urban ku # 111 ~ pointless
Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 08:57AM 
Frontier substation and morning fog • click to embiggenRecently, I am on a bit of a quote jag. I don't know why but I am going with the flow so here's another one that seems to address Aaron's comments about fleeting vs lingering -
The ultimate wisdom of the photographic image is to say, 'There is the surface. Now think - or rather feel, intuit - what is beyond it, what the reality must be like if it looks that way. 'Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy... The very muteness of what is, hypothetically, comprehensible in photographs is what constitutes their attraction and provocativeness. - Susan Sontag
This statement goes right along with my thoughts that the mental/emotional state and capabilities of the observer of a picture is an important element in the ability of a picture to 'connect' with and have meaning for that observer. When I view pictures - including my own - I always bring the attitude of there must be a reason why the photographer made this picture - especially when the picture in question seems, at first glance, to be 'pointless'. That is because it has been my experience that those pictures, which at first glance appear to be 'pointless', are, most often, amongst the more intellectually and emotionally complex and involving of pictures.
It is especially true that many of the pictures that seem 'pointless' have as their referents the mundane, the commonplace, the everyday. This is very troubling, comprehension-wise, to those who are addicted to 'flash and dash' in pictures. If the 'surface' of a picture can't slap them upside the head within a nano-second of their first glance, it just ain't worth their effort to delve any deeper, or so it seems.
In any event, let me lay on another quote, this one about the 'commonplace', that sums up very neatly a large bit about why I picture what I do -
Do not be caught by the sensational in nature, as a coarse red-faced sunset, a garrulous waterfall, or a fifteen thousand foot mountain... avoid prettiness - the word looks much like pettiness - and there is but little difference between them. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Paul Maxim wrote ; "... Emerson always spoke of his reverence for nature in all its manifestations ... Nothing in nature was too small or too big ... "
My Response: .... which is exactly why he advised against being 'caught by the sensational in nature' which is, indeed, only one small facet of it all.
Featured Comment: Paul also wrote ; "... (Emerson's) use of the words "pretty" and "petty" in the same sentence had nothing to do with how he felt about the landscape. Rather, it probably reflected his view of how some people reacted to the landscape."
My Response: I believe that you're correct in your assumption - he was referring, not to how he related to nature, but to how photographers relate to nature.
Featured Comment: Yet again, Paul also wrote ; "... Where you are mistaken, in my humble opinion, is that you seem to be equating 'pretty' with 'beautiful' ... Why is portraying traditional "Beauty" in a photograph less worthy than portraying more "everyday" scenes?"
My Response: Not at all. Indeed, that 'confusion' is the crux of the matter. I have opined about the (vast) difference many times here on The Landscapist. You should take note that when I write 'crap' (or some other pejorative) it is almost aways in the company of 'pretty', NOT 'beautiful'. And I would agree with Emerson and you that 'pretty' is shallow/superficial and, by extension, those who wallow in, salivate only in response to 'prettiness' and slavishly make 'pretty' pictures (to the total exclusion of all else) display shallowness of spirit and character.
My point about 'beauty' and 'the mundane' is that they are not separate and distinct categories. That, in fact, there is great 'beauty' in the 'commonplace' and 'everyday'. That, in fact, most nature/landscape photographers only see 'beauty' in the 'sensational in nature, as a coarse red-faced sunset, a garrulous waterfall, or a fifteen thousand foot mountain...'. That, in fact, by their shear number and voluminous elevation of only the sensational in nature, they have conditioned the public to appreciate only the sensational which they set aside in 'parks' and then go about congratulating themselves that they are 'conservationists' and 'nature lovers'.
Or, as 'ole Ralphie W.E. opined, again about photographers; "Many photographers think they are photographing nature when they are only caricaturing her."
Featured Comment: Sebastian wrote ; "... How long do you spend looking at each pointless picture before it becomes truly pointless?"
My Response: A good question to which I have no answer. And, I suspect that the answer would be different for each observer.
Reader Comments (5)
I like the last quote Mark...explains why I enjoy your photos of a stone or a rotting tree--or Jim's photos of nothing but the incredible detail in a field of dying grasses--as much as I do. Emerson was a bit more eloquent and to the point than I was.
