ku # 1172 ~ what the frick??
Thursday, September 6, 2012 at 10:36AM ;)
Sunrise ~ Blue Mountain Lake, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenOn the entry ku # 1168-71, Paul Maxim asked:
"Chasing the light" or "taking advantage of the light": What the frick is the difference??
IMO, the frickin' difference is: reflexively responding to a serendipitous encounter with the natural world vs. a fetishistic and obsessive-compulsive preoccupation, picture making wise, with picturing only the "right" landscape in the "right" light.
And, BTW, I didn't coin the phrase "chasing the light". It was coined, as an honorific self-aggrandizing title, by those who do, in fact, chase the light. I suspect they coined the phrase because they are very proud of the effort and work it takes to get it all so "right".
Whether one considers the nomenclature to be praise or demeaning, I am in basic agreement with the art critic, Sally Eauclaire, who so eloquently wrote:
... such photographers often choose such picturesque subject matter as prodigious crags, rippling sands, or flaming sunsets. Drawing upon the Hudson River School's legacy in painting, they burden it with ever coarser effects. Rather than humbly seek out the "spirit of fact", they assume the role of God's art director making His imminence unequivocal and protrusive.
To be certain, if "prodigious crags, rippling sands, or flaming sunsets" (et al) and "assuming the role of God's art director" float's one's picture making boat, then, by all means, have at it. It's big broad picture making world out there and somebody's got to do it.
For me, I'll just take it and make it as it comes.
Reader Comments (3)
I hate to quote Ronald Reagan, but "there you go again". Framing the subject as if it's an either / or thing. I suppose it might make you feel better if you claim that using the good light is just a reflex reaction to a "serendipitous encounter" while those other photographers are "fetishistic" and "obsessive-compulsive" about light. That way you don't have to acknowledge the reality that there is, in fact, "good light" and "bad light". If you don't want to get up early, that's fine. Just wait till about noon or so. It's all good. And somehow more "factual"?
If you want to keep using the not so good light, be my guest. As you say, it's a big tent.......
In the meantime, please keep taking your pretty pictures while you pretend that they're not. I'm really enjoying them.
After a lot of years experience, I've found that I'm much better at taking advantage of serendipity than of chasing the light (which I attempted to do a lot in the beginning). There's a big difference between the two approaches, the extreme of one in my opinion tends towards precision, clinical approach and over exaggeration. The other is sometimes a little too loose with an obvious need to be breaking convention. I want to be able to gain a sense of the emotion that the author felt when they pressed the shutter so I guess serendipity wins.
"... You either do it at sunrise or you don't do it at all. ..."
Life is more interesting than just pretty pictures. "Pretty" pictures also happen, and we shouldn't ignore them when they're right there in front of us. But I don't like the idea that that is all that matters.
For me it's more enjoyable to be open to what's right in front of me.