man & nature # 114/115 ~ my old shovel

Rusty shovel • click to embiggenI sit here awaiting - with both baited morning breath and my eyes peeled - the arrival of the UPS truck and my new shovel. As can be clearly seen, I am in desperate need of a new shovel.

However, as the UPS truck usually does not arrive until mid-afternoon, I'll have to make do with the one I have. And while the temptation might be great to use it to fill in the hole that our Resident Contrarian has climbed into, I'll use it instead to clear away a little of the crapulent debris that has emerged from that hole.

To wit, the question, re: art rising to the level of Art, to which the answer is so blatantly obvious that there is the temptation to treat it as either facetious or rhetorical but, nevertheless, here goes ...

Paul asked ... "when, exactly, is this magic level reached? And who decides when it's reached? Is it you? Or is there a group of ELITE ART Arbiters out there who meet monthly and vote on it?"

And, while we're at it, lets throw in his related question re: the chosen few:

Who gets to choose? More importantly, who gets to say that they have been chosen? How does one find out that they are among the ELITE?"

The answer is both obvious and simple - over time there have always been "deciders" that have ranged from the Medici and the Vatican (amongst other elites) during the age of Renaissance Art to the museum curators and gallery directors (and to some extent, collectors) of the modern era.

And, like it or not, in the field of human endeavor that has come to be called Fine Art (as opposed to Decorative Art), the process of selection has never been a democratic / populist one. Quite to the contrary, the deciders have almost always been from a class of elites. The selection process has never been a perfect one. The deciders have missed some, deliberately overlooked others, and picked some genuine stinkers, but, the Great Decider, aka, Time, most often corrects those mistakes.

A perfect and rather obvious example of a decider / elitist in the Photography Division of Art is Alfred Stieglitz. Is there any question that, through his life-long commitment to the Arts and photography in particular, "as a great photographer, as a discoverer and promoter of photographers and of artists in other media, and as a publisher, patron, and collector – he had a greater impact on American art than any other person has had." (from Richard Whelan ~ Stieglitz on Photography: His Selected Essays and Notes)

But, hell, Stieglitz is dead and gone. If anyone in the Rochester, NY area needs a somewhat more living / breathing / in-the-flesh example of "who decides", they can just wander on over to the George Eastman House, the Memorial Art Gallery, or the Visual Studies Workshop and ask to speak to one of the curators - anyone of whom decides, on a regular basis, who and what is in or out.

Or, if that proves to be too elitist for them, on a more proletariat / populist level, they could head over to a local Borders bookstore to see if they display local art in their coffee shop - the one in my area does. I guarantee that they will have a decider regarding what's in and what's out as well.

man & nature # 112/113 ~ the sanctimonious declaration

3 golf balls • click to embiggenFunny how it goes at times - I have yet to exhaust a number of topics that arise in some entry comments and, bada-boom, comments on another entry just keep ideas and notions bubbling to the surface and demanding attention. Which, of course, is exactly how I like it. That situation comes and goes but of late it has been coming a lot. So, once again, here goes ...

As often happens, one or more of my "sanctimonious declarations" generates a heated response(s) and one of the more common responses is that, whatever the topic, I want to "have it my way". It's not surprising to me (from long experience) that this happens in large part because when it comes to expressing my opinions, I am no shrinking violet. Add to that the fact that most of my opinions are usually not considered to be main stream and, that said, there are a lot chains to rattle out there.

Now, as I have stated many times, I like to shake the tree(s) if no other reason than to see what it might shake loose. But of course, my real desire is to find some interesting droppings - ideas, notions, and opinions worth considering as I wend my way through the cabbage patch of life or, in this case, through the hallowed halls of Art. That, dear friends, is one of my staples along the learning curve.

All of that said, there is one notion about Art, Photography Division, that I have rarely addressed directly although many think that I have inferred mightily about it - the idea of elitism in the Arts.

So, let me state clearly and unequivocally that I do subscribe to that idea.

Do I think that only a relatively small amount of art rises to the level of Art? Absolutely.

Do I think that, when it comes to making Art, many are called and few are chosen? Absolutely.

Do I think that, when it comes to understanding / appreciating Art at a "higher" / "deeper" level, there are way more that don't than there are that do? Absolutely.

Why do I think so? It's really quite simple - pick a field of human endeavor, any field from basketball to science to picking your nose, and guess what? Each and every field of human activity has its elite(s). It is quite simply, part of the human condition.

