the "truth" about much of anything. We are mortal and limited. The good news is - it doesn't matter! We can all pursue our beliefs (a much better word, I think, than "truth") without stomping on someone else's. With respect to photography, or any art form, this is especially the case. My form of expression will not be the same as yours. My "Manifesto" will not be the same as yours. And for me, that's a good thing.
Paul, you're right that truth is a heavily loaded word, and can evoke very negative associations. On the other hand, that shows how powerful it is emotionally -- we all have a gut feeling about what is true for us. We may feel that a picture expresses a certain truth (not THE truth) about the world. In this context I like Richard Avedon's words from In the American West: "All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth." But I would add that at least some of them present "a" truth, at least for some. I expect that's fairly close to your sense of "belief."
I looked up the manifesto of the f/64 group (Ansel Adams and others) and found it remarkably brief and low-key. The word truth does not appear. It also seems vague and naive in places, but those may be qualities that any such statement has for us 75 years later.