man & nature # 63 ~ turn it on

Brown leaf, vine, and chain link fence • click to embiggenIt rarely fails to rear its ugly head - whenever I get involved with a photo topic "discussion" on an online forum, especially a forum having to do with nature photography, the "topic" slowly but surely devolves into written assaults upon my character, my pictures, my ancestry, and anything else those who feel that I am "putting down their pictures in order to promote / defend mine" can dream up.

That particular bash-Hobson special interest group is comprised almost exclusively of "photographers" whose pictures and picture-making modus operandi fall into the camera-club "pretty picture" scheme of things. With out a doubt, they correctly surmise from both my pictures and my opinions on the medium of photography that I am not a fan of either their pictures or their ideas about what constitutes a good picture.

Many of these "photographers" tend to take my critiques of their type of pictures as a personal insult / assault upon their character, intelligence, and artistic sensibilities - and understandably so, I might add. When one engages in making art, it can be assumed that, whatever form and content that the activity results in, it springs from the heart, soul, and mind of the maker - it is a very personal undertaking and means of expression. It comes as no surprise to me that an unfavorable assessment of such a personal endeavor tends to cut to the quick.

But, without trying to sound dismissive or cavalier about such feelings, c'est la vie. IMO, the single most frightening thing about making art is the fear of rejection. If, as an artist, one searches deep into one's inner self and then attempts to express that self-ness to the world - laying it all on the line, so to speak - well, that's a scary thing because one can never be certain that the reaction to that expression will be a favorable one.

In fact, one thing that is certain is that the reaction, if favorable, will not be universally favorable. If one doesn't have the ability to "take the heat", maybe one should not venture into the kitchen. Want more cliches? How about the one about success that is born of many failures. Or the one about strong steel coming from the fires of the crucible.

That said, it's also completely understandable why so many "photographers" cling to the relative safety and conformity of technique and the rules. If you never stick your head up above the crowd, you'll never have to worry about getting hammered on the skull.

That said, I also understand that many, if not most, of these "photographers" have no desire whatsoever of making the leap from making Decorative Art - soothing art that has the objective of turning the mind off and directing it away from the more problematic side of what it means to be human - to that of making Fine Art - art that is intended to turn the mind on and address full-on what it means to be human.

And guess what? This may come as surprise to some, but, let me state this loud and clear - that's alright by me. I've said this before and I'll say it again - Decorative Art serves a very legitimate human need. Everyone needs to tune out and turn on at times.

However .... I will not deny nor apologize for believing that making Fine Art, or attempting to make something that at least tickles the fringes thereof, is something of a "higher calling". Without question, virtually every advance in the human condition has been the result of the mind being turned on and fully engaged. The same can be said of picture making.

It is to those who think likewise and/or are trying to break out of the Decorative Art mode of things photographic that I direct my opinions on both the medium of photography and on occasion, the photography of others.

My only wish is that, if you disagree with my opinions on the medium of photography and the possibilites thereof, or, if you don't connect with my pictures, please tell me why you think that way based on your opinions on the medium of photography and its possibilities. Not on your opinion of who and/or what I am.

Get it?

Comments

[Mauro]

You must consider that a few are so fortunate to have their own sig (like the Thing in the fantastic 4). Anyway, just to stay in touch, you have a horrible bokeh.
eh eh. Joking.

[Andrew]

Funny. I just checked into a local camera club for some camaraderie and absolutely did not like the examples I was seeing of the member's work. "Pretty picture" would be a perfect description. Or stock photos. Or, um, dull and nothing new. May you and your ancestors stay vibrant and keep picturing ; )

[aaron]

Hey wait. Am I an ancestor? Have people been placing the blame on me for not liking your work? I usually get a google alert everytime someone posts a negative review about me or my work and I haven't seen one in at least a week. ;)

Funny thing is, I haven't been to an opening of mine yet where my ancestry hasn't been brought up. Namely you and your blog. Fortunately for me it was all good comments and kind words.

[Mark M]

Ah Vissi d’arte!

I think your attitude toward criticism of your work is very healthy, but I don't understand why you spend so much time and effort looking at and criticizing work you clearly don't like.

Personally, I don't think I've ever had a bad thing to say about your photography, although I often find myself wishing you'd shut up and just show us the photos. All the philosophizing reminds me of film school students going on and on about how crass and commercial Hollywood is; it's like King Lear railing at the wind.

Take your use of 'decorative' in the derogatory sense for instance. Writing about Matisse the critic Clement Greenberg had this to say:

The word 'decorative' is no longer used as freely as it once was in finding fault with works of pictorial art. Too much of the best art of our time was criticized, when first seen, for being too "decorative".

His point being that, at least in the last century, art criticism has been ruled by the black turtleneck crowd who would agree with you that art must concern itself with the 'problematic side of what it means to be human.' If your work is about joy or wonder or even prettiness it does not automatically follow that you are 'turning the mind off.' This is a shallow, easy critique that has been made often enough over time to be discredited by artists like Matisse.

Now, about that Hobson family line...

[Tommy Williams]

I hope you *don't* "shut up and just show us the photos." I appreciate the photos but it's the writing that accompanies them that brings me back.

I do agree with Mark M that pretty pictures aren't automatically a signal that the photo is intended to turn the mind off. If you're a betting man, then the odds say that a pretty picture is nothing more than that but it isn't automatic.

My problem: I happen to like a lot of the things that go into pretty pictures, like vivid colors and strong contrasts but I'm frustrated by pictures that have no deeper message--or, more likely, by my inability to discern that message.

[pw-pix]

Good post, I belong to a web forum where the camera club 'standards' are held high, the attitudes are very much as you describe. Keep up the good work.