urban ku # 174 ~ entre chien et loup
Monday, March 10, 2008 at 08:47AM 
Entre chien et loup • click to embiggenOft critical of my words and pictures, I was slightly taken aback by Paul Maxim's comment on urban ku # 173 - "... another wonderful photograph. Isn't that interesting.... It must mean that your photographic tastes and mine do coincide somewhat - they're just offset in time by about 25 years or so!
Without delving too deeply into what Paul meant by "photographic taste", I would label his 'taste' as primarily wrapped up in the picturesque side of things, photography-wise. I base this hastily drawn conclusion on his photography as displayed on his website.
Now, before anyone goes all ballistic about the word picturesque' being used as an insult, let me state that I am having an interesting exchange of ideas with Straun Gray about 'the picturesque'. We are contemplating notions about 'the picturesque' - most specifically, can 'the picturesque' move beyond, as Straun opines, "mere beauty - or, at least, the superficial, dismissable beauty of the romantic landscape canon."?
In a nutshell. both he and I believe, at least provisionally, that it can. More on that later.
But, back to Paul Maxim's new found appreciation of my pictures (at least those of 25 years ago or so). In our exchange of ideas, Straun directed me to an online discussion about the photography of Harry Cory Wright, specifically his Journey Through the British Isles work.
In the comments about Wright's pictures, I found this item which I think applies directly to Paul's appreciation of my older pictures: "they're not unmemorable to me ..." (Wright's pictures) "I can easily visualise several of HCW's images of the North Norfolk coast that mean as much to me as any I've seen of Glen Coe. But I was born and brought up here, his images invoke feelings that are deeply embedded in my past ... This has now been worrying me all day, as I just don't understand the reaction this is getting." (HCW pictures are being described as banal, mundane, unmemorable, etc.) "Is it just that I have a connection via this particular landscape of North Norfolk?"
In the case of my pictures of Rochester, Paul has a connection to them derived from having lived there and hence some 'local knowledge' of the place. Without a doubt, he has drawn upon this understanding of the place to help him appreciate these pictures more so than he does my contemporary images.
I find this very interesting because I don't see any difference between my earlier photography and that which I am making today, other than subject matter, of course. However, I do suspect that Paul has very little 'local knowledge', culturally or topographically, of my current environment.
Is that Paul's 'problem' with my contemporary pictures - no local knowledge?
The commenter above also asked; ""If an image requires the viewer to have knowledge or understanding of an area to respond emotionally to it, does that lessen its worth? Does it cease to be art and become a curiosity or keep sake for those affected?"
On that forum, most of the answers to that question were like this one - "... if a photograph requires intimate knowledge of its location in order to be evocative then in my opinion it has to some extent failed. Surely one of the definitions of a truly great photograph, or any other kind of artwork, is that it will move you without you needing to know much of its backstory.", and, "My view is that it certainly does lessen it very significantly as a work of art ..."
Apparently, according to the consensus on this forum, and, quite frankly, on most photography forums, "great / good / memorable" photography requires a referent that as many viewers as possible immediately recognize as a "known" quantity. By "known" I don't just mean that the referent is a known thing but also that the referent is rendered in a "known" style or manner - which is to say, the ubiquitous 'picturesque' landscape vernacular.
As my grandson Hugo says, that's "poop on a stick."
If one's artistic aim is to pander to the masses, then the "known" in all of its various guises is the way to go, but, for me, the result of that way of picturing is, in fact, "poop on a stick".
IMO, and I am not alone, the best Art is that which deals with the "unknown". With the field of Art, and for that matter most things in life, I am not interested in the slightest in hearing, reading, seeing something that I already know. I want the Artist to tease and challenge me with something that at first glance confuses, befuddles, or challenges my perception of things, visually and intellectually / emotionally.
In Art, as in life, I am interested in expanding my 'local knowledge', not reinforcing, ad nauseam, that which I already know.
PS - For those of you who might be wondering, I have not linked to the forum discussion from which I extracted the aforementioned comments. In our exchange of ideas, Straun Gray wrote that "I don't think it would be fair to critique that conversation in public", and I will respect that caveat.
