ku # 524 ~ good grief, Charlie Brown
Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 09:39AM 
North Branch of the Boquet River • click to embiggenEvery now and then, for reasons I don't understand, I post a picture or 2 on an online nature photography forum. And, every now and then, there is a nugget of feedback that goes beyond the typical I would have ... stuff.
But, one thing that happens very regularly is very similar comments that help me understand more fully the notion that I have mentioned here before - the more you know, the more you can know. Or, to be more accurate in this case, the less you know, the less you can know.
Case in point - yesterday, I posted the above picture. It received the following 2 comments:
1) Wish the camera position was maybe a touch lower - I feel a little "crowded" by the fg on this one.
2) I would agree with ______, a lower look would help the view here. I also think its just a bit too dark as is.
Ignoring the wishful thinking, the thing that gets me, or, in fact, I should say, absolutely stuns me, is that both of these commenters actually "got" part of what I was trying to say. I just can't tell you how many times my pictures generate comments that demonstrate that the viewers actually see and feel what I am saying - they call out feeling that my pictures have incited - and then proceed to ignore the fact that what they see and feel is exactly what I was attempting to convey.
The only thing that I can figure is that they are more interested in what supposedly constitutes a "good" illustration to the point of ignoring the illuminative qualities of a picture - that which is beneath the surface of things.
Or, perhaps it is as simple as the fact that most people would rather revel in the idyllic than in the real.
In this case, and, to wit, the Adirondack natural world is a "crowded" place. The forest is densely packed. Bushwacking here does the word proud - virtually everywhere you go (off trail), you're gonna get wacked by a lot of "bushes". In the case of backwoods rivers, brooks, and streams, access to them is most often very limited because the dense forest and undergrowth goes right down to and overhangs the water's edge.
click to see what I mean
Therefore, while picturing this scene, it was my intent to illustrate the fact that the Adirondack forest is "crowded". There is a very real sense of being "cramped" and "hemmed in". Backcountry access to waterways is very often very limited to a bushwack through dense forested undergrowth, not to mention, over boulders and erratics. And, this should come as no surprise, under the densely packed Adirondack forest canopy, it is a bit dark, especially so on overcast days like the one pictured here. The sensation one has emerging from the forest to the water's edge is that of transitioning from the "dark" into the "light".
So, there you have it. The 2 commenters were actually able to see what I was saying, but, apparently, in their zeal to be good and helpful critics on the subject of "accepted" rules and regulations re: how - to - make - a - "good" - picture, they made suggestions that, if implemented, would have pretty much destroyed the feeling I was trying to (and apparently succeeding) convey.
I find this stunning. They both "got it". They were able to immediately understand my use of elements of the medium's visual vernacular. Nevertheless, they ignored what they seemed to intuitively "know" - some combination of their intellects and emotions told them that the pictured conveyed "crowded" and "dark" - and decided instead to convey to me what they had been told was a good picture.
This is why, for the most part (and in spite of those every now and then aberrations of thoughtful insight), I emphatically believe that online photo forums are harmful to the development of picturing what you see as opposed to picturing what you have been told is a good picture.
caveat - it should be understood that I am NOT impugning the intelligence and/or integrity of the aforementioned commenters. I am merely attempting to point out that the more you know about the medium's vernacular, as opposed to its technical aspects and "rules", the more you can know about the pictures you view. The more you know about metaphoric constructs and the metaphoric process as a connection between language (in this case, visual language) and life, the more you can know about the pictures you view. The more you know about the language of signs and symbols, the more you can know about the pictures you view.
And, guess what? The more you know about that stuff, the more you can know about making good pictures of what you see and feel.
Reader Comments (9)
"it should be understood that I am NOT impugning the intelligence and/or integrity of the aforementioned commenters"
Would you like me to do it for you? The images were obviously fine as is.
I pretty much drop by here everyday, it's always worth a visit. And I really admire your... what's the word, integrity, forthrightness, confidence.
Oh and I looked up ku in a Japanese/English dictionary and all I got was square, but I did notice in a recent post that the word may also have an esoteric meaning?