Does the idea of "elite" negate the worth or dignity of the "non-elite"? Absolutely not.

Does the "work product" of the "elite" negate the worth or dignity of the "work product" of the "non-elite"? Absolutely not.

But, lets bring this back to the field of human endeavor called art / Art. And, to be more specific, lets bring it back to my opinion(s) about art / Art. Opinions that I have been expressing and sharing with my audience here on The Landscapist almost every day for the past couple years.

They are my opinions. I do not speak ex cathedra. Based on my vast experience and knowledge re: the medium of photography, I may speak with some manner of informed authority ... but ... nevertheless, I am offering opinions, not dogma.

That said, I stand by my statement that with my picturing, my pictures are about the "real" - real places, real things, real people. In picturing the "real", I subscribe to "straight" photography in order to picture the "real" as accurately and "truthfully" as the medium allows. My intent in doing so is to honor the notion of "the spirit of fact" and by doing so "give my reality substance" (as per Mark Muse) so that others who are so inclined may reflect upon my pictures, and in doing so perhaps find meaning(s) that may hint at / point to overlooked truths about the real, aka, what it means to be human.

I do all of that first and foremost for myself. The fact that some others may find the substance of my reality as presented in my pictures worthy of their attention and consideration is an after-the-fact "bonus". A "bonus" that I fully appreciate, but one that does not form the basis of my drive to make pictures.

Now, if declaring any of that constitutes a hypocritical show of artistic righteousness (aka, sanctimony) then I guess I am making "sanctimonious declarations".

And, BTW, without seeing my unprocessed RAW files first, how the hell would anyone know what I do with Photoshop (and with my RAW converter) just by viewing my prints or my lores jpegs online? Certainly not from the vignetting - that's a natural byproduct of many older cameras and lenses, especially older 2 1/4 square-format cameras.

FYI, and man & nature # 111 ~ under the Tuscan sun

Red plastic cup in Spring melt • click to embiggenYou may have noticed that, in the previous 2 entries, I have mentioned my trip to Tuscany later in the year. To be specific, later in the year is the week of Spetember 12 - 19 September for which we have rented a guest house on the hillside farm of La Torre - the main house is built around a watchtower which dates back some 1000 years and a 2 acre mature garden bursting with more than a dozen types of fruit trees, olives (they make olive oil), rare conifers and numerous antiquities, including a 2000 year old Roman cistern.

The opportunity for the trip came out of the blue this past weekend along with an unexpected visit from my brother. He mentioned that he had rented 1 of 2 guesthouses at La Torre and that the other was available - would we like to go? The answer was "yes", and there you have it.

However, my fevered brain has come up with an idea - I get a fair number of requests to do workshops and it occurred to me (duh) that Tuscany was a perfect location for one .... so ....

If we - me, The Landscapist and my son, The Cinemscapist (quite probably the best father-son tandem in the world of photography) - can find 8-10 people who want to pick the fruits of our brains (photography-wise) in the gardens of Tuscany, we will conduct a 4-day/3-night workshop / seminar in the Tuscan countryside with a visit to nearby Florence to see what we can see and see what we can learn from painters / paintings.

Our plan is to keep the workshop fee around 800 bucks-US with transportation and accommodations costs and arrangements up to the participants - although, if the desire to find a single accommodation situation for everyone is there, we can arrange it.

The dates will be during either the week before or after Sept. 12-19.

The "curricula" is yet to be determined (with a high degree of participant needs and wants to be considered) but both Aaron and I are Photoshop Pinball Wizards, Art World (Photography Division) denizens, and all-around fun people so a productive and good time for all is guaranteed. Rumor has it that the Italians make good wine and have a firm grip on good cooking, so family-style mid-day group meals are a possibility.

And, not to mention - if you ever wanted to poke me in the eye with a sharp stick ....

Stay tuned. As soon as we work out the details, I'll be creating a workshop page with the dates, details, exact cost, etc.

Any interest / input / suggestions?

man & nature # 109/10 ~ the way it is

Late day Spring light on birch • click to embiggenSo, it's on with the get real-comments-have-generated - at-least-in-my-mind - enough-fodder-for-a-week's-worth-of-topics show.

