urban ku # 141 ~ let's make a list
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at 08:28AM 
Fagots in a field • click to embiggenJust a quick follow-up to yesterday's entry. This from Brooks Jensen of LensWork -
"We are fast approaching critical mass on photographs of nudes on a sand dune, sand dunes with no nudes, Yosemite, weathered barns, the church at Toas, New Mexico, lacy waterfalls, fields of cut hay in the afternoon sun, abandoned houses, crashing waves, sunsets in color, and reflected peaks in a mountain lake."
Please take moment and add another item to the list, a picture type that, rather than see another of the same ilk, you would instead choose to go blind.
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Paul Maxim wrote; "While I believe the quote from Brooks Jensen is probably accurate (I personally have been unable to find it's source), it is inconsistent with Jensen's general philosophy ... my guess is that it's out of context somehow."
my response: The quote is from LensWork #50 - the 10th Anniversary Issue, in which Jensen puts forth Things I've Learned About Photography - ... 131 tidbits I've learned about photography from my experience. They are personal, experiential, and may not be true for everyone ... even if they are not true for all, perhaps they may stimulate thought. In itself, this must be of some small value."
Paul also wrote; "... No one (not me, not Mark, not Brooks Jensen) has the right to say or even suggest what others should or should not photograph ... Mark, in my opinion, should come down off of his mountaintop and "allow" for a little diversity."
my response: First, let me thank Paul for his sincere apology for his attack on my pictures (in his post on urban ku #141). It takes a real man to admit when he is wrong. Thanks, Paul.
Removing tongue from cheek, I would like to address Paul's 'mountaintop / diversity' comment - not to discourage such opinions or comments because, in truth and fact, many of my ex cathedra pronouncements are intended to elicit just such opposing POVs.
Why? Because, as Jensen states, an open discourse "may stimulate thought" and that "must be of some small value" (although, I would eliminate the word "small" from that statement).
It has never been my intention here (or anywhere else) to (as many might say) inflict my idea of what is good photography on the masses. It has, however, been my intention to grab some them by the collar and shake them around a bit in order to get them out of the pretty-picture, camera-club, by-the-numbers scheme of things.
As my About This Website blurb states, "This blog is intended to showcase the landscape photography of photographers who have moved beyond the pretty picture and for whom photography is more than entertainment ... " which could simply mean that if you are a photographer who makes pictures that are in the pretty-picture, camera-club, by-the-numbers scheme of things, and are happy as a clam doing so, this site may not be to your liking. In fact, it will probably piss you off.
It is also worth stating that my idea of what is good photography in no way limits 'diversity', photography-wise. In fact, IMO, if one can get beyond the pretty-picture, camera-club, by-the-numbers scheme of things, much greater diversity will result.
Just as Jensen stated, my Things I've Learned About Photography are tidbits I've learned about photography from my experience. They are personal, experiential, and may not be true for everyone ... even if they are not true for all, perhaps they may stimulate thought. In itself, this must be of some small value.
'nough said.
Reader Comments (15)
Abandoned factories, desolate suburban landscapes, broken cars, flood damaged New Orleans, politicians of all stripes, postcard views, farmyards, "amusement" parks, down and out people, famine victims, war shots, "street" photography, shells, flowers, insects close up, architecture, to name a few.
Um, piles of dead branches with rocks, dead deer in pickup trucks, random shots of cars in parking lots, dogs peeing on trees, etc., etc. In other words, any image that I can see for myself by doing little more than walking out my front door!
Or I suppose I could just stop visiting your site, Mark, but what would be the fun in that? By the way, I do understand the point made by Brooks Jensen, but surely there is another alternative. I mean, if the choice is strictly between another image of Half Dome or another photograph of a parking lot, then maybe going blind is, in fact, the best bet.
Couldn't we basically add any kind of photograph that we have ever seen to this list? I think pretty much everything has been done 100x over, so how to possibly come up with something new and creative ?
Does taking photographs of waterfalls to tell the story of the basin in which sediments accumulated to form the rock that the "pretty" waterfall now flows over mean anything more than just taking a pretty snapshot of a waterfall? On another point...isn't judging a photograph entirely on initial visual reaction being a little quick to judge? Maybe the photographer has more to say to give meaning to the image.
