ku # 454 ~ an "illusion"
Tuesday, January 30, 2007 at 11:57AM 
Veteran's Memorial Highway and beyond - a view from the summit of Whiteface Mt. • click on photo to embiggen it The recent cell-tower discussion, mostly centered around non-photography issues, got me thinking. How can/does landscape photography speak to these issues? Frank Winters opined that "...to put a highway up and decide not to provide all the services people expect on a highway in the name of preserving wilderness is delusional..." Granting that that is a logical deduction (and I don't), are photographs which depict a visually apparent wilderness scene, but, in fact, obfuscate elements of humankind, "delusional"?
The photograph of Veteran's Memorial Hwy (and beyond) that accompanies this topic is a case in point.
With the exception of the highway, the scene appears to be that of a vast stretch of wilderness and, in fact, chunks of it are. However, "hidden" in the view are quite a number of private residences and small hamlets - no cell towers though. The visual evidence of the hand of humankind is not apparent. The experience that one has viewing this scene in person is commonly one of slack-jawed awe at the "endless" vistas (other views, N, S, E, and W) of "wilderness".
Now, I would assume that most who take in the view, having arrived by car and completed the "climb" to the summit, a 276ft ascent in cage-type elevator (walking an option) up a raw granite shaft - the elevator is at the end of a very narrow 426ft tunnel (45 degrees year round) carved through the same granite - understand that all is not as it appears to be. They seem to enjoy and appreciate the "delusion" nevertheless.
The photograph, however, does not describe any of those elements which on-site visitors experience other than the view. Does a photographer, who is interested in the spirit of fact, owe an explanation to his/her audience? Does creating the impression of pristine wilderness where there is none (or only some) help or hurt environmental and conservation interests?
FYI, I included the highway to deliberately introduce an element of humankind into the photograph in the interest of the spirit of fact - the fact that the hand of humankind touches every square inch of the planet, apparent or not. I will never understand why so many Serious landscape photographers, who profess to "love" the natural world, create photographs that support and maintain the "delusion" that all is well. Perhaps, they only love the "beautiful" and not the rest (the most) of "god's" creation.
Reader Comments (3)
Mark, I agree with your suggestion that the hand of man is everywhere and should be included in photos. I like images of buildings that include the wires rather than the ones were the wires have been surgically removed. I don't like the wires but prefer the images with them.
My use of the word 'delusional' is in the spirit of 'if you want to make an omelet you gotta break eggs.' Now that the technology genie is out of the bottle the answer to preservation of wildness lies in more technology properly applied -- not less. For example providing cell phone coverage via satellite could eliminate frankenpines (of course we have far too much space junk...)
BTW -- in the early days of technology there were far more wires (where there was technology) than today. So maybe everything isn't getting worse (lots of things are tho...)
From a conservation point of view, isn`t the visual state of the landscape only secondary to ecosystem function? Pristine appearance is actually quite unreliable indicator of whether all is well with the underlying biological and geochemical processes. And a cell phone tower or highway per se doesn`t declare doom on all wildlife.
Trouble is that we really don`t know how many highways, cell towers and private residences nature can host before its cycles go out of sync. To claim that the ecosystem isn`t affected by human presence is delusional, but to claim that it works quite OK regardless of human presence is plausible. Your photograph implies a healthy system and there`s nothing wrong with that.
This is where your own "body of work" mantra comes in handy. What is hidden in one image, can be shown in others and vice versa. If you feel that something is rotten, by all means show that as well.
And still - the communication of any fact or truth through your art (Art?) depends on the perception of the viewer. So, who is your target audience? You can`t expect universal response. Delusion? There are plenty who don`t buy it. Could art, however delusional, be intrinsically harmful at all? Should the artist be blamed for his/her audience`s ignorance?
Does creating the impression of pristine wilderness where there is none (or only some) help or hurt environmental and conservation interests?
One could debate this six ways from Sunday. But my thought walking here through the falling snow is that anyone who cares about nature and goes there to photograph is likely to aid conservation more by who they are than they could ever hurt it by their most delusional photographs.