urban ku # 82 ~ a nautical oddity
Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at 09:35AM 
A submarine on an Adirondack lake • click to embiggenDetails, details. If you're not paying attention, they tend to be invisible.
About yesterday's everyone's an artist entry, Paul Maxim wrote; "... 'Genius in the details'? Sorry, I don't see it my friend ... sometimes 'everyday life' is just that - it's something we see everyday; it is, in fact, boring, and in no way inspirational to anyone other than the photographer. An old green trailer sitting in front of an old barn is nothing more than what it is. If it has some special meaning for you (you used to own it or something), then the image has intrinsic value for you. But I can wander around rural Monroe County and find similar views of similar scenes. They are no more "special" than this one."
Well, on the surface of things, it is, indeed, a picture of 'An old green trailer sitting in front of an old barn'. The picture's referent (the studium/denoted) is as plain to see as the nose on your face and, as such, it does make reference to the 'old trailer/old barn' cliche and, if that's where one stops 'looking', then that's all one will 'see'. As the Rock Man from The Point said; "You see what you want to see, you hear what you want to hear."
Now, on the other hand, after reading Paul's critique (IMO, honest and sincere) Mary Dennis had a different take; "I think the word "details" is important here. I'm wondering how many old parked trailers there are that are painted with what appears to be very fresh green paint AND a personalized adirondack type canoe/water landscape. Not too many I presume. I think about the "who" and the "why" when I look at this (ed. emphasis) and believe it to be relatively atypical of the old-parked-travel-trailer genre ... I think a hippie painted it."
It seems that Mary 'looked' beyond the denoted and got a glimpse of the connoted, which, in fact, was a part of my motivation for making the picture. For her, the picture had both studium and punctum (studium denoting the cultural, linguistic, and political interpretation of a photograph, punctum denoting the wounding, personally touching detail which establishes a direct relationship with the object or person within it - 'I think a hippie painted it.' I can't stop LOL).
I can also layer on a number of my personal punctum(s) which mostly concern notions about what it means to be human (which I believe would be shared by many others who view the picture). I'll mention just one - since the dawn of humankind, art/decoration has gone hand-in-hand with human evolution. Early cave art is an obvious example and I see the 'art' on this trailer as a direct 'descendant' of that early human need for art/decoration.
And, of course, I love the postmodern irony that this picture is also a result of my desire to make art/decoration by picturing the results of someone else's desire to make art/decoration.
So, while at times it is true that a cigar is just a cigar, in the Art world things are so much richer when things are more than they seem to be.
PS re: today's detail - for those of you in the NJ and PA area, in these parts a long skinny sandwich is called a 'sub' which is short for 'submarine'. So, to get the joke, please think of the hoagie as a submarine.
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Paul Maxim wrote; I cannot let the "You see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear" remark pass unchallenged. That's just an easy way to not so subtly suggest to the viewer that if you don't get it, then you're simply not "seeing" it. You haven't achieved that elevated state of nirvana that allows you to truly see the world in all its richness.
my response: Paul, I am neither saying or suggesting that 'if you don't get it, then you're simply not "seeing" it.' What I am suggesting, as I have previously, that what observers get out of a picture is directly proportional to what they put into it. All Art is that way. The meaning(s) and appreciation that one gleans from a picture is very dependent upon the knowledge, experience, desire and openess one brings to the viewing experience.
Does this mean that all pictures have 'deep' meaning? No. Does this mean that all pictures have only one 'right' way to view, understand and appreciate them? No. Does this mean that if one doesn't see a picture the way others see it that he/she is a dumbass? No.
It is apparent from the comments so far that everyone's an artist has a variety of meanings for those who view it. Some, such as yourself (I assume), see only that this 'emperor has no clothes'.
That's ok with me, because I don't believe that I have 'achieved that elevated state of nirvana that allows you to truly see the world in all its richness.' Not at all, but I do know that I see things, both literally and figuratively, that many others don't see. Whether any of those others choose (see what you want to see...) to be engaged by my vision is entirely up to them. And I say that without a hint or suggestion of condescension.
Reader Comments (11)
And a pizza is a pizza. Looks as though someone was "roughing it'.
Never saw a plastic Adirondak chair before. I will have to look for them out here.
"You see what you want to see, you hear what you want to hear."
I agree, but how is it that so many "thinking type" photographers seems to brush off any sort of landscape shot with wonderful light as being simply cliche and worthless of further thought?