How long do you spend looking at each pointless picture before it becomes truly pointless? The pointless ones outnumber the great ones by a huge number!
With all respect, Mark, I believe your Emerson quote is taken out of context. This quote - and I admit that I'm not familiar with this particular quote's origin - appears on the surface to be inconsistent with Emerson's general philosophy. And by the way, I think "world" should be "word" in the quote.
Emerson always spoke of his reverence for nature in all its manifestations (sunrises, sunsets, flowing water, fresh snow, mountains, etc.). To him, Nature represented Beauty and was virtually synonymous with Truth and Goodness. All of these were, in his mind, attributes and evidence of the divine. In that context, your quote probably makes sense because it was all part of the same thing. Nothing in nature was too small or too big. His use of the words "pretty" and "petty" in the same sentence had nothing to do with how he felt about the landscape. Rather, it probably reflected his view of how some people reacted to the landscape.
With respect to this discussion, I would point to this quotation from Emerson (from "Nature"):
"First, the simple perception of natural forms is a delight. The influence of the forms and actions in nature, is so needful to man, that, in its lowest functions, it seems to lie on the confines of commodity and beauty. To the body and mind which have been cramped by noxious work or company, nature is medicinal and restores their tone. The tradesman, the attorney comes out of the din and craft of the street, and sees the sky and the woods, and is a man again. In their eternal calm, he finds himself. The health of the eye seems to demand a horizon. We are never tired, so long as we can see far enough."
I think one could use that as justification to make pictures that depict natural beauty. Where you are mistaken, in my humble opinion, is that you seem to be equating "pretty" with "beautiful". Emerson made a distinction between the two terms that you seem to ignore. What Emerson disliked most in "Man" was shallowness of spirit and character. To him, "pretty" was superficial or shallow. "Beauty" was something far deeper. On that point, you and I (and Emerson?) probably agree.
So again I ask: Why is portraying traditional "Beauty" in a photograph less worthy than portraying more "everyday" scenes? Why do you summarily dismiss the one as "crap" and elevate the other as indisputable "Art"? Why are both not equally relevant?
Sebastian wrote (and I mistakenly deleted):
I really would like to know how much time people spend looking at a photograph. I'm sure it depends on the context in which you look at the photo (gallery vs online) or presumed quality of the photo (recommended by a trusted source vs self promotion). I think a good deal of people may treat the photo differently depending on that "slapped upside the head" feeling they get. Is it PRETTY, BEAUTIFUL, POIGNANT, MYSTERIOUS, etc... and look deeper based on that initial reaction.
Kent Wiley wrote and I mistakenly deleted:
The big influence for me right now seems to be someone by the name of William Cronon, a professsor of environmental history at the University of Wisconsin. His long essay - "The Trouble with Wilderness, or Getting Back to the Wrong Nature" - is well worth reading. Here's my long quote of the day. It defines the problem as Cronon sees it:
"...there is nothing natural about the concept of wilderness. It is entirely a creation of the culture that holds it dear, a product of the very history it seeks to deny. Indeed, one of the most striking proofs of the cultural invention of wilderness is its thoroughgoing erasure of the history from which it sprang. In virtually all of its manifestations, wilderness represents a flight from history. Seen as the original garden, it is a place outside of time, from which human beings had to be ejected before the fallen world of history could properly begin. Seen as the frontier, it is a savage world at the dawn of civilization, whose transformation represents the very beginning of the national historical epic. Seen as the bold landscape of frontier heroism, it is the place of youth and childhood, into which men escape by abandoning their pasts and entering a world of freedom where the constraints of civilization fade into memory. Seen as the sacred sublime, it is the home of a God who transcends history by standing as the One who remains untouched and unchanged by time’s arrow. No matter what the angle from which we regard it, wilderness offers us the illusion that we can escape the cares and troubles of the world in which our past has ensnared us."
His point is about finding "wildness" wherever it may be - which is not only west of the Mississippi River. Beauty may be subjective, but it certainly can be found nearly anywhere.