man & nature # 112/113 ~ the sanctimonious declaration

3 golf balls • click to embiggenFunny how it goes at times - I have yet to exhaust a number of topics that arise in some entry comments and, bada-boom, comments on another entry just keep ideas and notions bubbling to the surface and demanding attention. Which, of course, is exactly how I like it. That situation comes and goes but of late it has been coming a lot. So, once again, here goes ...

As often happens, one or more of my "sanctimonious declarations" generates a heated response(s) and one of the more common responses is that, whatever the topic, I want to "have it my way". It's not surprising to me (from long experience) that this happens in large part because when it comes to expressing my opinions, I am no shrinking violet. Add to that the fact that most of my opinions are usually not considered to be main stream and, that said, there are a lot chains to rattle out there.

Now, as I have stated many times, I like to shake the tree(s) if no other reason than to see what it might shake loose. But of course, my real desire is to find some interesting droppings - ideas, notions, and opinions worth considering as I wend my way through the cabbage patch of life or, in this case, through the hallowed halls of Art. That, dear friends, is one of my staples along the learning curve.

All of that said, there is one notion about Art, Photography Division, that I have rarely addressed directly although many think that I have inferred mightily about it - the idea of elitism in the Arts.

So, let me state clearly and unequivocally that I do subscribe to that idea.

Do I think that only a relatively small amount of art rises to the level of Art? Absolutely.

Do I think that, when it comes to making Art, many are called and few are chosen? Absolutely.

Do I think that, when it comes to understanding / appreciating Art at a "higher" / "deeper" level, there are way more that don't than there are that do? Absolutely.

Why do I think so? It's really quite simple - pick a field of human endeavor, any field from basketball to science to picking your nose, and guess what? Each and every field of human activity has its elite(s). It is quite simply, part of the human condition.

Does the idea of "elite" negate the worth or dignity of the "non-elite"? Absolutely not.

Does the "work product" of the "elite" negate the worth or dignity of the "work product" of the "non-elite"? Absolutely not.

But, lets bring this back to the field of human endeavor called art / Art. And, to be more specific, lets bring it back to my opinion(s) about art / Art. Opinions that I have been expressing and sharing with my audience here on The Landscapist almost every day for the past couple years.

They are my opinions. I do not speak ex cathedra. Based on my vast experience and knowledge re: the medium of photography, I may speak with some manner of informed authority ... but ... nevertheless, I am offering opinions, not dogma.

That said, I stand by my statement that with my picturing, my pictures are about the "real" - real places, real things, real people. In picturing the "real", I subscribe to "straight" photography in order to picture the "real" as accurately and "truthfully" as the medium allows. My intent in doing so is to honor the notion of "the spirit of fact" and by doing so "give my reality substance" (as per Mark Muse) so that others who are so inclined may reflect upon my pictures, and in doing so perhaps find meaning(s) that may hint at / point to overlooked truths about the real, aka, what it means to be human.

I do all of that first and foremost for myself. The fact that some others may find the substance of my reality as presented in my pictures worthy of their attention and consideration is an after-the-fact "bonus". A "bonus" that I fully appreciate, but one that does not form the basis of my drive to make pictures.

Now, if declaring any of that constitutes a hypocritical show of artistic righteousness (aka, sanctimony) then I guess I am making "sanctimonious declarations".

And, BTW, without seeing my unprocessed RAW files first, how the hell would anyone know what I do with Photoshop (and with my RAW converter) just by viewing my prints or my lores jpegs online? Certainly not from the vignetting - that's a natural byproduct of many older cameras and lenses, especially older 2 1/4 square-format cameras.

Comments

[Mark M]

One of the interesting facts about elitism in art is that although there will always be some artists that rise above the rest, historically, contemporaries have been horrible at identifying them or identifying the important currents of artistic achievement alive at any particular time. Hindsight often shows the darlings of the artistic elite chasing the chimera of quasi-artistic fads while the real elite operate under the radar invisible to everyone except those with a genius for recognizing talent—a skill as rare as true artistic vision. So it is natural that someone who suggests that their 'vast experience and knowledge' has given them the ability to recognize the 'chosen few' is someone to be approached skeptically. If history teaches us anything, it is that today's recognized elite will be tomorrow's trivia known only to scholars of artistic detritus.

On another note, I like the effect of your vignettes, but I think they are in conflict with your stated ambition of straight photography—unless of course you suffer from glaucoma. Being a natural byproduct of older cameras and lenses does not make it a feature of the real world—this seems like a rationalization to bring artifice in line with your philosophical ideas of reality. After all, hyper-saturation is a natural byproduct of some slide films, but I doubt you would accept that idea. The vignettes strike me as an artistic crutch.

[Paul Maxim]

Hey, somebody throw Mark a bigger shovel - the one he has doesn't seem big enough for the hole he's trying to dig for himself.

"Do I think that only a relatively small amount of art rises to the level of Art? Absolutely."

And when, exactly, is this magic level reached? And who decides when it's reached? Is it you? Or is there a group of ELITE ART Arbiters out there who meet monthly and vote on it?

"Do I think that, when it comes to making Art, many are called and few are chosen? Absolutely."

Same question. Who gets to choose? More importantly, who gets to say that they have been chosen? How does one find out that they are among the ELITE?

"Does the "work product" of the "elite" negate the worth or dignity of the "work product" of the "non-elite"? Absolutely not."

Ah, the obligatory, condescending disclaimer. You may not be one of the elite, but your work still has "dignity". That should make you feel better.

"They are my opinions. I do not speak ex cathedra. Based on my vast experience and knowledge re: the medium of photography, I may speak with some manner of informed authority ... but ... nevertheless, I am offering opinions, not dogma."

Oh, really? Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that such statements should be viewed with a fair amount of skepticism. What's the difference between arrogant opinion and belief? You obviously believe these things, so to you, at least, they are "true". Most would agree that it's a pretty short leap from closely held "truth" to personal dogma.

Finally, with respect to your last paragraph, it's nice to know that you too can be pushed to a "heated response". I know as little about your use of Photoshop as you know about my use of monitor calibration or what influences my views on "worthy" images.

Keep your eyes peeled for the UPS truck. Your new shovel is in the mail.