civilized ku # 1149 ~ question and answer + my response
Monday, October 17, 2011 at 05:50PM 
Yard and garage in the rain ~ Saranac, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenSo, I was checking out a few photo blogs when, on John Linn's blog, I came across this exchange:
John Linn stated: It is hard to resist the colors of autumn. When the light is right and leaves are full of oranges and reds and yellow it seems like the perfect photo opportunity. Is this too much cliché? Are the colors too vivid? I don't know... I just like the look.
...to which Colin Griffiths responded: Cliches, too vivid, leaves on rocks etc. Who cares? Some folk get too tied up in how a photograph should look as described in more measurable terms. They forget to notice or "feel" the less absolute reasons that probably motivated the photographer. Here, you didn't respond because it was a photo opportunity. Rather because it was an emotional response to something that said "wow, this is simply stunning". And it was!
As it happens, both John and Colin have photo blogs which are amongst those I check out on a relatively frequent basis and, as I am aware, both make regular visits to and occasionally leave comments on The Landscapist. Based on that knowledge, I didn't think it was too much of presumptuous stretch to deduce that both John's statement and Colin's response to it had, as their origins, some the many entry commentaries, re: screaming colorist cliched pictures, to be found on my blog.
Consequently, and in light of the above, I thought I would (once again) set the record straight, re: my seemingly endless professing of being "too tied up in how a photograph should look as described in more measurable terms". Therefore ...
my response: First and foremost, let me state yet again - the medium of photography is an unruly beast. Trying to put or keep it in an easily defined box is like trying to herd cats, there are way too many practitioners following the I-just-like-the-look picture making modus operandi (which is as it should be - to each his own) for anyone to state, ex cathedra, what a picture should look like, which, BTW, is a very different endeavor from that of stating the kind of pictures one might like or dislike.
That is why, IMO, a picture should look exactly like what any given picture maker intends it to look like.
It should go without stating, but, my pictures look exactly like I intend them to look like. Why? Amongst many reasons, I just like the look. On one level, it is as simple as that. And, on that like-the-look level, some also like the look of my pictures while others do not, which is exactly as it should be.
Like John's autumnal color picture, my pictures are the result of my picture making response to circumstance and referents which I find/have found to be "irresistible", picture making wise. To be sure, what he finds irresistible and what I find to be irresistible are, more often than not, rather different which, once again, is as it should be. We are each going our own way, following our own path/vision of things.
Now, with that lengthy caveat, which could be reduced to a simple directive of just do your own thing (responsibility, of course), so stated, let's move on to why it is I am such a tireless advocate of straight* picture making.
1. Is there any doubt regarding the medium's most unique amongst the visual arts characteristic - its inherent relationship with the real**? IMO, and that of many others, it is this inexorable characteristic which sets photography apart from the other visual arts. To wit: The medium's inherent and inexorable characteristic of being a cohort with the real is its most defining and distinguishing quality. Why ignore or squander it?***
2. Relative to reason #1, there are many who come upon The Landscapist who are looking to move beyond the ubiquitous obviousiness of the picture cliché. They realize there is more to the medium than just making look-a-like pictures and they also realize that the photo blog-o-sphere is filled to the brim with sites and opinions which glamorize - one could even say, "idolize" - the ubiquitous clichéd pretty picture genré.
Those realizations aside, what these seekers often lack is the intestinal fortitude to try making pictures of what they "see", as opposed to making pictures they have been told are good pictures (to paraphrase Brooks Jensen). The lack of intestinal fortitude is very understandable in an amateur picture making world which rewards the clichéd pretty picture with camera-club style competition recognition and it-goes-nice-with-the-sofa style sales.
3. IMO, what these newbie visitors to The Landscapist need is a visual and verbal dose of an alternative to the pretty picture genré. And, given the fact that the online word does not encourage delving into archives (this blog has 4 years worth of archives), I am given to repeating my "preaching", re: the endless stream of clichéd pretty pictures, on fairly regular basis in an attempt to connect with the steady flow of landscapist newbies. I realise this repetition is most likely tiresome to the regulars but I believe they continue to hang around for other reasons.
4. Last, but not least, is the idea which was drummed into my head throughout my years in the hallowed halls - some might say, "hollow halls" - of education - learn to think for yourself. Don't just follow the crowd or "conventional wisdom". Think. Really think. Learn how to learn. And, most importantly and as a life-long pursuit, want to learn. Explore. Discover. All in the name / pursuit of becoming your own person.
IMO, becoming your own person is as important in life as it is in picture making. In fact, IMO, those two objectives are inherently and inexorably linked - if you can't be your person in life, I doubt if you can make pictures that are the result of your own vision.
If all you see in the world is what you've have been told to see then, IMO, you're screwed (on all counts) from the get-go.
FYI re: John Linn's picture - lest anyone think otherwise, IMO, his picture making response to a circumstance and referent which caught his attention is an honest, un-affected, un-effected, and faithful representation of the real. Earth-shattering / genré bending? No, but a "quiet" and contemplation engendering look at the real? Absolutely.
One could also state, "I just like the look."
*picturing a referent in the most objective manner the medium allows - which does not mean a picture can ever be 100% subjective-free.
**please take your metaphysical, pseudo-scientific, philosophical, psychological (or however you choose to define it) nattering about reality/the real to somewhere it will be appreciated.
***there are many who use this characteristic - Crewdson, Wall, Hobson (The Cinemascapist), Hediger, amongst many others - to upend or mess with our pre-conceived notions of the real or to picture ideas beyond what our eyes see. IMO, this is a good thing.
Reader Comments (2)
Another good "twig-scape" and also a good post.
Is there a way to collect together some of your "position" posts on photography? Maybe a "journal category" of X. I noticed a little-used category titled "my view camera photography".
Also, did the image for this post require much in the way of post-processing to get the colours right? I think you're mentioned before that you often need to tweak the greens in some way?
Thanks for the thoughtful (and thought provoking) post.