Chuck Avery ~ Landscapes of Progress
Wednesday, September 26, 2007 at 08:46AM 
Chuck Avery sent pictures back in July and, as I mentioned, I totally overlooked them ( along with some others). So, better late than never is the order of the day.
Chuck and I share both a similar 'how we came to photography' stories and a similar approach to how we approach our subjects. Like me, Chuck started out in architecture but for one reason or another, became disillusioned with it and then, again like me, turned to photography. There are other interesting parallels in our lives but I won't get into that because it all starts to sound a bit 'creepy'.
Photography-wise, we tend to approach our subjects in as similar manner - he states on his website that, "...Instead of taking a dogmatic approach with this project by condemning urban sprawl, I would rather inspire awareness of the process and help to pose questions ..." I appreciate the fact that Chuck is picturing in a somewhat objective 'bear-witness' manner - using the medium's 'reality effect' to 'inspire awareness' about a subject to which he is drawn. He then has the artistic confidence to 'pose questions' about his subject rather than imposing answers - hopefully inciting discourse and thought. I also find his pictures to be visually stimulating. My eye enjoys working the visual landscapes that he presents - they have a quite and engaging visual beauty, albeit a 'horrifying' one, of which I never seem to tire.
Some might (correctly) pose that Chuck is doing nothing 'new', that his pictures are very 'derivative' of the New Topography school. While this certainly has an element of truth, what I most appreciate about his pictures is that they are linked to a sense of place - his place - and his concern for his place. His pictures do however transcend the merely 'local'. The 'connoted' subject they address is indeed a global one.
All in all, I find Chuck's pictures to be both illustrative and illuminating. Would that there were legions of Chuck Averys doing the 'same' thing (rather than the ubiquitous pretty landscape crap) The planet just might be a better place.
You can see more of Chuck Avery's pictures on his website. The pictures presented here are from his Landscapes of Progress gallery, but don't stop there, check out all of his galleries.
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Paul Maxim wrote ; "... Do you honestly believe that if all of us who tend to engage in creating that "ubiquitous pretty landscape crap" switched to "picturing" the realities of our consumer based culture that anything would change? ..."
my response: Well, what I wrote was "...just might be a better place ..." which, I guess, expresses hope if not outright assurance.
Paul also wrote about the "larger political forces" whose "... Money is power and (that) power determines the fate of the landscape that all of us want to protect ... Those "forces" are not likely to be swayed by thousands or even tens of thousands of photographers whose "message" is all the same and whose images look like yours ..."
my response: There is no question that the rich and power wield great influence in determining the 'shape' of the world we live in on many levels. That said, history is replete with a zillion instances (great and small) of 'little guys' working together to ameliorate or irrevocably change that influence.
Here in New York State, we have an 125 year old amendment to the state constitution, enacted by the legislature (after much pressure from 'activist citizens) and voted on by the public, that took the state lands within the Adirondacks out of the control of commercial interests that were devastating the environment. And, it must be noted, that one photographer - Seneca Ray Stoddard - and his 'magic lantern' show (that documented much of the destruction of the Adirondack flora and fauna) who had a great influence on the public (the 'little guys') and the body politic.
You're absolutely right that the 'big guys' won't be influenced directly, but, if enough 'little guys' show up outside their doors ...
Paul also wrote; "... the bulldozers will keep pushing the earth around, skyscrapers and malls will continue to sprout from the land, golf courses will replace farms, and the climate will continue to change. To imply that all this is occurring in part because some of us prefer "pretty" to "pretty ugly" misses the point entirely.To imply that all this (is occurring in part because some of us prefer "pretty" to "pretty ugly" misses the point entirely."
my response: my thoughts on eco-porn are well known to those who have been following The Landscapist regularly since its inception.But let me repeat the words of Linda Miller (from The High Country News); "..."...picture-book nature, scenic and sublime, praiseworthy but not battle-worthy. Tarted up into perfectly circumscribed simulations of the wild, these props of mainstream environmentalism serve as surrogates for real engagement with wilderness, the way porn models serve as surrogates for real women. They are placebos substituting for triage."