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment:Mike Odonoghue wrote: "As far as I can see photography can only address the "known" if you agree that "seeing" is "knowing" or "understanding" as in "I see." ... Perhaps "unknown" means something like a Voyager Mission where the camera is pointed at something no one has ever been near before. If Photography cannot address the "unknown" — perhaps the Photographer can address something s/he doesn't know or start a process which will lead "who knows where", but that's all I can agree to."
my response: see urban ku # 175
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Struan Gray wrote: "Despite a love of postmodern froth and contemporary arts across a wide spectrum I still hanker after formal aesthetics and an unfashionable visual excitement in my own photography. I therefore like the idea of being stuck squarely between the two opposite poles of established nature and landscape photography: the sublime and the purely beautiful.
This is the traditional place of the picturesque. These days, "picturesque" usually means a clichéd tweeness, but the original movement was an attempt to see the beauty in untidy, textured, human-influenced landscapes. I would like to extract that nugget of meaning and apply it to my own work.
So I'm proud to be picturesque. Happy for my viewers to leave their 'wow's at the door. Trying to find a place for reflective contemplation of the familiar in a photographic world that seems dominated by the visual equivalent of cheap thrills and easy listening.
Reader Comments (6)
Um, for me, anyway, your link to Maxim's photos actually goes to the N.Y. Times. An article on Windows Vista.
Stephen - thanks for the heads up - it's fixed
I actually think there are differences between buildings and decaying vegetables in a kitchen, which are again distinct from mossy rocks.
Unless you are saying they are the same when you break them down into binary code?
As an unheralded prodigy might say, "more Jeesh"
As far as I can see photography can only address the "known" if you agree that "seeing" is "knowing" or "understanding" as in "I see." A photograph is a 2D extract of the 3D reality around us. Perhaps "unknown" means something like a Voyager Mission where the camera is pointed at something no one has ever been near before. If Photography cannot address the "unknown" — perhaps the Photographer can address something s/he doesn't know or start a process which will lead "who knows where", but that's all I can agree to.
Catching up....
I am a classic photographer in that I came to photography as a way of recording my experiences in "nature". Despite a love of postmodern froth and contemporary arts across a wide spectrum I still hanker after formal aesthetics and an unfashionable visual excitement in my own photography. I therefore like the idea of being stuck squarely between the two opposite poles of established nature and landscape photography: the sublime and the purely beautiful.
This is the traditional place of the picturesque. These days, "picturesque" usually means a clichéd tweeness, but the original movement was an attempt to see the beauty in untidy, textured, human-influenced landscapes. I would like to extract that nugget of meaning and apply it to my own work.
So I'm proud to be picturesque. Happy for my viewers to leave their 'wow's at the door. Trying to find a place for reflective contemplation of the familiar in a photographic world that seems dominated by the visual equivalent of cheap thrills and easy listening.
Hi Mark,
While I don't want to get pulled into any discussion of what the differences between "picturesque" and "pretty", or any of the other qualitative descriptors of someone's photographs might be (it seems we've been around that block already), I am fascinated by the other questions you raised.
Do we react positively to an image largely because we have knowledge of the subject or area? If so, does it somehow lessen the value of the work? On the other hand, does an image have little or no effect on the viewer if they have no such "prior knowledge"?
To the first question, I think the answer is "of course". Seeing the familiar in a positive light will almost always elicit a positive reaction. It is, however, only one of the variables that will affect how I ultimately judge an image. And it's probably not the most important one.
Does "prior knowledge" in any way diminish the value of the work? That's simple: NO.
If the viewer is not familiar with the subject matter or area, does that mean that they can't appreciate the work, or at the very least, will be less likely to appreciate it? That's a tougher one, but I think that again the answer is "no". Certainly there will be no sense of familiarity (as I had with the Rochester images), but again, that's only one factor. If you, for example, were to place a rotting pear on the top of the Kodak tower and photograph it, I doubt my reaction would have been the same. Subject matter and "presentation" or perceived "message" will trump locale and familiarity every time.
One last comment: I am certainly not an expert on your body of work over the years. I am sure, however, that if I were, there would be far more that I "liked" than I "disliked". Having said that, it seems clear (from my point of view, anyway) that you aren't the same photographer that you were 25 years ago. But my perspective is different (and possibly more objective) than yours. To say that you "see no difference between your earlier photography and that which you're making today" is, in my opinion, just a tad silly.