tuscany # 98 - 100 ~ variations on "the light" in Tuscana
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 11:01AM 
Jewelry shops on Ponte Vecchio ~ Firenze, Tuscana• click to embiggen
Arno River from Ponte Vecchio ~ Firenze, Tuscana • click to embiggen
Arno River from Ponte Vecchio ~ Firenze, Tuscana • click to embiggenIMO, it would be rather ludicrous to deny that light is a prime ingredient of the medium of photography. After all, the word "photography" itself comes from the Greek / Latin words for light and write, as in, writing with light. In addition, it should go without stating that, without light striking light-sensitive media, there would be no photography.
That said, I find the idea that light, because it is a prime ingredient in the process of the medium, is what photography is "about" - as in, photography is about "the light".
Picturing making is no more "about the light" than picturing painting is about the paint.
Sure enough, "the light" can (and does) have a dual role in picturing making - both as part of the process of the medium and as a potentially significant index / sign (amongst other indices / signs) regarding a picture's meaning. No question about it, but ...
... if all that a picture "is about", is "the light" ... well then ... I guess that's all its about. Which, to my eye and sensibilities, is a rather narrow emotional and intellectual framework on which to hang a hat.
Picture makers whose exclusive M.O. is that of "chasing the light" are, IMO, both intellectually and emotionally lazy - cheap-shot artists who rely on the rather easy one-trick-pony technique of a time-worn and schmaltzy / sentimentalized troupe that is guaranteed to get a pavlovian "wow" from the great unwashed masses.
Now, it must be stated that "chasing the light" is most definitely not for the physically lazy crowd nor is it recommended for the technically lazy amongst the picture making throngs. Light-chasers go to great lengths (literally traveling across continents and oceans to iconic locations) to be in the "right" spot at the "right" time where they can then work feverishly to apply gnd / polarizer / warming filter techniques to "dramatize" something or another that is never quite dramatic enough for them as it '"naturally" presents itself. After which there is the virtuoso performance / application of a plethora of post-picturing techniques that serve to further "dramatize" the apparently undramatic and emphasize their preeminent position amongst the ever-swelling ranks of Photoshop Pinball Wizards.
Ok. Fine. Sure. Everybody's got to have a hobby. But, what I can't help but wonder about is that so many fantasy-makers are attracted to a medium that has as a primary distinguishing characteristic, which separates from the other arts, its intrinsic relationship with / as a cohort with the real.
I find it very disconcerting and highly ironic that so many picture makers of the landscape variety - who profess to love and appreciate the natural world - want to make pictures that offer very little regarding the truth and reality of that world.
FYI, the picture of Ponte Vecchio - the bridge street scene - illustrates the fact that the entire bridge street level is lined, wall-to-wall, with small jewelry shops. The wife can be observed looking (longingly?) at some of the wares on offer. None of it was "junk" jewelry, at least not in price.
Reader Comments (4)
Hi Mark,
Actually, I am not surprised at all. The intrinsic relationship with the real that you talk about is precisely what makes photography so popular with the masses. For once, it is possible to produce images in a relatively easy fashion. Try getting to the same level of technical expertise in say poetry, music, painting, sculpture or dance. Those other art forms usually take several years of dedicated training and practice to just get a hang of things. A very serious commitment is required if you want to produce something that may be considered remotely interesting. In addition, a large dose of raw talent is also often necessary. By comparison photography is super-easy (at least from a technical standpoint), and so folks are naturally drawn toward it.
In my opinion, this democratic aspect of the medium is perhaps its most intriguing one. These days, just about anyone can make pictures. Good or bad, real or fantasy, color or black and white, people are out there making pictures and that surely can’t be a bad thing. I don’t see the point of being so concerned with the community of so-called artists who are pumping out extremely saturated, high contrast images of iconic vistas and presenting them on internet forums. They are but a small minority. Fortunately, a much larger group of people are making pictures that will one day serve as a visual testimony of our times. Most of them don’t consider their work as Art. And, I am very thankful for that.
I am probably thinking those special words I say to Gravitas almost every Christmas: "How hard would it be for you to get me a F***ing pair of earings?"
I must say I always enjoy "beautiful" light on an "un-beautiful" subject, like your (Mark's) recent shopping center pictures. I guess it's finding something spectacular in the unspectacular and it seems to be a joke about those kind of pictures you're talking about. So, I don't think that chasing light has to be about cliched pictures with little connection to the real. Unfortunately most of it is.
I keep coming back to look at the red umbrella picture Mark. I wish I could articulate why it's so powerful to me. Maybe it's the mystery of who's under the thing and the strong visual connection that there seems to be to the umbrella users on the distant bridge. Everything just "lays right" in the frame for me to evoke a very strong reaction. Damn, you're good at framing things.