In this case, it's Paul the-resident-contrarian Maxim's comment:

Before you get upset, I'm not in any way denigrating you work. Much of it, in my opinion, is very, very good. But your style tends to keep contrast and color saturation very flat. If that's reality for you, then that's the way it should be ... If you think you have something to say photographically, it might not be a bad idea to include a little punch in your images just to get that initial attention ... just a little "zap" can't hurt, can it?

First things first regarding the contrast and color saturation in my pictures - without sounding like I am trying to make excuses, it's very accurate to state that, I can not begin to vouch for the contrast and color saturation in my pictures that Paul (or anyone else) is seeing on their computer screens. There are so many variables that go into seeing accurate contrast/color/saturation in a web browser on a computer screen that the phrase "technical tower of babble" springs to mind.

Assuming that one has made at least a passing attempt to calibrate his/her monitor and that a photog has posted a picture that conforms to web contrast/color/saturation (so-called) standards, the best a viewer of online pictures can hope for is a reasonable approximation of an original print. I use the phrase, "original print", because, with my pictures, that's where the rubber (paper?) meets the road as far as contrast/color/saturation is concerned.

Consequently, I take any/all comments re: the contrast/color/saturation of my pictures made from viewing my pictures online with a rather large lump of salt.

That said, I am not surprised that Paul judges my pictures to be lacking in the "punch" department and that's not just because he is The Landscapist's Resident Contrarian. Rather, his perception would mostly likely stem from 2 conditions:

1) He, like most amateur photogs, has been feed a steady diet - online photo sites, in photo periodicals, mass-market picture books, and how-to-master _______ (pick a genre) photo books, in printed and broadcast media of all kinds - of, to be kind, "punchy" pictures. Pictures regarding which it has been stated that they are from:

...a school of slick, sensationalized "creative" photography that has saturated the public consciouness of the medium for the past quarter century .... many photographers ... consider visual and/or sentimental excesses as keys to expressivity ... their lust for effect is everywhere apparent. Technical wizardry amplifies rather than recreates on-site observations...they burden it (photographs) with ever coarser effects. Rather than humbly seeks out the "spirit of fact", they assume the role of God's art director making his immannence unequivical and protrusive. ~ Sally Eauclaire, from her book, The New Color

Now, I'll leave it to you, the reader, to decide whether to "assume the role of God's art director" is a good, bad, or "neutral" thing, but, no matter how you chew it, the basic tenet of the preceding notion is reasonably accurate - "sensationalized "creative" photography ... has saturated the public consciouness of the medium for the past quarter century". The only correction that I would add is to change "past quarter century" to "past half century" since the book was produced in the early 80s.

And, 2) - In my digital darkroom, I strive to mimic the look of traditional color negative film. What that means is that, unlike transparency film (or prints made from it), the contrast/tonal characteristics are "soft" or "gentle" in nature and color/saturation is quite "natural". Color negative films - specifically those that do not sport a "UC" (Ultra Color) or some such nomenclature, are a paragon of subtlety and restraint when it comes to contrast/color/saturation.

The resultant look is one that is most prized in the Art World, Photography Division and much shunned in the camera-club / photography-as-decoration world. If Paul where interested in seeing examples of such Art World pictures, he has only to venture down the street of his hometown to the George Eastman House to see some spectacular prints.

Now, all of that said, I would also have to state that I spend a great deal of time and expend a great deal of effort in my digital darkroom adjusting my pictures for contrast, color, and saturation. Curves, Adjustment Layers, Luminescence Masks, multiple-exposure merging, and localized contrast/color/saturation techniques are all used on nearly every image I process. The fact that very little of this "manipulation" is readily apparent to anyone other than those with a lot of experience with such techniques is exactly my objective.

But here's the heart of the matter - the contrast/color/saturation look of my pictures is dictated by both my subject and the conditions in which I picture. I strive mightily to picture and present things as faithfully / accurately to the "original" as possible.

What that means is that if it was a grey overcast (low contrast) day, I want my pictures to reflect exactly that because I am trying to portray a sense of place as it exists in my environment - not a sense of place as dictated by camera-club / photography-as-decoration "standards" of "punch", maximum contrast / tonal range, or idealized color / saturation - a "standard" which reduces every environment to a ubiquitous photographic "sameness".

It also means that if my subject has a truncated tonal range limited to the darker end of the tonal spectrum, then that's what I want it to look like in my pictures. The forest in my neck of the woods has it own unique color palette that derives not only from the variety of the local flora and fauna but also from the quality of light found here at different times of the year.

