civilized ku # 135 ~ mindlessly sucking up whatever they spit out

The color of reflected light • click to embiggenOK, OK. I get it but let me say one thing first - this entry is NOT a knock against Mike Johnston - the hardest working blogger in the photography blog-o-sphere - of The Online Photographer. Mike seems to be doing what is required of him by his audience and, in doing so, he has craved out quite a niche for himself. Good for him. But ...

I have been resisting this topic for quite a while now because:

1. I risk beating a dead horse to death ...
2. I risk just singing to the choir (at least a good part of the choir found here on The Landscapist)...
3. I risk annoying the pig - never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig and ...
4. I risk (as previously mentioned) making an unintentional barb aimed at M. Johnston

Nevertheless, here is a continuation of ...

Another reason why I dislike photographers.

Over the past few days on TOP, MJ has made two back-to-back entries - one titled The Canon 5D Mark II: In the House, the other labeled MOCA in Peril (MOCA = The Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles) along with its companion piece Here’s How to Rescue a Museum at the Brink. The first entry was accompanied by numerous comparo pictures of the Canon 5D Mark II and the Nikon D700. The second entry had a picture of the MOCA.

Obviously, the former entry is about gear and the latter is about a "civic cultural treasure" in peril that has become "one of the essential windows on the restless, searching, cosmopolitan creativity of this city's 21st century spirit."

In case you don't know where this is headed, I'll make it plain right now - the number of comments posted on the gear entry, 48. Number of comments on the MOCA entry, 3.

Another outstanding example of the Be quiet, Benson. Show me more, Benson. Show me, show me, subscriber trunk dialing. I must know everything ... philosophy of what it means to be human. Or you could view it as just another attempt to acquire the most fabulous object in the world.

Is there any wonder why camera manufactures are so f**king wrapped up in such a new-model-intro frenzy that seems to have at its heart only the craven desire to dip deep into the pockets of what I would label as the dumb-ass gear-headed suckers?

Does anyone else out there, other than me, think that this frenetic endeavor has reached a level of near insanity? I mean, so many (99.9%) of these "new" camera models (from the simplest P&S to the ultra high-end dslrs) offer little more than minutely incremental "improvements" or, worse yet, "features" so dumb as to be nearly useless - the recently introduced Smile Detection feature as an example. That's right, smile detection, not face detection - which itself is quite frankly about as dumb as it gets.

Sure, sure. The camera manufacturers are just trying to apply modern technology to George Eastman's marketing genius - "You push the button. We do the rest". George knew that the trolls would never be able to tell the difference between the opening of an aperture and that of the dark smelly opening that their heads are buried in. So, in order to sell his product, he had to dumb it down to their level.

I can deal with that marketing objective with no real problem except, of course, for the absurd level to which it has been elevated in today's crass-consumption culture.

And therein lies my core issue. What's going on in the camera market is the exact same thing that has been going on in so many other market segments, the same thing that has driven us to the brink of economic ruin - the blatant desire on the part of the business class to amass as much money as possible within the shortest amount of time as possible by any means possible - no matter the consequence(s).

Without a doubt, the term responsible long-time growth and development has nearly vanished from the lexicon of the business class and, perhaps even more importantly, the consumer class trolls and suckers have bought into the supporting belief - quite literally and figuratively - that they can have it all now by any means possible (easy credit and unsustainable debt) no matter the consequence(s).

The unprecedented mess in which we currently find ourselves is no less than the total unraveling, failure and collapse of both of those premises. And have no doubt about it, there will be a collapse in camera market.

The signs are already there. One obvious sign is plummeting prices as manufacturers and merchants try to unload unsold inventory. Once that is accomplished merchant inventories will stay at very low levels which means that manufacturers will be cutting back in production and so-called "development". There will be consolidation of model lines and, in all probability, the consolidation and liquidation of camera manufacturers as well.

