civilized ku # 838 ~ ex post facto, pt III - the BIG DUH explained

It's been snowing ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenAfter a brief intermission in order to tend to other matters, let's continue on down the line, re: place. To that end, a response to another of Matt Dallos' comments is in order.

Matt stated:

I disagree with your statement that "one-zillion-and-a-half" photographers take pictures of place. They take pictures of space. Maybe 1 out of 10 or 1 out of 1000 actually photograph place ... I'd be interested in your thoughts on place as a topic vs. a place as a subject.

Matt suggests, and I agree, that there are few (or at least a minority of) picture makers who create pictures of place as opposed to those who create pictures of space. In effect, as evidenced by his request, re: place as a topic vs. place as a subject (aka - space as a subject?), he has drawn a distinction between pictures of place vs. pictures of "a place".

Perhaps I should have been more precise about that distinction in my previous entry - what I should have stated was that a zillion-and-a-half picture makers attempt to make pictures of "a place" based on the idea of place even if that attempt is motivated in their unconscious minds. Even if they are entirely unaware of the idea of place on a conscious level, I would suggest that, in most cases, their motivation for picture making of "a place" is indeed rooted in a prick of the unthought known, re: a sense of a place as more than just a place.

That distinction - the idea of making a picture of place, aka - the sense of "a place" vs. making a picture of "a place", aka the look of "a place" - is primarily what I was trying to demonstrate in my last entry, civilized ku # 837, wherein I wrote about the difference between the Romantic / Transcendent group vs. the Realist / Grounded group. To be perfectly clear, I was suggesting that R/T group was preoccupied with the look of "a place" whereas the R/G group was much more interested in a sense of "place".

That said, IMO, there is a very thin line, at least on the surface of things, between pictures of "a place" and those of place. That's simply because both types of pictures have "a place" as their primary referent (aka - subject). However, IMO, there is a distinct difference (and here is where we step upon some razor thin ice) between pictures of place that can be found in the idea of the connoted - that quality in a picture that goes beyond the obvious referent (aka - the surface of things).

As always, the connoted to be found in any given picture is a product of the picture maker's intent taken / considered together with the picture viewer's response to that picture, neither of which, except perhaps in cases of pure propaganda, are perfectly focused on the part of the picture maker nor perfectly predictable on the part of the viewer. No matter the unparalleled photographic vividness and precision - as a result of the medium's characteristic as a cohort with the real - of any given pictured referent, the derived connoted of that pictured referent is fomented in the mind of the viewer - however, the more visually educated and culturally informed the viewer, the greater the chances are of a deeper and richer "reading" of the picture.

Unfortunately for many picture viewers, a picture is always just a picture and the greater the "wow" factor, the better the picture. The idea that there is connoted-ness / meaning in them thar hills is viewed as pure elitist BS. There is no subtlety, no quietness, no otherness, no ambiguity to be considered and explored. For them, it's all flash and dash or it's nothing at all. Consequently, amped up pictures of a place - the more iconic, the more spectacular, the more dramatic, the more tricked out, the better - rate very highly on the typical camera-club, media over-saturated viewer's senses and sensibilities. Quiet, subtle, ambiguous, pictures that require a visually / culturally reflective response on the part of the viewer in order to grasp a sense of the pictured place are, well, "failures" - kissing-cousins to those pictures which "require" words to understand.

In our rapidly changing transient culture and lives, rootedness - akin to what Thoreau meant when he stated that ‘I have traveled a good deal in Concord.’ - is a pretty rare commodity. But rootedness, especially in a place, is a vital ingredient in the making of pictures of place. And, without a doubt, that same rootedness is also a vital prerequisite in recognizing the difference between a picture of place (the sense of a place) vs. a picture of a place (the look of a place).

Comments

[Matt]

With my place as a topic vs. a place as a subject comment, I was leaning toward a discussion of photographers who have chosen to complete a project in a place, say Old Forge, NY or Moab, UT or the Colorado Plateau, vs. photographers who have chosen to work with the idea of being connected to place or how we related to landscape through photographing a wide variety of geographic areas. Is place a bound-to-the-land truth? Or is it an academic category exploited to analyze ourselves? This aligns, somewhat, with your thoughts on Romantic and Realist though. I believe Romantics are interested in the concept of place, the idea that there is something we should be searching for that would root us, that would bind us with the land in some state of sublime perfection. And I believe Realists are more inclined toward the gritty reality and truth of the places we live.

You are right about the referent in pictures of place vs. empty pictures place: there is a very thin line between. However, I think the distinction grows exponentially when you refer to an entire body of work.

“But rootedness, especially in a place, is a vital ingredient in the making of pictures of place.”

Have you ever noticed that people who are rooted in their “home” place are often able to capture/understand/interpret other places? It’s almost like connection with a place is some sort of language that we develop; once you understand or are able to interpret that language in one place, you understand it everywhere. I don’t mean to imply that you learn one place and then apply that cookie cutter idea to other places. Rather, once you understand the language of place, you are more willing to open yourself to other place and you are willing to accept the truth of wherever you are.

When you mentioned people who pursue photographs of place are pricked by something, even if that something is operating in their subconscious at a level unknown or unattended, it made me realize something that I have never before considered. Place is intertwined with our being. Until not too long ago, evolutionarily speaking, we were completely dependent upon the place where we lived to provide sustenance. You had to know and understand it—again, possibly at a subconscious level—if you wished to survive. There was no other option. So, of course lots of people we photograph place, even if they don’t know why. They are digging at something much deeper than an aesthetic appreciation of beauty. They are digging at the foundations of our species. Of course, it’s hilarious to think that the entire Camera Club beauty shot paradigm—and perhaps all of Romantic thought—might be some sort of callow, reactive salve to our separation from place and reality, aided by an entire plank of industrial technology that has, so far, been punctuated by the automobile.

[Sven W]

Interesting entry - thanks Mark & Matt.

The bulk of my photographs are taken when bush-walking. But "bush" can also be along the coast or even traversing a river system that passes through the city.

I become fascinated with the human history of an area, the geology, how people interact with the environment now, wildlife and so on.

I don't believe I'm doing anything deep and meaningful ... I just try to see, understand and photograph the salient scenes that create a realistic impression (well, my impression) of the area.