All of those things are different from what I would expect to find and see in other parts of the world and that local visual identity is what I am attempting to picture, not some "idealized" me-assuming-the-role-of-God's-art-director version of things.

Case in point #1 - amongst other adjustments, today's pictures required a slight reduction in saturation and a slight warm-tones color adjustment (less warm). The pictures "required" these measures because; 1) I took specific notice of the quality of light as it existed (sure, that depends upon my color perception and memory but my entire professional life has revolved around getting color right so I have no hesitation in stating that my perception and memory in this area are well above average), and, 2) I know from doing direct comparison tests - picturing my decay stuff, leaving it in place, opening the files, and comparing the results as displayed on my well-calibrated monitor to the actual stuff - that my camera sensor and its attendant color engine tend to produce somewhat "hot" reds / yellows / oranges. So, I adjust accordingly. It's not a perfect process, but it is an informed one.

Case in point #2 - as I mentioned yesterday, I will visiting Tuscany later this year and I expect - actually, I know - that the quality of light and color of the natural world will be very different from that found in my home stomping grounds. The other thing I know is that I fully expect my pictures of Tuscany to be very different in their contrast/color/saturation qualities from my Adirondack pictures. And, I would not want it any other way.

Finally, let me address Paul's other statement, re: my pictures vs. those of "one of the world's foremost nature and wildlife photographers":

Given the choice ... I would say that most people will be pulled in by the other guy's stuff. Most of all, they want to see contrast in an image.

No doubt about it. But, at the risk of sounding like an Eastern-pointy-headed-intellectual-commie-pinko-socialist-faggot-art-snob-wine-swilling elitist, I really don't care about how "most people" view my pictures. I'm not making them for them.

I'm doing it for myself and for the many-are-called-but-few-are-chosen few who are interested in the "real" and hints and glimpses of the "true" - aka, the aforementioned "spirit of fact".

decay # 29 ~ get real pt. 2

Lemon, apple core, and peppers • click to embiggenWith just a few responses, yesterday's comments have generated - at least in my mind - enough fodder for a week's worth of topics. So, let us start with this one -

It seems that some have inferred from yesterday's entry that I think that the medium of painting has no relevance to nor offers any lessons for the medium of photography. Nothing could be further from the truth.

A couple recent cases in point -

1) As Craig Tanner correctly pointed out, my entire decay and disgust series intentionally pays more than a little homage to the Flemish Still Life Masters - painters, one and all.

2) Add to that my recent entry, man & nature # 101 ~ the most influential photog of the 20th century (who never made a photograph) which highlighted an article about the influence of a painter and his paintings upon the photographic world and several of its most prominent practitioners.

3) The good lord willing and the creek don't rise, I will be visiting Tuscany and the city of Florence in the near future where I will (gasp) be immersing myself in Renaissance Art and it's difficult for me to imagine that I won't learn something that I can bring to my picture making.

Let me also go on record, here and now, once and for all, and state that it would be foolhardy at best, disingenuous at worst, to even think that 2 mediums which share the exact same real estate - the 2-dimensional surface of a print / canvas - share no aesthetic or visual values.

However ... what really got me going about the statement(s) by "one of the world's foremost nature and wildlife photographers" was the word, "brushstrokes". Simply put, there are no brushstrokes used in either the making or display of photographs. None. Zip. Nada.

For purposes of this discussion let's disregard the whole question of what Art is and what it isn't (as per Paul the-resident-contrarian Maxim's advice) and focus on terminology and reference.

If "one of the world's foremost nature and wildlife photographers" had stated, using terminology and references specific to the medium of photography, that "blurred antelopes become" streaks of light and color smeared across several moments in time, I might have been less inclined to have reached such an elevated apoplectic state like the one I found myself in yesterday AM. That would be because my agitation stemmed - and still does - from the fact that the only compliment of high praise that so many photogs who come from the camera-club / photography-as-decoration side of the medium can give to a photograph is to say that it is "painterly", or, "it looks like a painting", or, how about, let's say, "it becomes a Sumi painting", or, "a Seurat come to life".

Praising a photograph because it resembles a painting brings to my mind this little bit of astute observation:

There aren’t twelve hundred people in the world who understand pictures. The others pretend and don’t care. - Rudyard Kipling

IMO and to the point, here's one of photography's medium-specific characteristics that "one of the world's foremost nature and wildlife photographers" seems to be missing / not understanding / not caring about - photography's inherent and inimitable relationship with/to time.

