ku # 452 ~ more talking about landscape photography
Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 08:34AM 
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
Reader Comments (6)
I dont know, Mark. This type of image is a bit of a cliche. Been done before ad nauseum.
i like the little white tip on one stick in the right foreground. and no, i'm not really thinking about prayer in my work.
I don't think I'd call it divine, but as previously stated, I do have an intimate relationship with my camera and maybe I am in a "lover's trance" so to speak, when I am shooting with it.
I prefer the word "spiritual" to "divine," which has connotations of organized religion I'd prefer to avoid. I think many would say that photography (or other art) puts them in touch with something bigger than and outside of themselves, whether they call it divinity or nature or humanity or whatever. I think that sense may well belong in a manifesto, although it's hard to pin down, and not what I'm thinking about while photographing. After the capturing (only part of the process, of course), when asked, I tend to say that through photography I learn about the world, and also about myself in that I discover what I most care about in the world (that's what or where or how I photograph).
Yes. I used to wonder about the difference between the divine and everything else. (I agree that 'spiritual' is a better word.) Now I think of all existence as divine/spiritual. Especially Nature. All of Nature is spiritual and that includes human nature. Photography can show this to be true. I have been reading Emerson. He taught that everything in Nature has spiritual significance. People can fog the lens but the artist, the photographer can clear away the fog sometimes. Not always but its worth trying.
I'm afraid you are making the academic's mistake of speaking broadly of genre rather than specifics works. The broad category of the "glorious landscape" is an easy target and the vague, quasi-spiritual blog-speak sounds pretty, but 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, Albert Bierstadt, Frederic Church, Thomas Moran, Benjamin Champney, J.M.W. Turner? Are you prepared to say the Ansel Adams' spirituality is false while yours is true? While poorly-conceived, derivative, and poorly-executed photography certainly exists, maybe even prevails, in a genre as democratic as landscape photography, it isn't confined to this genre and it isn't caused by the genre.
Also, you consider your photos to be a form of prayer while others are worshipping false idols? Are you serious? Don't you feel we have seen enough of this sort of name calling in history. Has any good ever come from calling someone else's focus of worship false while putting forth your own as the true belief?
Maybe you can be more specific about these "truths" of the divine, maybe even enumerate a few. Enlighten us.