My only regret in all of this is that I will never get to be the Camera Czar who heads up the bailout and restructuring of the camera industry in this country. If for no other reason than the fact that there is no camera industry in this country. A fact which is another sad chapter in the saga of industries invented and founded in this country that no longer exist because we can get it cheaper elsewhere - but don't get me started on that topic.

In any event, while on the one hand I wish to cast no aspersions at Mike Johnston, on the other hand the adage - if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem - does come to mind. And fanning the flames of desire and consumption is definitely part of the problem. In fact, and IMO, fanning the flames of desire and consumption is the problem that is at the root of it all.

That is why, here on The Landscapist, I am focused on the medium and its possibilities for exploring what it means to be human rather than on, as so many others do (consciously or not), what it takes to be a human consumption machine (photography -wise).

Update on Friday, December 12, 2008 at 11:19AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Paul Maxim wrote: "The point is, to transition from a "consumer" economy to some more reasonable and rational business model is going to be very, very painful for everyone. Personally, I don't think Americans have the stomach for doing it. I don't think the majority want to give up the lifestyles they're used to, even though it landed them in hopeless debt. Sooner or later, the economy will "come back", and it will still be based on the consumer model. In America, sadly, that's what it means to "be human"."

my response: Without a doubt, unless we (and our children and their children, ad infinitum) want to endlessly repeat the cycle of irrational exuberance boom and horrendously unbearable bust - which in this day and age will come with increasingly rapid frequency - we must transition to a "more reasonable and rational business model". We must figure out how make things (not just money) again as opposed to just consuming the things that someone else makes.

To accomplish this will require a herculean effort (from everyone, top to bottom) to engage in new ways of thinking and living. Americans may not have the "stomach" for it but, in fact, they may have little choice in as much as most of the "lifestyles they're used to" may be literally taken away from them as they "transition" from boom to bust in the form of foreclosures, bankruptcies, and job loss.

There will be "pain" - some real, some imagined - involved in the transition. However, call me crazy, I would like to think that, with the right leadership in government and the business class, a variety of programs and initiatives might be forthcoming that could ease the way.

My biggest worry, whenever I think about "the right leadership in government and the business class", is the dulcet strains of the Everly Bothers' song, Dream, playing softly in the background of my mind:

Drea-ea-ea-ea-eam, dream, dream, dream
Drea-ea-ea-ea-eam, dream, dream, dream

I hope I don't turn out to be Cathy's Clown - or is that Barrack's Clown?

Update on Monday, December 15, 2008 at 02:18PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Charlie wrote: "You do seem to have it out for TOP and the "gear posts" Just curious...how many cameras have you purchased in the past 3 years?"

my response: No, I don't "have it out" for TOP or Mike Johnston. However, I am fairly sick of all the gear discussions / comments that seem to prattle on and on and on and on ... ad nauseam to point of inanity. However, the point of this entry was two-fold: to disparage the endless parade of so called "new & improved" cameras, and, the fact that, given a choice to comment on gear or a topic related to the survival of an institution of the Arts, photographers overwhelmingly choose the former.

My new camera count for the past 3 years is; 3 dslrs, 1 high-end P&S, 2 mid-level P&S.

And, sure, sure, I did do some research before I purchased the cameras but .... my research did NOT include reading a sea of totally irrelevant comments on photo forums or sites like TOP about those reviews.

To be honest, I don't put a whole lot of faith in reviews themselves as well simply because, in the digital domain, so many of the results of camera testing are based upon the image qualities obtained by RAW conversion software and those qualities can be all over the map from any given camera depending upon the conversion software used by the reviewer.

So, all I really do when I research a camera is to do a quick google search with the camera make and model, find a few reviews, and skim the conclusions just to get a sense of the camera that I am interested in.

man & nature # 80 ~ here today, gone tomorrow

Castle at the Land Of Make-Believe ~ Upper Jay, NY • click to embiggenOK, OK. I get it. Not only do you not want to entertain the notion of responsibility in your picture making, you have no opinion on what kind of pictures, in these perilous times, might be more appropriate than others. So, let me give at least one suggestion about what kind of pictures might be called for.