That's a medium-specific relationship that in no small part helps define photography as a medium that is not like painting - a medium with its own specific identity, potentialities, capabilities, and characteristics. Medium specific potentialities, capabilities, and characteristics which, as practiced by some over the previous century or so, have pulled the medium of photography out from under the shadow of the medium of painting and enabled it to stand on its own 2 feet - no excuses, no apologies, and no comparisons to painting required, thank you very much.

Personally, I would think that it would be much more helpful, not to mention accurate, to reference the blurred antelopes relative to photography's ability (relative to its relationship with/to time) to illustrate things that the eye can not see. In this case, light and color smeared across seconds of time as opposed to say Edgerton's milk drops frozen in a fraction of a second in time. And, I don't know why, but I feel compelled to state that neither of these medium specific capabilities have absolutely anything to do with "brushstrokes".

Some may consider it a personal failing on my part, but I just can not get by the notion - and I emphatically make no apologies for it - that doling out photography-that-looks-like-painting compliments and aspirations is little more than intellectual laziness / ignorance regarding the medium's unique intrinsic potentialities, capabilities, and characteristics.

IMO, when that lack of intellectual rigor is dispensed by "masters" of the game to students of the game, a very real dumbing-down of the medium's unique intrinsic potentialities, capabilities, and characteristics takes place. And that dumbing down affects both the student's ability to explore and understand the medium's uniqueness both in their picture making and their picture viewing. In my mind, that is not a good thing.

But, on the other hand, I understand that it is much easier to dole out the photography-painting comparos than it is to wrap one's mind around this:

What Photography means to me: I believe in doubt as an essential tool for an effective search of that which, if it may not be called truth, of truth may be a fair approximation. A search that brings about a continuous change of perspective and that transforms the moment, by nature weak and fragile, into an extraordinary building element of a conscious existence. The change and the revolution of thought, of the basic view of life, its continuous refinement, its incessant updating and growth in values, are indelebly fixed in a photographic image. A fragile, almost intangible, support, which shyly confronts the power of the flow of time, representing for all time that which shall never be for all time: the moment.

A revolutionary technique of expression because it relates to time in an absolutely special way; the image, with its multiple meanings, can only be found if it exists in the phographer before it is fixed on film and must then be reconquered when it becomes an image to look at. A search within a search, a continuous collection of moments for the moment which in the photographic moment will be fixed forever. - Kamir

On the other hand, I really believe that it is worth both the time and the effort that it might require to get real about photography's inherent and inimitable relationship with/to time.

ku # 559 ~ get real

Natural things that emerge from under the snow • click to embiggenMost often when photogs make pictures of patterns in the natural world - usually in the form of a "close up" - those pictures are described as abstracts or some other phrase that includes a variation on the word "abstract".

This labeling practice has always struck me as rather odd because, other than as reference to the medium of painting - specifically, Abstract Painting - there is nothing "abstract" about the pictures at all. After all, unless some extreme technique has been employed in a picture's making, it is, first and foremost, on its 2-dimensional surface a picture of a real, not an abstract, thing.

This labeling notion was on my mind relative to yesterday's picture while I was both making it and processing it. The same notion rose again to the fore this AM when I came across an online article titled, Seeing Like a Painter. The piece was not published for painters but rather it was written by a photographer for the photography audience. The photog in question is often called "one of the world's foremost nature and wildlife photographers" (or words to that effect) and is currently offering workshops ($4,000 a person) that attempt to "effect a transformation in the way photographers see, to revolutionize their approach to shooting".

In order to achieve that "transformation", advice such as this is offered:

When the positive and negatives spaces become co-equal in your imagination as you compose the shot, you have seized control as an artist and are not merely grabbing images but creating them. You are thinking in terms of form and line, not of things ... once you begin to study the compositions of the masters, you will see opportunities in the real world, where blurred antelopes become brushstrokes, a foggy ridge becomes a Sumi painting, or leaves blowing in a snowstorm are a Seurat come to life.

Oh, boy. Scratch my back with a hacksaw. Just what the medium of photography needs - another "master" leading people astray - if you want to be a good photographer, study painting.

Doesn't this "master" know that, since its inception, the medium of photography has struggled to be considered as Art primarily because it was considered to be inferior to that other 2-dimensional medium called "painting" - in a nutshell, because it was considered as an anybody-can-do-it, you-push-the-button-we-do-the-rest entertainment for the masses? Or as this "guru" states, "merely grabbing images".

