man & nature # 53 ~ "that rare fulfilling joy" nonsense
Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 12:41PM 
Another roadside attraction • click to embiggenEvery once in awhile, you run across some "words of wisdom" from a photographer that are really quite good. But, upon further investigation of his/her pictures, the ideas expressed in words do not match those ideas expressed in their pictures.
More than anything, this points up the differences in interpretation individuals can arrive at from reading (and pondering) the same set of words. Not to mention the differences in interpretation individuals can arrive at from the viewing (and pondering) the same picture.
Case in point - IMO, this quote from Charlie Waite perfectly describes some my feelings about the picture which accompanies this entry:
I often think of that rare fulfilling joy when you are in the presence of some wonderful alignment of events. Where the light, the colour, the shapes, and the balance all interlock so perfectly that I feel truly overwhelmed by the wonder of it.
Apparently though, Waite and I have differing event-horizons of being "truly overwhelmed by the wonder of it". He states that ...
Sometimes - and it is of course a rarity, something to be treasured and remembered - a landscape becomes in front of your eyes everything you ever hoped a landscape could be.
...whereas, IMO, I think that that confluence of events - [W]here the light, the colour, the shapes, and the balance all interlock so perfectly - is far less a rarity than a common occurrence and that there are many daily so-called commonplace somethings "to be treasured and remembered". Or, if not "treasured", at the very least, something to which attention can be directed.
If you take the time to look at some Waite's work, it becomes very obvious where we part ways especially on the idea of "rarity". His pictures deal almost exclusively with the "grand" and the romantically picturesque landscape, all of which are pictured and presented - exceedingly well, I might add - with all of the traditional (and ubiquitous) camera club motifs of form, subject, light, composition, etc.
IMO, if achieving such results are your goal, then the circumstances that trigger your picturing impulses will indeed be a "rarity". More's the pity.
Consider this from Weegee:
Many photographers live in a dream world of beautiful backgrounds. It wouldn’t hurt them to get a taste of reality to wake them up. Anyone who looks for life can find it… and they don’t need to photograph ashcans. The average camera fan reminds me of Pollyanna, with a lollypop in one hand and a camera in the other.
Reader Comments (4)
I think that because most people that photograph landscapes are "pollyanna" like is very harmful. It really degrades the ability of people to be taken seriously. "Oh there is another one of those landscape people." Doesn't that harm our ability to actually say something when most work is viewed as such?
Does anyone else think this?
Forgive me but i do not see such a contrast beneath the words and the pictures of Charlie White.
He speaks of the landscape as something objective, something that exists in absolute form, or absolute beauty, and his pictures are consequential (technically speaking they are pretty good too, he even uses a ladder :-), something to be photographed universally as such.
I do not recall any case in which you had such a vision in your blog. Instead you speak of a perceived beauty, something that is relative to your seeing and your pictures are perfectly in register to that.
I think that the status attributed to the subject is the difference. Or better the decision of what is to be considered a subject. Taking a picture of the sunset is quite different from taking a picture of your seeing the sunset, at least on the level of intentions. Unfortunately the results maybe the same.
That said i would like, in any case, to be so well registered with my pictures. But this is an other subject (or perception ?).
Mauro - I don't think Waite's photograaphs are pictured as absolute, universal beauty. If the locations were universally beautiful, he wouldn't need to hike miles & wait hours for the "perfect" light. Nor would the images need the saturation and hyper-real treatment.
I agree with gravitas on this - if the light is good, it's good anywhere. and if the subject is good, it's good any time. Don't try telling me that one needs perfect conditions for universal beauty - these are mutually exclusive.
This is why I like the sort of photography presented at the Landscapist - it reflects the real worldin which I live. Photography like Waite's (he's not the only one) reflects a Disney view of reality that I cannot relate to what I actually see.
Martin i said a different thing. I said that White speaks (writes) of landscape as an object, something independent from his perception and as such as an absolute value and his pictures are perfectly in line, like waiting for he best light to present the object in his best conditions. This does not mean that I like him or I consider his pictures of absolute beauty. Instead it is a kind of landscape photography I am not interested in.