It seems to me that over the next couple of years there will more than ample opportunities to make pictures of things that are disappearing. Things that used to be. Heaven knows we've got lots of examples of those things that are already littering the landscape here in the good ole US of A but I have a sinking feeling that their numbers are about to dramatically increase.

Take our village hardware store - part of a NE chain of hardware stores - that was there on this past Sunday but gone on Monday. It was Main Street's biggest "anchor" tenant. The wife and I patronized the place on fairly regular basis, even to the point that during our recent home renovations we regularly received thank-you cards in the mail signed by the local staff.

The hardware chain's home office - the chain did not fold, just our store - has promised that they have not abandoned our village and that they will explore the possibility of opening a smaller store. Only time will tell regarding that pledge.

However, that said, the problem will be that of a big hole on Main Street because the chain owns the building and has announced its intent to sell it. That may be a bit of wishful thinking in the current state of real estate affairs so we may be looking at a big hole that just sits there for a long time.

In any event, you can read about the castle pictured in today's entry here.

I'm hot!

My ex was hot for one of my best friends

Just in case someone has just fallen from the sky, landed here on The Landscapist and has read only the last 2 entries, I feel compelled to point out that at times I make pictures just for the pure fun of it.

ku # 540 ~ in the garden of the world of appearances

Interrelated complexity • click to embiggenOk, I get it. No one wants to contemplate the notion of responsibility in picture making. So let me try to address it in another way.

We are living in, as they say, interesting times. I would opine that here in the US of A we are living in kind of end times - at least as far as the notion of super-capitalism is concerned. And, as many have come to learn the hard way, an economy fueled by super capitalism is self-cannibalizing - it not only eats its young, it consumes anything and everything in its path leaving only a gouged-out husk in its wake.

To use a metaphor that would make Chancey Gardener (go to 1:05 for my point) proud, it seems that the once healthy tree that was life in these here United States has had the life strangled out of it by a creeping vine of consumption. In order to save the tree much careful pruning and nurturing is required. We are in need of a very talented, resourceful, and, most importantly, a very creative gardener-in-chief and an actively engaged body of creative cohorts.

Maybe you don't see it that way but that's how I see it. Maybe you think the thing to do is to just coast along the fringes and see what happens. Just put on a smiley face and hope for the best.

In any event, if you consider yourself to be in the camp of actively engaged assistant gardeners who can also make pictures, what kind of pictures do you think should be made in these interesting times?

I used to think that photographs were "composed." This made photography sound very unexuberant, as if it was primarily a deliberate act. Such a notion suggests that a photographer stands in front of an inviting landscape, arranges a composition, and then takes the picture. And it's true that many photographers work that way. Of course, if photographs can be composed, then there must be rules of composition, such as: the subject should never be dead center. But why not? I used to think you could learn how to be a photographer by learning the rules of composition and how to use a camera. Now I think just the opposite: if you have to learn rules, then it's already too late. The elements of a design can make a photograph bearable and inoffensive, but they will not make a photograph compelling. We are compelled by photographs which, within the limits of an objectively appropriate form, manage to offer us something that touches on authentic concerns - our happiness or unhappiness, our fidelities, our modern war with perplexity. The balance between design and content must be there because design by itself is not interesting and pure content is merely assertive. - John Rosenthal

lots of lights

PPG Plaza ~ Pittsburgh, PA.

man & nature # 79 ~ 11:30PM in a world of appearances

I let the dogs out every night at 11:30PM • click to embiggenI have been re-- reading Robert Adams' Beauty In Photography ~ Essays in Defense of Traditional Values. I have mentioned this book previously and, once again, I will state that this book is an absolute must read (and for a paltry $10 and some change, why not?).