Doesn't this "master" know that, in its early years, the medium tried to gain admittance to the World of Art by applying a wide range of "artistic" effects (AKA, painterly effects) to photographs? And that that movement basically prevented the medium from gaining its own medium-specific identity which only came about when photogs started emphasizing the medium's unique relationship to and with the world of the real (real "things")?

Apparently not. As is evidenced by the notion that real things should become "brushstrokes" and that real things should also become "a Sumi painting" or a "Seurat". Not to mention the idea that you should think about "line and form" and not the about the "thing" you are picturing.

Now, if I were to conduct a workshop titled How To Kill Your Native Creativity By Building Nearly Impenetrable Walls Between You and Your Subject, I would also add to that what-to-think-about advice the idea of thinking about anything and everything technique and gear oriented. You know, heap on as any things as possible that might divert your attention from the object/subject of your eye's and camera's gaze - put as much stuff as possible between you and the "thing".

Yep. Sure thing. That's the ticket to "seizing control as an artist" in the medium of photography.

When I think about the medium of photography and its many possibilities, I tend to think along these lines:

The cumulative effect of one hundred and thirty years of man’s participation in the process of running amuck with cameras was the discovery that there was amazing amount of significance, historical and otherwise, in a great many things that no one had ever seen until snapshots began forcing people to see them. - John Kouwenhoven

For me, there are 2 operative notions in that statement; 1) the idea of "snapshots", that is to say, pictures that are or appear to be casually created and composed. A characteristic that gives "easy access" to viewing a picture as opposed to having to get past the initial impression of technical virtuosity, and, 2) the idea of "forcing people to see them" - I am all for the idea of "forcing" (via the notion of "easy access") people to see the "significance ... in a great many things that no one had ever seen", but if you want someone to see the significance of something that is real, I don't see how turning a photograph into something resembling a painting helps in any fashion.

No, when it comes to dancing with the partner you brought to the dance, I enjoy dancing with the unique-amongst-the-visual-arts characteristic that the medium of photography brings to the Arts Dance - its inherent and inimitable relationship to/with the real.

ku # 558 ~ interesting melting ice patterns

Melting ice on river rocks ~ Saranac River • click to embiggen

A photograph draws its beauty from the truth with which it is marked. For this very reason I refuse all the tricks of the trade and professional virtuosity which could make me betray my canon. As soon as I find a subject which interests me, I leave it to the lens to record truthfully. - Andre Kertesz

man & nature # 108 ~ it's not spinning anymore

Pinwheel • click to embiggenI really like this passage by Russell Banks from his book, Continental Drift:

Systems and sets, subsystems and subsets, patterns and aggregates of water, earth, fire and air - naming and mapping them, learning the intricate interdependence of the forces that move and convert them into one another, this process gradually provides us with a vision of the planet as an organic cell, a mindless, spherical creature whose only purpose is to be born as rapidly as it dies and whose general principle informing that purpose, as if it were a moral imperative, is to keep moving. Revolve around points and rotate on axes, whirl and twirl and loop in circles, ellipses, spirals and long curves that soar across the universe and disappear at last at the farthest horizons of our human imagination only to reappear here behind us in the daily life of our body, in our food, shit and piss, our newborn babies and falling-down dead - just keep on moving, keep breeding and pissing and shitting, keep on eating the planet we live on, keep on moving, alone and in families and tribes, in nations and even in whole species; it's the only argument we have against entropy. And it's not truly an argument, it's a vision. It's a denial in the form of an assertion, a rebuttal in the form of an anecdote, which means that it is not a recounting, it's an accounting, not a representation, a presentation.

The universe moves, and everything in it moves, and by transferring its parts, it and everything in it down to the smallest cell are transformed and continue. Water, earth, fire and air. To continue, just to go on, with entropy lurking out there, takes an old-fashioned Biblical kind of heroism. ... [W]e are the planet, fully as much as its water, earth fire and air are the planet, and if the survives, it will only be through heroism. Not occasional heroism, a remarkable instance of it here and there, but constant heroism, systematic heroism, heroism as governing principle.

If I were into plagiarism, I'd use that as the backbone of my Artist Statement.

FYI, Russell Banks is the beneficiary of growing up in the Adirondacks and he can still be found roaming around these here parts.