crafted ku # 1 ~ trees and flowers
Friday, May 4, 2007 at 08:45AM 
relationships of the mind and other things • click to embiggenSomewhere between the lucid light of day and the murky mystery of night, resides my fascination with dead/dying plants. Flowers especially are much more beautiful and interesting to my eye and sensibilities as they fade and die than they are in all of their blossoming and mature glory. Fall is my favorite season, not because of the brilliant colors but rather due the prevalence of the state of decay which autumn brings. I like old houses and things that look and feel well used.
I have no exact idea why this is so but I am very comfortablee with the notion that I embrace decay. I sincerely and genuinely find it much more beautiful than ... well ... 'beauty', if you get my drift.
I thought about this the other day when, in a fit of self-flagellation, I listened to a nearly 1 hour podcast by Craig Tanner of The Radiant Vista titled, Fear of The Rules or Fear Itself. The podcast is basically Tanner's response to Mike Johnston's (theonlinephotographer) lampoon of online photo forum critiques - you know, the ones which natter on about 'how I would have done it' which are little more than mindless incantations of "the rules'.
In any event, in the podcast the notion of genetically imprinted (human division) preferences for 'beauty' raised its head as a justification for following 'the rules' in order to create photographs which, because they pander to commonly accepted/average ideas of beauty, will appeal to the broadest spectrum of people. He has a point - if your objective is to be successful in the Decorative art market, do your market research, determine what appeals to the masses, and picture accordingly, which is to say, according to the demands of the 'marketplace'.
Forget the 'inner voice'. That siren leads only to pictues which are far to 'eclectic' to appeal the masses.
So be it. I bring this up not so much to bash 'the rules' (and those who defend them) but rather to bash those who have criticized my work (and that of many others) on the grounds that it is merely a deliberate attempt to flout 'the rules'. The assumption that the pictures are merely an attempt to be different for being different sake. That we're all just a bunch of contarians.
Little consideration, if any, is given to the idea that I actually consider the referent in my pictures to be beautiful. And, I don't mean 'beautiful' in only the sense of that which my pictures connote. I mean, genuine visual beauty.
Maybe I have a genetic defect when it comes to notions of 'beauty'.
Consider this from Jeff Wall; ""The everyday, or the commonplace, is the most basic and richest artistic category. Although it seems familiar, it is always surprising and new. But at the same time, there is an openness that permits people to recognize what is there in the picture, because they have already seen something like it somewhere. So the everyday is a space in which meanings accumulate, but it's the pictorial realization that carries the meanings into the realm of the pleasurable."
PS - I am not recommending that you listen to the Tanner podcast. It's long and it's somewhat rambling. Instead if you want to a clear idea of Tanner's thoughts about photography, just listen to one of his Daily Critiques. They are amongst the most excellent of examples I have ever heard/read of utterly and completely sucking the life out of a picture with words.
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comments: Stephen wrote; "'The rules' are not genetically imprinted. A fast look through art history will clear up that misconception real fast. And, as a biologist dangerously armed with a camera, I can tell you for certain that they're not. Proteins are, RNA is, but there's no gene saying, 'Why, yes, the Rule of Thirds is Nature's Way.' Aren't we all glad?"
Paul Maxim wrote: "... your comments concerning Craig Tanner and The Radiant Vista. I used to follow his critiques and podcasts faithfully when they first started - it seemed to be pretty good stuff. But then I "publicly" questioned his fairly rigid interpretation of the "rules" and said in one of my own posts on the RV that photographers would be much better off if they forgot the so-called rules whenever they stepped out the door. Follow your instincts, I said. Blasphemy!
I also questioned some of his metaphysical interpretations of how the universe works (as in the podcast you mention). That also didn't help my standing in the "Community". He even called me on the phone to discuss some of our differences.
You're absolutely right - his daily critiques can "suck the life out of a photograph". They can also, I'm afraid, suck the creative life out of a "beginner" photographer. Just go to the website and watch how they "critique" each others images. It's absolutely frightening. I also find Craig's patented phrase "In a perfect world..." utterly annoying. It's just a cute way of saying "If it were my image, I would do this and this". How irrelevant! But because he's an "expert", people listen (and attempt to copy his style and philosophy). Very, very sad."
Reader Comments (2)
Gad! Stop quoting Jeff Wall. His photographs are the definition of "souless". The exact opposite, in fact, of your photographs.
"The rules" are not genetically imprinted. A fast look through art history will clear up that misconception real fast. And, as a biologist dangerously armed with a camera, I can tell you for certain that they're not. Proteins are, RNA is, but there's no gene saying, "Why, yes, the Rule of Thirds is Nature's Way." Aren't we all glad?
Mark,
I just wanted to say that I agree with almost everything you say here. There's a shocker, huh? My only exception to this post is that I'm not as big a "fan" of decay as you are, although it certainly fascinates me. But that's unimportant.
What is far more important, I think, is your comments concerning Craig Tanner and The Radiant Vista. I used to follow his critiques and podcasts faithfully when they first started - it seemed to be pretty good stuff. But then I "publicly" questioned his fairly rigid interpretation of the "rules" and said in one of my own posts on the RV that photographers would be much better off if they forgot the so-called rules whenever they stepped out the door. Follow your instincts, I said. Blasphemy!
I also questioned some of his metaphysical interpretations of how the universe works (as in the podcast you mention). That also didn't help my standing in the "Community". He even called me on the phone to discuss some of our differences.
You're absolutely right - his daily critiques can "suck the life out of a photograph". They can also, I'm afraid, suck the creative life out of a "beginner" photographer. Just go to the website and watch how they "critique" each others images. It's absolutely frightening. I also find Craig's patented phrase "In a perfect world..." utterly annoying. It's just a cute way of saying "If it were my image, I would do this and this". How irrelevant! But because he's an "expert", people listen (and attempt to copy his style and philosophy). Very, very sad.
Sorry to ramble, but you hit a nerve. But at least we seem to be in agreement on this one!