It never ceases to amaze me how good writing always reveals more on second / third / and more readings. In most cases this is especially true if a fair amount of time has passed between readings. Time during which, if the reader has been on a path of curiosity / discovery, more questions and insights are gained into a subject - in this case, photography - that can enhance one's understanding of that which has been read previously.

Of the many enhanced nuggets gleaned from my recent rereading of Adams' book, are a few passages that address one of my favorite topics, that of the medium's intrinsic characteristic of being a cohort of the real. One in particular was his presentation of a quote from Minor White:

... the spring-tight line between reality and photograph has been stretched relentlessly but it has not been broken. These abstractions of nature - his pictures - have not left the world of appearances; for to do so is to break the camera's strongest point - its authenticity.

Adams goes on from that point of reference - the world of appearances - to state that the problem of art in flight from the world of appearances is found in the contrived / strained use of allegory:

... airy stuff where characters walk stiffly around wearing signs, instead of slouching ambiguously past like our neighbors, and only afterward coming to represent more than just themselves. It is the strength of art over allegory that it is more like life; in art as in life, abstractions and truths of the spirit reach us only as they are embodied in believable specifics, in recognizable particulars, what William Carlos Williams identified succinctly as "things".

"Authenticity", "believable specifics", "recognizable particulars" - is there any other visual art medium that is better suited than the medium of photography for noting and representing those "things"? IMO, the answer is a simple. "no".

That is why I so tirelessly champion the notion of the medium of photography as a cohort of "the real". It is why I view with a fair amount of distain the artistically lazy Velviafication (a term I use to cover a host of picturing making distortions of the real) of the natural world. It is why I have come to appreciate those pictures which quietly and with high degree of authenticity let me see what others see in way that allows me to "see" it too.

It is also why I have come to believe that, unique in the world of the arts, the medium of photography has an ability to illustrate and illuminate "the real" (the world of appearances) like no other medium can. It is also why, in the perilous / challenging times in which we live, I believe it is vitally important to define and embrace "the real" and not to flee from it. Again, Robert Adams:

It can be argued that in this I am simply rejecting the Romantic vision and that it is unprofitable to dispute matters of belief. This is probably true but it seems necessary to try to contest the point because the abstractions come to a closed landscape where, lost in our private dreams, we can no longer communicate. Sooner or later we have to ask of all pictures what kind of life they promote, and some of these views suggest to me a frightening alienation from the world of appearances.

Adams, as have quite a few others, seems to be suggesting that photographers have a responsibility, in fact, a moral imperative to picture "the real". To avoid making pictures that flee from the world of appearances. And I most heartily agree.

In fact, I would go so far as to state that the current mess we find ourselves in results from a massive societal flight from "the real". And, IMO, without a doubt, the Velviafication of the pictured natural world has helped ease and grease the way of that flight from the world of appearances and into a world of fantasy that just might destroy us all.

Do you feel any sense of responsibility regarding your picture making?

the power of light

Approximately 25 years ago I started picturing friends at our dining room table by candle light. It was a very informal thing.

Whenever we had friends over for dinner, which was a fairly frequent thing, at some time during the evening I would haul out the SX-70 and make pictures. In those days our dining room was festooned with candles and we always entertained by candle light and on occasion we still do - Xmas, Thanksgiving, and so on.

I have always liked soft subdued interior lighting and it could be accurately stated that the warmer that light the better - which accounts for the fact that I rarely use the "correct" light balance for indoor picturing. Most often, I make interior and exterior incandescent light pictures with daylight white balance and during the RAW conversion I tend to split the color temperature difference between 5200K and 3200K with a bias towards the warmer end of the spectrum.

BTW, if you have not had the pleasure of viewing Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, you should because it is a visual cinemagraphic masterpiece (I happen to like the story very much as well).

