civilized ku # 2110 ~ different referent, different time / same kind of place, same kind of picture
Friday, March 9, 2012 at 11:27AM ;)
Cornelia Street and Broad Street - Plattsburgh, New York 2012 ~ by Mark Hobson • click to embiggenOne week ago, on civilized ku # 2099, Paul Bradforth (no link provided), while critiquing The Landscapist, also offered up a comment about some of my pictures ... ...
I can’t quite ‘get’ the point of portraying things obsessively ‘accurately’ if that means making an ‘accurate’ picture of a very dull day, which to my mind accounts for quite a few of the pictures I see on your blog. Beautifully processed, for sure, but in the end, for me, ‘accurate’ shots of dull days.
I have absolutely no problem with Paul offering up an opinion about my pictures and this entry is in no way meant to refute / contest / or otherwise diminish his opinions. He stated it how he sees it and that is exactly the way it should be.
That said, I felt a bit of explanation (for those who might be not aware of it), re: my predilection for making beautifully processed pictures of dull days / scenes, aka: the banal / the everyday / the mundane. And in doing so, I'll use a Stephen Shore picture and what has been written about it, to include some of his words / thoughts about his picturing.
Beverly Boulevard and LaBrea Avenue - Los Angeles, California 1975 ~ by Stephen Shore
I have long admired the work of Stephen Shore. Shore is one of the seminal pioneers of modern era color photography (I recently had the pleasure of meeting Shore at one of his exhibits). His pictures have been described (IMO, quite accurately) as deadpan images of banal scenes and objects in the United States.
Shore's work came to my attention, along with that of many others, during my work with Sally Eauclaire on her book, the new color photography. The Beverly Boulevard picture, from his work/book Uncommon Places is a well known Shore picture. My picture, Cornelia Street and Broad Street (made yesterday on a visit to my cardiologist), certainly has the look of Shore's picture but, in fact, Shore's work is only one of many influences upon my picturing MO and I have been going my own way for many decades.
That said, like Shore and most of the new color and new topographic picture makers, I am most interested in making pictures which find beauty in the banal. To that end, my "beautifully processed" pictures are, visually wise, part and parcel of drawing viewers into my pictures and inducing them to stay around for a longer look, hopefully to see/discover at least some of the beauty I find/see in the banal/everyday/mundane*.
In any event, consider this bit of info, re: Shore's picture and, in a broader sense, much of his work:
... Shore saw how a photograph 'imposes order on the scene or 'simplifies the jumble by giving it structure'. There's so much readable information, but few conclusions to be drawn about this place.
This was a new conception of the landscape picture, one in which the details themselves - their density and abundance, rather than the entirety - were intended to be the focal point or subject. Each image is so sharp and detailed that it seems to have infinite centres of attention, or none at all. "If I saw something interesting, I didn't have to make a picture about it. I could let it be somewhere in the picture, and have something else happening as well. So this changes the function of a picture - it's not like pointing at something and saying 'Take a look at this'. It's saying, 'Take a look at this object I'm making.' It's asking you to savour something not in the world, but to savour the image itself." ~ from the book, Stephen Shore
My pictures are most often quite "dense" with an abundance of details. Picture makers, especially those who hold the adage, to "simply", to be sacrosanct, often ask me what in the hell my pictures are of/about. My answer is always the same - they are first and foremost about the print, aka: the object, itself. Then, and only then, are they about the pictured referent(s).
IMO, the viewing /perception of my pictures as beautiful objects is what directs the viewer to the notion of the beauty of the pictured referent(s) to be seen in my pictures. To my eye and sensibilities, the beauty of my prints (and those of the new color / topographic picture makers) and the beauty of their referents are co-jointed and inseparable. While each aspect - the object and the referent(s) - can be viewed and appreciated separately, it is only when they are holistically considered that the magic of the medium comes into play.
Comments, anyone?
*This approach of presenting "beautifully processed" pictures/prints works like a charm with non-photographer / picture maker viewers of my work. Not so much with photographers / picture makers who do not see in my pictures what they have been told is a good picture.
Reader Comments (5)
Thanks for explaining the concept in understandable words, Mark, both about the approach to the content and the print. Since roughly 2 years - eons in these digital times - I become more and more enamored with the photograph on paper, and now I learned that there is another reason for it, not just my fancy.
A couple of years ago, when I first started to become seriously interested in photography, I came across a copy of Shore's Uncommon Places (the recent Thames & Hudson reprint), and I was shocked by how beautiful it was.
I guess people who are familiar with high quality prints wouldn't have seen anything special; might even have been a bit underwhelmed. (It's a mass-produced commercial book after all.) But as someone who'd been used to looking at pictures on the web, the plates were big and dense and luscious, and thrilling. I reckon my photographic tastes have been pretty much marked for life--and that goes for content as much as anything. It's weird how seeing everything come together in a physically beautiful object can give us insight into the what the pictures are about. (Had a similar experience with Adams's The New West, but that's another story.)
$.57 a gallon, no green stamps.
Great post. Appreciate the perspective. Love the new topographies myself.
Interesting post, thanks.
Mark, when you talk about the "perception of my pictures as beautiful objects" are you also including the appreciation of the craftsmanship in the image?
And when I say "craftsmanship" I'm not simply refering to purely technical matters (like sharpness etc) but also the aesthetic considerations through-out the process of creating the image.
I mention this as many images are viewed online and less images are being printed!