I agree with the forum thing being harmful to your development. They certainly make you better at picturing in the acceptable manner...but that is where it ends. I fell into this trap and luckily jumped out prior to the point of no return (I hope).
The nicest thing in the main picture is that i love a lot looking from the dark of a wood out to the light for several reasons, i find it is well rendered here. Still i do not get what you where at, or better i get it if i consider the plain thing "looking out" nothing more. It is always difficult to stop finding some kind of external meaning.
There a funny thing about you and the forum (btw which one ?) you cannot blame those people. It is something like trowing a stick into an anthill and looking at the the effect. Forums have little to do with photography, it is just an other media with its own vernacularities (sorry for the neologism did not find anything better), maybe blogs too (but this is a story we've already seen here).
Well, those two commenters got what you wanted to show, but didn't agree with the artistic means you used to express this.
There are several possibilities for where this process of communication was cut short.
They could have simply disagreed with your choice of artistic means. A matter of taste, and best left undiscussed, even by the commenters, I have to agree with you.
But keep in mind, people on forums are not representative of the general public. More often than not, they are fellow photographers, and in a judgemental mood at that!
Thirdly, your "ku" photos do tend to the subtle, non-bludgeoning style. For most viewers on a forum, they will drown in a sea of hypersaturated renditions of subjects adressing primary interests. A well meaning viewer, perhaps a bit along the path to appreciating subtleness bit not all the way there may want to push you in the genaral consensus direction with his comments.
Finally, I agree that forums are useless, but portfolio reviews are few, costly and far between.
De we have to guess what a photographer had in mind (or decided later what s/he meant) when pressing the shutter release? I prefer to take photos at face value — nice venue good light. May have taken a bit of walking to get there. Hope there weren't too many mosquitos.
Maybe they got what you were trying to say, and didn't like it - they wanted to clean it up and make it more conventional. I feel that way myself in person on occasion.
Isn't that part of the reason mood altering drugs are so widely dispensed? Because everyone wants to view a perfect (pretty) world? We get that the world is crowded and dark, but we don't want to go there - we don't want to see that side.
This brings up a few points which, since I don't in general follow your blog, may be old hackneyed points. If so I apologize.
You take for granted that there is a 'real' point of view; that it is distinct from and carries more purchase than other points of view such as the idyllic. Some may say that the idyllic is very real and by reveling in it one is simultaneously reveling in the 'real.' Can you so easily discount that? You seem to be saying that there is some essential element in this place which when captured in a photograph is the 'real' thing and that 'real' thing is related to how crowded it is. I have no doubt it is crowded, but why is that the most salient feature? Any number of people could hike into this place and be overwhelmed by how green or peaceful it is and pay scant attention to how crowded it is bruised chins notwithstanding. A commentator may look at your image and react by imagining what they feel is the most import aspect of your subject--they may feel that you did not do the subject justice and make suggestions based on their values. I agree with your general point that as viewers we should try to understand what the photographer is telling us, but with something as broad as the landscape it can be difficult to appreciate others' viewpoints when our own is so entrenched.
Also, this is a photograph. You have drawn a square around a scene isolating a section of the world in a box. The box itself emphasizes or de-emphasizes the elements and their relationships to each other. Walter Pater wrote, "All art aspires toward the condition of music." I've always taken this to be a comment on the deep and unassailable connection between form and substance in music. Although many aspire toward this unity in photography it never really happens. The frame always has its own set of rules which affect the viewer on a different level than the subject. You quickly cast aside any comment that is not directly concerned with the subject you have in your mind. It is possible that a lower vantage point for instance could produce a more abstractly pleasing composition; it's also possible it could do this without destroying your original intent. Either way your instance on believing in the mythical real (of which you seem to have privileged access) is blinding you to other ways of seeing this image.
If anything, comments in fora like the one to which you posted this image suffer from overly simplistic comments. People don't often want to write a novel about your image so they simply give you a gut-level, one-sentence blurb which I agree is generally not useful for anyone other than the beginner who is likely to make mistakes in focus and exposure that can be quickly assessed.