Kubrick began his rise to film making fame as his high school's official photographer. Shortly thereafter he became an apprentice photographer and later a full-time staff photographer for Look magazine. Much of the look of Kubrick's later film work was influenced by his still-picture making experience and sensibilities. IMO, never more so than in Barry Lyndon where so many of the scenes are basically exquisitely framed "still" shots with moving elements contained therein.

In fact, many of the scenes appear to be classic paintings from the era (circa 1750 - 1800) with moving elements contained therein. They are visually quite stunning. I was/am especially impressed with those interior scenes that Kubrick filmed entirely by the light of candles (in this clip go to the 1:43 mark). In an innovative move, he mated 3 f0.7 Zeiss still photography lenses (developed for NASA) to his motion picture cameras in order to do so. Once again, the effect - both visual and emotional - is stunning.

In any event, I consider today's picture to be of me having a Barry Lyndon moment. I have no memory of who made this picture but I suspect from the look on my face that it most likely was a woman.

decay # 25 ~ think of it as a sawhorse kind of thing

Squash, apples, and leaves on fine china • click to embiggenYesterday's statement that if you can't "explain" in words what you're doing with your camera, chances are very high that you're not doing something worth talking about may have seemed a bit harsh to some. And, depending on how you read it, it may be just that.

But, as is usually my wont, I did leave a bit of wiggle room in the statement with the caveat of "chances are very high" which, of course, leaves hanging the very low possibility that one might be doing something with one's camera worth talking about even if one can't explain in words what it is you are doing.

Without a doubt, the human race has quite a few constituents who work by the seat of their pants without knowing precisely what's in those pants. Hell, if I had $5,000 for every time I heard the answer to the question, "why'd you do that?" with one variation or another of, "because it felt/seemed like the thing to do", I'd have more money than I do now.

That said, and IMO, many of those who are making pictures that are worth talking about even though they can't do so themselves are suffering not so much from a lack of the ability to do so but rather, a lack of intensive art school "education" (whatever the source of that education). Such an education crams a lot of art stuff into your cranial cavity where some of it is bound to stick, for better or worse, for subsequent retrieval.

An example of "better" retrieval would be when you call upon that stuff in order to better understand and appreciate a work of art (of your making or that of others). An example of "worse" retrieval would be calling upon that stuff just so you can have something intelligent sounding to say, even if it's not relevant, when someone asks you what it is you are doing with your camera.

But here's the thing - the fact that you can't articulate exactly what it is that you are doing with your camera does not preclude me from getting way more out of what you're doing than you ever intended or even hoped for. I can retrieve some of that art stuff from my head and use it to "read" your pictures. Doing so most often enriches my experience when viewing and/or discussing the work of others. I look at it as an added "bonus" to whatever the visual experience might be.

And, I want to make this perfectly clear, no matter what the added intellectual experience might be, most times it doesn't matter a bit if the visual experience doesn't strike a chord with me.

Case in point is today's picture from my decay series. I am certain that there are some out there who are simply not very interested in pictures of decaying food no matter how many references I might make to Flemish Still Life Masters, the concept of vanitas, or any other art stuff. I am equally certain that there are some who are (to include those from a big gallery in Montreal who have offered me a solo show of my decaypictures).

But I digress. If the picture, in and of the presentation and the depicted referent themselves, does not draw me in and demand that I keep on looking, the chances are very high that my desire to haul out the art stuff and become further engaged is pretty low. Despite what the lunatic academic fringe thinks - that pictures are mere courtiers to words - what Artists who use cameras do is make pictures.

Pictures that are meant to be viewed and appreciated for their visual appeal (tastes may vary).

Again, let me be perfectly clear - IMO, if all a picture has to offer is pleasing visual appeal, it is not very likely to have lasting appeal.

As I have stated many many times before, for me, it's all about a picture's ability to illustrate and illuminate. And, of the the pictures that exhibit those criteria, the ones that I like the best are most often those that strike a balance between the two extremes of all visual and all intellectual. Not a perfect 50/50 balance but one that compels me to travel back and forth between the two experiences.