urban renewal # 1 - a new kind of ku
Sunday, March 4, 2007 at 04:44PM 
Throughout my commercial photography career, I specialized in 'creating' creative solutions to tell a client's 'story'.
Virtually all of my commercial work depended upon controlling every detail in a photograph - models, props, locations, sets, lighting, etc. In the commercial world the last thing we depended upon was the 'contingient features of the actual world'. I can't tell you how many hours I spent picking and arranging peas (as an example) for food photography but, you know what? - I enjoyed it.
Since I have been (and still am) a proponent of landscape photography that is true to 'the spirit of fact', I never thought to bring that commercial sensibility to my landscape photography. Jeff Wall's work has opened up a new awareness in me of 'the spirit of fact' - that the 'fact' does not always have to be about the literal 'contingient features of the actual world'.
There is meaning and narrative that is also 'fact' and those 'connoteds' might sometimes be best served by selectively arranging 'referents' in order to better convey those "spirit of fact(s)'.
The Adirondacks without the APA • click on photo to embiggen itThe bitch of it is though, I can't bang these photographs out like I can (and will continue to do) my 'contingient features of the actual world' ku. Urban renewal kus need lots of planning/photographing and lots of post pro-filmic moment(s) work - what Lee Bacchus labeled 'artistic rigor and craft'. If I really apply myself, I might be able to create 3-4 urban renewal kus a year.
PS - the self-referential particulars of urban renewal #1 are; Stanley Kubrick - 2001: A Space Oddessy , Jerry Uelsmann - everything he has ever done, Jeff Wall, and a tip-o'-the-hat to Terry Gilliam and the road scenes in Brazil.
Featured Comment Joel Truckenbrod wrote; "...One of the problems that I'm running into, is that it looks like a constructed image to me..."
publisher's question: Joel, could you please explain this in a little more detail?
gravitas et nugalis
Joel's response to my request can be read in in the comments. Joel basically stated that he could see 'artifacts' of digital creation in the image - mainly related to spatial and light relationships. In fact this image was created from separate photographs that were not pre-planned in order to maintain flawless blending characteristics. I was just playing around with an idea and exploring possiblities with existing photographs.
That said, I have been showing this photograph around in print and on online forums. The absolutely remarkable reaction by everyone who has seen the print is; at first - they immediately accept it as a photograph of a real place. They spend a great deal of time trying to figure out where it was taken. Failing that, they then start to ask questions like - what happened to the pavement? Did runoff/melting snow from the mountain have anything to do with it?
Online responses have run something like these; "Wonderful light and colors ... Another example that there is beauty everywhere if you want to see it." and "...What a fantastic photo. I love it. The colors are superb. Especially love the water gushing by in the trench. Easily a 10 from me." No mention of fakery at all.
Interestingly, no one asked about the gravestone. I wonder what that's about?
Also interesting, is the fact that the only ones who immediately recognized it for what it was were 2 teenage girls, my step-daughter and her friend. My step-daughter's immediate reaction (after only a few seconds) was; "You made this didn't you?"
Teenagers are such smart-ass know-it-alls.
Reader Comments (6)
Just out of curiosity, can a planned "ku", still be a "ku" if it's no longer taken in a state of sheer intuitive emptiness? Or will you have to find another name to call it?
Ana - for exactly the reason you mentioned, the work will probably go under the simple heading of urban renewal with no ku attached
Shit Mark, you've got some very effective "selectively arranged referents" going on in this photograph. I was jarred as my eyes came across that gravestone. Amazing post pro-filmic moment work here. I think I get it now.
Hmmm.
An intriguing concept, though I'm not sure that I'm "sold" yet. One of the problems that I'm running into, is that it looks like a constructed image to me. As a result, I get a bit hung up on the rendering.
Publisher's question: Joel, could you please explain this in a little more detail?
Sure thing.
As I thought about what exactly was bothering me, I came to the conclusion that my answer will be as much an admission of personal biases as anything. So, take it for the little it's worth. I have no desire to offend. Here goes...
Much of this goes back to previous topics that have been discussed on this very blog from time to time. One of them being the idea that a photograph is most powerful when it is firmly rooted in the "real" (a debatable term no doubt). I think I can state, with some degree of safety, that the capture of some tangible "reality" is what makes photography unique among the various artistic disciplines.
When I look at Jeff Wall's images, they still function like a traditional photograph. Sure, I know they are in fact constructed realities. However, how they are visually communicated is no different than if I were to step out my front door and make a photograph of the "real world". They seem operate within the confines of how we see and do things here on planet earth, rather than stepping into some void where an alternative sci-fi possibility has taken hold.
So, perhaps that already answers some of what is bothering me here. There are things going on that simply wouldn't happen (For example, a gravestone in a parking lot that is on a platform floating in space - and for some reason missing a vault). Spatial and lighting relationships that are close to the real deal, but just far enough skewed that it just doesn't feel 100% believable. In other words, there's enough visual evidence of a digitally constructed image that it's nearly impossible for me to read it as a "photograph". The irony, is that sensation I get from your KU's is the almost 180 degree opposite of this.
Thanks for bearing with me,
Joel the close-minded traditionalist
Thanks Joel
one note - on a well calibrated monitor, you should see granite walls underpinning the gravestone pavement