Referring back to the pictures of Seneca Ray Stoddard, it was his pictures of the destruction of the environment that got people activated. "Pretty pictures" may stimulate a love for nature (but only the pretty bits, not all of the messy rest of it) but, they are indeed a form of fiddling while Rome burns.
Ever wonder why power companies, waste management companies, petrol companies, auto companies, AKA 'the big guys' fill their advertising and PR with 'pretty pictures' of the environment? Think about it.
And BTW and FYI, I don't think making pretty pictures is 'wrong'. On the other hand, I do think that there are more worthy pursuits to be followed in the medium of photography.
Reader Comments (4)
After a somewhat lengthy hiatus from posting comments on this or any other site (during which we moved from western NY to southern NV), I decided to rspond to you first, Mark. That's probably because you leave yourself so temptingly open to a verbal counterpunch when you decide to climb up on your slightly worn out soapbox.
I've looked at Chuck's images and site and, like you, spent some time with the images and text. He's a very perceptive photographer and I very much enjoy his style. As you say, it isn't really new, but then whose is?
My "problem" (and reason for posting this) is not with Chuck or his images (or yours, for that matter), but with yet another of your all - encompassing, over-the-top, gross generalizations. You state that you wish "that there were legions of Chuck Averys doing the same thing (rather than the ubiquitous pretty landscape crap). The planet just might be a better place."
Do you honestly believe that if all of us who tend to engage in creating that "ubiquitous pretty landscape crap" switched to "picturing" the realities of our consumer based culture that anything would change? On one of his pages, Chuck talks about those who influenced him and mentions "larger political forces". Those "forces" are not likely to be swayed by thousands or even tens of thousands of photographers whose "message" is all the same and whose images look like yours. They could care less. Money is power and power determines the fate of the landscape that all of us want to protect.
The truth, in any case, is that you and I are simply different sides of the same coin. Some photographers desire to portray the world as it is becoming (a "nasty", nightmarish place) and some wish to portray it as it once was and should be again. Neither side has a choke-hold on "truth" and neither side is "right". The problem for both sides is that neither has any political clout to speak of. So the bulldozers will keep pushing the earth around, skyscrapers and malls will continue to sprout from the land, golf courses will replace farms, and the climate will continue to change. To imply that all this is occurring in part because some of us prefer "pretty" to "pretty ugly" misses the point entirely.
Hey Paul, welcome back - always happy to hear the other side of the coin
I find this kind of landscape very interesting. Visually it can be related to mountain landscape, particularly through the transformational nature of photography. It becomes a thing of beauty and power when ones vision is framed in a certain way. At the same time we still know that it represents destruction and the pushing of nature to the edges, maybe the end of something wonderful, like a woods or prairie. (Others may prefer a stripmall.) This tension I find interesting and disturbing. Sometimes I think my future (with global warming, development, invasive species, etc.) will be in framing beauty from destruction. Thus one gets a sense of excitement and melancholy from pictures like this.
I photograph landscape about a hundred miles from this area in Southern Minnesota. It's somewhat like this kind of landscape. It was torn apart sometime ago for commerce. Chuck's surubanscape may be replacing some of this farmscape. The farmland in Southern Minnesota is primarily soy bean and corn. And these crops are primarily industrial input. They primarily go to ethanol and bio-desel and junk food production and feed at industrial feed lot farm. Go near one of these feed lots and you can smell the muck they create. The land is torn apart every year and petrochemicals dumped on to keep wild nature at bay. But take a picture of it and it's transformed into a pastoral landscape, minus the stench of manure of course.
By the way, remember the discussions here about artist's statements? Chuck has excellent ones for his portfolios. Well written, they guide the viewer to greater understanding and are an interesting read.