Pfffffffft. Every day as a chef I prepared the same recipes, except that they weren't the same. Every time I produced the recipe I tried to make it better. Introduce new subtleties.
Besides, the photograph at the end of the process is only part of why I enjoy photography. I *love* those afternoon walks along the edge of a hay field. I love studying them through a viewfinder. I enjoy visiting abandoned homesteads and *feeling* the history, listening to the echoes of people long after they have moved on.
If I get a great picture out of it, fine. If not, I still get to treasure the experience. Or does the experience of capturing the image not count?
Just when I thought I was getting "it"......
Anyone want to buy a couple of Nikons, they make good paperweights.
even though there is only one camera and one camera operator on the entire planet of Mars, I am getting tired of seeing those images too. They should find a different spot on the planet with color...or nudes!
Your "dead branches with rocks" from the past couple of weeks is the best it's ever been, Mark.
Well Mr. Jensen, what do you suggest we photograph then? You pretty much wiped out everyone with that statement. I am like Don, maybe I should just sell my camera gear then. How about we just focus on taking the images that we feel passionate about and let others do the same. As far as I know, no one is forcing Mr. Jensen to look.
Isn't the answer obvious? We're all supposed to be photographing Brooks Jensen. He's pretty much made it clear that he's the only worthwhile subject living on this planet.
Thank you for clearing that up Sean. The answer was so obvious that I totally missed it. I will now begin photographing Mr. Jensen exclusively. :)
Something is amiss here. While I believe the quote from Brooks Jensen is probably accurate (I personally have been unable to find it's source), it is inconsistent with Jensen's general philosophy. There are a number of Jensen quotes that say exactly the opposite of what he appears to be saying here.
For example, there's this from "Lenswork #71":
"The oft-repeated joke is that today's photographs of Half Dome require an extra stop of exposure because the amount of light reflecting off it has been reduced by the absorption of so many negatives throughout history. I love this joke and always cchuckle at it, but the sentiment that all the possible photographs have already been made could not be further from the truth".
He goes on to say that the essence of the creative process lies in the person behind the camera, not in the subject matter. That means that no two images of the same thing will ever be exactly identical. So shoot what you are passionate about, regardless of who has done it before.
Again, I don't know where the quote Mark alludes to came from, but my guess is that it's out of context somehow. Jensen's philosophy over the years is much more consistent with the quote from Lenswork 71. Also, if you listen to his podcasts, you'll hear the same theme.
Which brings me to my post of 2 days ago. My tongue - in - cheek "attack" on Mark's images was anything but - the point was simply a version of the old saw that "turnabout is fair play". No one (not me, not Mark, not Brooks Jensen) has the right to say or even suggest what others should or should not photograph. While I may not enjoy viewing most of Mark's images (and I'm guessing he isn't a big fan of my images, either), I would never seriously say that he should try something else. Nor would I poke fun at his theme of "decay". But Mark, in my opinion, should come down off of his mountaintop and "allow" for a little diversity. What seems to him to be just another "pretty picture" might be thoughtful and profound to someone else.
I've yet to visit Yosemite. But when I do, I'm betting that I join the legions of photographers who have tried their hand at getting the definitive shot of Half Dome. And why not. It will be all new to me.
Paul,
How would anyone ever know what your images are like, what style you have, what your photographic interests are?
Never saw you post anything. Never saw a website of your images.
Don't know you from Adam. I can kind of figure out your style from the comments you make here, but that may be a crap shhot also.
Jim,
If you click on my name at the end of this post, you'll see a link to my website. It's simply www.paulmaximphotography.com
I used to think that I knew what my style was, but after trading points of view with Mark, I'm not nearly as sure! I suppose, as Mark says, that a little introspection and contemplation of self-motivation must be of "some small value".
Wow didn't expect the type of images on your website. As I said, trying to derive a style from your comments is a crap shoot. It definitely was for me here. I will have to spend some more time looking at the images.
You know, I went to Yosemite for the first time a few months ago. Beautiful place. I can see what all the fuss is about, especially once you make the small effort to hike away from the roads and car parks. Dripping with photographic opportunities for landscapes. But I'd seen many of them before and even the better renditions fell far short of the experience of actually being there.
I took a few landscape pictures just to mark the fact that I'd been there and also to keep my far-flung family happy that they get to see where I'd been, but in the end I really just spent the time shooting portraits for a week in Yosemite valley.