ku # 506 ~ the more things change, the more they stay the same?
Thursday, March 13, 2008 at 01:37PM 
Cabin porch with cooler • click to embiggenOn ku # 174 ~ entre chien et loup, I opined that "I don't see any difference between my earlier photography and that which I am making today.". Paul Maxim responded. "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."
Hmmmm. Interesting. Thinking about my statement a bit more, I still think that I don't see any difference between my earlier photography and that which I am making today.
Sure enough, as I stated, my referent is different - now, primarily the natural world Vs. then, primarily the urban world. Yes, my pictures are now square whereas they used to be rectangular. And then there's the matter of that corner vignette. But, all of that is mostly concerned with form and surface.
The area in which I feel there is no, or at least very little, difference is that of vision, although, when it comes to form, I do think that I handle the makeup / arrangement / composition of the 2-dimensional surface of the print in very much the same manner. Because I am very interested to read what others have to say on the subject, I won't elaborate on whys, hows, and wherefores of why I think I 'see' in exactly the same manner.
I don't ask for comments on my pictures all that much but, will those of you who have followed my ku (and related variations) of the past few years please comment on how they are or are not like my much earlier (almost 30 years ago) view camera work that I have been posting over the last few weeks. You see a few more of the earlier pictures here (I am adding to this portfolio as I scan more of the negatives).
In this case, more so than usual, I am very eager to read what you have to say.
Reader Comments (3)
Mark,
I looking again at your portfolios online, I can say that your capturing of light and the way you see light fall on your subjects has remained pretty much the same, if not refined a bit now. I do think that there is a bit of a difference between the older, urban photos and the newer ku. It is subtle, but to me, in the urban ones, it seems you really saw the architedture as very straight and linear. In later ku photos, where you have architecture in them, you've used the lens to distort the lines and make them "bend" to your will, so to speak and used much stronger angles. I know this is pretty nitpicky, but I see that as seeing things differently. I tried to look past the urban vs natural content of the photos. Obviously, there aren't very many "straight lines" in nature. I also see your older photos as very "clean" compositions and the newer kus as delving into the "messy" side of nature, with a lot of details and tangles and such. I know I must be rambling a bit, but those are my observations.
I see Michelle has very much the same thoughts as I do. It's not just that you're interested in the complexity of natural scenes: your more recent urban scenes are also more complex than the early ones. A number of the later ones (I'm looking at the "square thinking" short portfolio) have verticals at a slant (never in the early ones) or tree branches screening the architecture (likewise unseen before). In terms of subject, you now seem more interested not in city or "nature" alone, but their uneasy coexistence: a neon sign at the edge of the woods, a dead deer on Main Street, a line of cars beside a stream, a huge, modern, artificially lit pool in a "picturesque" environment. (Or the related theme, man-made structures--or purchased foods--decaying toward a more natural state.) As for composition, the earlier ones seem to have a well-defined layering of distance or a strong diagonal leading back that organizes things; later ones have a spatial arrangement that is more complicated or maybe even "messy."
I remember my mentor, Oliver Gagliani, saying one time: "An artist will work for any number of years to find his/her voice, and once found will work for a number years expressing that voice. But there will come a time when you're just repeating what you've already said, and probably said better in eariler work." You wouldn't believe how those words haunts me. I have come to conclude it is probably doesn't do me any good to take to drink (I prefer tequila vs. your bourbon) over any of this, but "mine is is to do or die." I prefer to keep doing no matter what. My creed is to enjoy what I do, and when I'm dead and gone someone else can sort it all out.
P'taker