civilized ku # 675 ~ constructing and living in a fantasy world

Godzilla vs the army • click to embiggenOn yesterday's entry, Anil Rao stated:

Your explanation of what works for you sounds perfectly reasonable to me. What baffles me, however, is your reluctance to accept what might work for you may not work for someone else and vice-versa.

I have absolutely no issue with those whom your categorize as "light chasers." They are doing what they think is right for their photography, just like you do what you think is right for your photography.

As I have stated many times, I have no problem with anyone pursuing their own path with their picturing making. In fact, I wouldn't have it any other way. However, that notion does not preclude me (or anyone else) from critiquing / criticizing the product that results from that pursuit. Unless one keeps their pictures in a hidden place where no one can see it - No man lighteth a candle, and putteth it in a hidden place, nor under a bushel; but upon a candlestick, that they that come in, may see the light. The light of thy body is thy eye. Luke 11:33-36 - it is fair game for critique and criticism.

That said, and as I have stated many times, IMO (and that of many others), the "light chasers" of the picturing world are constructing a false idol that a non-thinking and somewhat gullible public accepts as the true state of the natural world. In a world that increasingly values perception over fact, I don't think building false idols is a very constructive thing to do. In fact, I believe it to be entirely antithetical to the very notion they all claim to be pursuing - an appreciation for the natural world and the idea of conservation of the same.

If light-chasers - who, rather than seeking out the "spirit of fact", assume the role of God's art director making His immanence unequivocal and protrusive (Sally Eauclaire, from the new color photography, Abbeville Press, 1981) - would just stick to the facts rather burdening their picturesque subject matter with ever coarser effects, I might just be a bit more tolerant of their work. However, wretched excess in matters photographic - "pumped up" and exaggerated color, contrast, sauturation - are the order of their day.

On another level, that of "following their own path", I am critical of most of their work because it is utterly lacking in original thought or approach. In fact, most of it is highly imitative of the standard ain't-nature-grand MO of making nature / landscape pictures. Rather than pursuing their individual paths, they all seem to be on exactly the same path - geographically as well as aesthetically - following in the tripod imprints of a few picture making "experts", all the while turning every location on the planet into the same generic standard-issue nature picture.

IMO, the words of August Sander were spot on the mark when he opined:

Nothing seemed to me more appropriate than to project an image of our time with absolute fidelity to nature by means of photography ... I hate nothing more than sugary photographs with tricks, poses and effects. So allow me to be honest and tell the truth about our age and its people.

Comments

[Sven W]

The image with this entry is a great match.

Just today a work colleague sent an email titled "Who says photography can't be Art?". I opened the email with anticipation and viewed a dozen photos. But you guessed it ... the usual over-saturated / HDR / photoshopped shlock.

As an experiment I showed the images to the guy next to me. He was initially impressed (you probably guessed that too) but then I asked him: Does that outdoor scene look real to you? He paused for a moment then said "Hmmm, it does look a bit odd, doesn't it?"

I guess the only why to reduce the amount of photo-shlock is:

1. Point out (in a nice way) what shlock looks like;

2. Introduce people to the good stuff.

It doesn't matter how smart you are: if you don't have a basis for comparison then it's easy to go the wrong way.