Maybe there is something more there? Maybe the image has meaning or maybe it takes a step towards explaining the geologic history of a mountain range. Couldn't there be more than just the nice light and favorable composition?
Or is it just that the majority of photographers that create those types of images fail to put that thought into their images in the first place? What about people that take pictures that some just call "pretty" but they really have deeper meaning? What about a series of "pretty" pictures that abstractly describes a geologic era?
Can something be "pretty" and still coherent enough to have some impact?
I didn´t pay attention yesterday, but I was drawn my attention today by reading the present ku.
I think that what Mark captured wasn't a different (because there is the detail of a painting on it) green trailer in front of an old barn, but it was the emotional relationship of the unknown painter who wanted to make that trailer ("his" trailer) different from all the other green trailers.
Matt,
I feel that there are people that are taking pretty pictures to tell a story. I also feel that there are many more just taking pretty pictures. Ones that they have been directed to make by well meaning forum moderators on nature sites, pretty book makers and the like. By going with the flow most are establishing someone else's vision and not there own. "You see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear."
Correction:
Where it is "I was drawn my attention" should be "my attention was drawn".
Inconveniences of not being native to the english language.
Mark,
I cannot let the "You see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear" remark pass unchallenged. That's just an easy way to not so subtly suggest to the viewer that if you don't get it, then you're simply not "seeing" it. You haven't achieved that elevated state of nirvana that allows you to truly see the world in all its richness.
Nonsense. Sometimes it's simply that the emperor has no clothes.
thanks very much for the feedback and comments and a special thanks to Paul for kick starting the whole thing...
Matt - good questions and I'll address a few tomorrow. In the interim check out this journal entry
I've got this book that I refer to over and over again these days and it feels like it's about as close to anything biblical (for me personally) that I'll ever get. It's called "The Art of Seeing Things-Essays by John Burroughs" edited by Charlotte Zoe Walker. I always hesitate doing this but I think this quote seems appropriate to the discussion, so here goes.
From the essay entitled "The Art of Seeing Things" originally published in 1908:
"I do not purport to attempt to tell my reader how to see things, but only to talk about the art of seeing things, as one might talk of any other art. One might discourse about the art of poetry, or of painting, or of oratory, without any hope of making one's readers or hearers poets or painters ot orators.
The science of anything may be taught or acquired by study; the art of it comes by practice or inspiration. The art of seeing things is not something that may be conveyed in rules or precepts; it is a matter vital in the eye and ear, yea, in the mind and soul of which these are the organs. I have as little hope of being able to tell the reader how to see things as I would have in trying to tell him how to fall in love or to enjoy his dinner. Either he does or he does not, and that is about all there is of it. Some people are born with eyes in there heads, and others with buttons or painted marbles, and no amount of science can make one equal to the other in the art of seeing things. The great mass of mankind are, in this respect, like the rank and file of an army: They fire vaguely in the direction of the ememy, and if they hit, it is more a matter of chance than of accurate aim. But here and there is the keen-eyed observer; he is the sharpshooter; his eye selects and discriminates, his purpose goes to the mark."
Is it really all a conscious choice? Just as you can't choose to like or dislike the smell of garlic, I'm not sure that everything we appreciate as art is from choice. You hear it all the time: "I don't know why, but the picture just doesn't sit well with me" or "I can't help but cry when I hear that song."
Everything about the viewer is brought to the fore when they look at art: maybe joy that refuses to be contained or revulsion that gushes out, or in the case of some photos, a bullshit detector that can't be turned off.
I like this photo, fake Adirondack chair in the real Adirondacks, plus a sub using a boat to cross the water. Neat.
Mark,
Fair enough. This discussion makes me believe more than ever that, like politics, "all Art is local". I don't mean that in the literal geographic sense (although that's part of it), but more as an "in your head" kind of local. It's not so much that we see what we want to see, it's more that we see what we expect to see. Part of that is experience and part of it is personality.
I also very much enjoyed Mary's quote. I especially liked "Some are born with eyes in their heads, and others with buttons or painted marbles, and no amount of science can make one equal to the other in the art of seeing things". I just love that.
I also chuckled at Robert's "bullshit detector" comment.
By the way, I do like the "sub" image very much. That one I can relate to. I still can't do too much (personally) with the green trailer!