ku # 468
Thursday, April 5, 2007 at 08:40AM 
Rain drops on branches • click to embiggenSince the switch to SquareSpace, I have been relatively pleased with the number of comments and visitor/guest participation here on The Landscapist. The number of page views and visitors also continues its steady rise as well aided by occasional spikes from recommendations/links such as the one from George Barr. My thanks to all who, in my eyes, are helping make The Landscapist a most enjoyable labor of love.
On the subject of comments, relative to Steve Durbin's comment - '... some photographers resist thinking about their work or trying to understand what they're doing..." - it's interesting to note that most topics and discussions on The Landscapist are aimed at inciting the act of thinking about the medium of photography, its import, its possibilities, its movements/history, its character and its qualities. I am quite happy and somewhat proud to note that the ever popular topic of gear hasn't raised its dreary head.
If comments were the only thing I wanted on The Landscapist, I'd be using words like Canon, Nikon, Leica, Ebony, CMOS, Foveon, resolution, pixel count, prime, zoom, calibration, noise, etc., etc., etc... but I don't. (Ok, I just did, but for illustration purposes only.) I, for one, really don't care that some people prefer x over y with the accompanying and endlessly repetitive reasons why.
That said, IMO, one of the primarily reasons so little Art is created by the great unwashed horde of photographers is simple. Photography is amongst the most mechanistic of the arts and that characteristic lends itself well to those who like to tinker with, own, and take pride in owning things. That's why gear makers flourish with a never ending parade of 'better' stuff.
But, good photography is not about what created it, it is about who created it. Simply put, the more fully developed a would-be artist is as a person relative to their understanding of self and to what they want to 'say' - that which is 'interior' - the better their chance of creating Art with full and rich meaning.
Sure, gear must be matched to the 'vision', but, that said, the simpler the better. Get what you need and forget about it. Then get on to using the most important items in your 'kit' - your brain and your soul.
Then, just show me the pictures, please.
Reader Comments (3)
About gear: I find it absolutely hilarious that there are people out there who think their cameras are what makes or breaks the image. Sure there are certain pieces of gear that's required to make the image wanted, like high-speed shutters, a particular lens or filter, but for the most part, all that is really required is a vision.
Your suggestion to "Get what you need and forget about it" is some of the best advice anyone could give a beginning photographer. Unless you're taking pictures of bullets breaking glass, hummingbirds or solar eclipses, chances are just about any gear is going to do the job.
Maybe the reason all these gearheads put so much stock into what kind of lens or tripod they're using is the hope that if they use the same gear as another photographer, they too can take those same kinds of pictures. But do we really need another Ansel Adams or another Michael Kenna?
A sense of style, personal vision or a force of habit?
Many photographers desire to achieve a certain "style" something I
presume develops from their own unique "personal vision". However, many times what we end up with is photography that is simply a product of repeated behaviour, similar images displaying similar qualities.
The force of habit is very strong and in my opinion something that needs to be recognized and addressed, if one is to continue to expand their creativity.
For example, in regards to personal vision, have you ever noticed how you don't need to teach a very young child how to be creative, to have imagination? Vision, in an artistic sense is not a problem. Give them a crayon and they create purple elephants with two heads, picture themselves as astronauts, teachers, and president. Anything is possible.
Soon though, we teach them to colour within the lines. We reward the
ones who adhere to the rules.
We teach them what they are good at and what they aren't. They fulfil
our expectations.
In a similar, photographic sense, personal vision, in my opinion, is not
something we learn to achieve, something we develop. In order to
achieve this sense of personal vision one simply has to remove all the
mental roadblocks, mostly self imposed and simply look to see.
Many of these roadblocks are created out of habitual behaviour.
Sometimes this behaviour is a result of past success, so the process is
repeated. Sometimes it's due to our displaying a certain sense of style,
it's what people expect. Often, the reasons for the habit is long gone
but we continue with the same methods anyway.
I love what you expressed here. It's not the tool, it's the point of view, the heart, the soul, the leavened bubbling creative stew that makes something the nourishes our spirit. (Oh, found you through a Technorati search for photography + aesthetics, for what it's worth.)
I find pleasure with a camera because it rewards what (to me) is an essential element of art...attentive looking at, and really seeing, every little thing.
I find pleasure with a camera because it reminds me that I literally embody a point of view -- tilt my head a bit, bend my aching knees a bit, and the composition tightens and sings.
I find pleasure with a camera because (well, since I use it almost always in natural light) it snares the most ephemeral flickers of sun-and-cloud-and-shade and lets me hold them longer than I'd otherwise have a right to.
I'm not technically spot-on. But that's less important to me than the virtuous circle of seeing, catching, and sharing my camera enables, and for that I'm grateful to those friends and blog-souls who've encouraged me to play.