ku # 609 ~ news flash - The Creator got it wrong
Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 02:54PM 
Another fine example of how The Creator got it wrong • click to embiggenNone other than the ghost / doppelgänger / spirit-in-the-body-of-someone-else has left a comment here on The Landscapist.
On Wednesday's entry, George Berhard Shaw left this comment:
Some people see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not?
Now, even though he didn't state that this comment was directed at things photography-wise, one must assume that that is the case, this being a photography blog and all. And in as much as I was ranting about the interpretive crowd who like to picture things as they wish they were - the idealized idyllic landscape, one must also assume that Mr. Shaw was presenting an alternate / opposing theory or sentiment.
I am, of course, making an ass of u and me, but there's nothing new in that.
Nevertheless - and remember that we are talking about landscape / nature pictures here - I would like to ask Mr Shaw a question. To wit - if, as you seem to imply, the interpretive crowd is justified in taking visual liberties with The Creator's (i.e, Mother Nature, God - The Father, the Big Bang(er), Spider Woman [Hopi], The Earth Diver and/or Atahensic - a sky goddess who plummets through a hole in the floor of heaven and lands in the primeval sea. To support her and give her room to move about, the animals dive deep into the sea for bits of earth. The goddess spreads this earth on Great Turtle's back to create the land, and the daughter she bears there becomes known as Earth Woman, et al) - handiwork in the name of dreams that never were but should be....
... does that mean that you believe that The Creator (pick one of your choice) fucked it (creation) up?
Did The Creator, in fact, use the wrong shades of red, green, blue, yellow, et al when painting with His/Her brush. Or did He/She just get a bad batch of paints from The Big Sears Store In The Sky? Or are there legions of paint mixers (there must have been a lot of them in order to handle all of Creation) suffering in the eternal flames of Hell for their paint mixing sins?
But, on the other, maybe The Dream is a bit more scientific in nature. Maybe The Creator gave us all those inferior / faulty colors as an incentive to get our shit together genetically modified vegetation wise. Maybe The Dream is about selective Hue & Saturation Genetic Engineering - discovering the Velvia Gene, perhaps?
Actually, now that I think about, forget all those questions. What I really want to know is ....
... what exactly is The Dream (photography-wise)?
Reader Comments (7)
Mark, your premises are wrong. You imply that the goal of photography is depicting what is (as if it were easy to define even that!). If that is your axiom, of course all the "Interpretationists" have got it all wrong. No doubt, what else?
The problem is, not everybody feels that way about the goals of photography. Creating worlds that don't exist, is one possible desire, exaggerating certain aspects of this one that does, may be a good way to induce or amplify emotions.
Yes, even pure selection warps reality. Take Aaron's cinemascapes. Most of them are dark, brooding, doom-laden, all sorts of things that the "real" world on an average day is not, at least not here in Europe, and I suppose it ain't in the US either. It's manipulative, and that's a perfectly good thing, but why oh why is one sort of manipulation OK, while another is not?
Ultimately, in my view, there is good art and bad imagery. Good art moves, good art makes me think, good art makes me feel. I don't care what exactly the means are, if the color palette is "natural" or ... uh ... "enhanced", as long as it works and there is reaction or interaction, I'm perfectly fine with it.
In case of bad imagery, I have no problem either. Regardless of what the colors are, a bad image does not work. Give or take some saturation, who cares. I dare say the image is rare, that fails only on a saturation scale.
Btw, nice image. I'd pump up saturation a bit, but that's only me.
Peace :)
I think you may be interpreting a poetic statement far too literally. What does the creator getting things wrong have to do with it? He's just asking -- "well, why not this way too?" A thing can be beautiful and moving even if dreamt-up vs. as close to a literal interpretation as possible. I'm certain he didn't mean, "You've got it all wrong, and it should be this way!" That misses the whole point of a poetic statement.
"... does that mean that you believe that The Creator (pick one of your choice) fucked it (creation) up?"
Me being a hard atheist your question is meaningless.
But since your posting so much on the subject of picturing what is real. A couple of questions:
Is human vision square?
Does normal human vision have dark/black edges?
Neither of these is "what is real" But your artistic "interpretation" of what is real.
Pratice what you preach or quit preaching it. It's all getting quite tiresome.
Is human vision square? pretty much, I think.
Does normal human vision have dark/black edges? well it fades pretty quick at the edges.
And God saw that it was good. And the Devil gave them Velvia to sow the seeds of visual mayhem and discontent with that which is good.
"Is human vision square? pretty much, I think.
Does normal human vision have dark/black edges? well it fades pretty quick at the edges."
I think you would be wrong, your vision is more rectangular/landscape ish not square.
Fading at the edges is far different that abrupt blackness as depicted in Mark's images.
The point being Mark interpets his photographic vision just as much as the dreaded "interpretive" blasphemers. Sheeesh!
BTW Martin whats this heretical talk of color? By the power of St Ansel I command the demons to leave thee. Rinse and repeat. ;)
Hi Mark, I've been following your blog for a couple of months now. I enjoy your images, ideas, experience and passion.
I do find it ironic that your images are deliberately understated whereas the tone of your blog is overstated. :-)
For me (and many of your readers, I'm sure) photography is a hobby with enough breadth to support a few different approaches, rather than simply one "right" approach.
PS: I do prefer photographic images that have a strong bearing to the real world, otherwise I classify them as digital [art]works.