man & nature # 93 ~ constructing an edifice with meaning(s)
Monday, January 26, 2009 at 09:05AM 
North Elba Town Hall ~ Lake Placid, NY • click to embiggenFor quite some time (measured in years) I have been festering upon the notion of the nature of the hold that pictures have on my eye, my mind, and my soul - a hold that is greater than and transcends that of experiencing the "real thing". That is, why a picture of a thing is most often a much more absorbing experience than the actual experience of the thing pictured itself.
Over the years and relative to the hold of pictures upon my eye, through the ongoing experience of making and viewing pictures which cover a broad ground of picture-making genres, it has become crystal-clear to me that I really like to make and view pictures that reflect the casual chaos of the world at large. Pictures that have lots of visual energy and make the eye dance hither and yon over the surface of a print and that never seem to let the eye settle on some convenient and/or conventional visual truth.
I prefer that my eye be challenged and consequently invigorated by the apparent disorganization of depictions of seemingly randomized reality rather than being lulled into a state of lazy (mis?)-perception by the apparent simplicity of classically composed pictures - pictures that are little more than a caricature the real world.
And, it does seem obvious and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that pictures which embrace the disorder of the real world require much more than non-committal glance in order to engender understanding and to divine their meaning(s). So, it should come as no surprise that a commitment to "more than a casual glance" should be "hook" for the mind and, hopefully, from there to the construction of a road map to the soul.
Now, all of that why-I-like-making/looking-at-pictures stuff said, my festering has been upon the idea of why I can't seem to "appreciate" the real thing nearly as much as I do the picture of the real thing.
Again, over the years, a number of explanations for this have surfaced from the clutter of writings about the medium of photography. Consider this one:
What we hope for from the artist is help in discovering the significance of a place. In this sense we would choose in most respects for thirty minutes with Edward Hopper’s painting Sunday Morning to thirty minutes on the street that was his subject; with Hopper’s vision we see more. ~ Robert Adams
and this one:
We take language into our minds; we read words in the same internal voice with which we think, remember, pray. But when we look at paintings or photographs, the reverse is true. If the image corresponds to our most intensely personal, yet archetypal, yearnings and memories, we don't take the image in, we move out of ourselves into the image, as though it were another world, a hologram whose forms of light are ghostly angels, or a dream whose physical reality is suggested by what we see on the surface of a canvas or a page. We connect with the image as though we had lost it within our own memories and are now surprised to find it represented outside ourselves, vital and luminous, charged with energy. ~ Jayne Anne Phillips
What these 2 statements mean for me is that; 1) I am not alone - there are others who seem to be able to learn more about the "real" through its depiction rather than its actuality, and, 2) I am not alone (pt. II) - there are others who seem to be able to learn more about the "unthought known" through the creations of the Artist as opposed to the contemplation of its manifest actuality in "real time".
IM-not-so-HO, the understanding of these 2 notions is a big clue regarding the nature of Art vs the nature of art. Art engages the viewer in the murky business of the discovery of what it means to be human. It seems crystal-clear to me that the best Art is as "messy" as the horse it rode in on.
Where as, art reveals little other than the "already known" in an attempt to tickle the pleasure-bone and, in most cases, divert our thoughts from the complexity of life. In a real sense, art seems to make an attempt to spruce things up and put a happy face on things, to simplify the complex (for the "simple"?).
My conclusions from all of this?
It is somewhat ironic that by picturing the "real" - in a sense, putting a barrier between myself and the actual experience of the real - I have come to greater understanding of the "real". And, in arriving at that understanding (one which continues to grow and evolve), I am much better able to experience and appreciate the "real" in real-time.
I am not only more fully able to enjoy looking at Edward Hopper’s painting, Sunday Morning, but I am also more fully aware of the possibilities to found in the actual experience of thirty minutes on the street that was his subject.
Any thoughts on the matter?
Reader Comments (3)
My comment is really about this photo. I beleive it captures one's attention because it not only adheres to the rule of thirds, but it also has a phallic symbol topping things off. I have never before noticed that about North Elba town hall, although i have seen it many times.
I'm not sure I'd rather spend 30 minutes on Hopper's painting--much as I like it--than on viewing that street. But I can definitely say that Hopper has made that street (and others) more interesting for me than if I'd never seen the painting. Best would be to be viewing with camera at hand, which may diminish some aspects of the experience, but enhances others.
The wife seems to focus on the man-made part of the image shown, whereas Mother Nature's much grander work behind is decidedly more female.
I think this is similar to the not uncommon sentiment that "I don't know what I think until I hear myself say it out loud". A lot of blogging, for example, is like that -- people thinking out loud, and surprising themselves (a good thing, I think).
To make a separation between "reality" and "representation" is not always useful -- as soon as you draw or photograph a "reality", the drawing or photograph itself joins the sum of reality.
Which is not to say, if it's a cup of coffee you want, that a photo of a cup of coffee will meet the need! I simply mean that the reality of the photograph is at the same time different from yet related to the reality of, say, a place. This is like having stereo vision -- the offset between the two is what makes it work, but I think you have to learn to do that (otherwise, it's just a flat surface with marks on).
For similar reasons, the more I get out and walk in the countryside, the more I love looking at maps (though admittedly there's probably more "stuff" on the ground to map here in the UK!).