civilized ku # 126 ~ more fall foliage forever

A carpet of yellow leaves on City Line Ave. ~ Philadelphia, PA. • click to embiggen

civilized ku # 124-25 ~ fall foliage forever

Looking left and right on City Line Ave. ~ Philadelphia, PA. • click to embiggenOne of the "features" of our recent travels has been that of following the fall foliage. We lost most of our leaves about a month ago although even around here, depending upon elevation, there is a transitional factor at work - higher elevations lose leaves first, lower elevations last.

3 weekends ago, the trees were in fine color 75 miles south of us during our day-trip to Saratoga Springs. 2 weekends ago in Montreal there was still a healthy amount of fall foliage still in evidence. Even though Montreal is north of us, it's much more temperate - not only at a lower elevation but it also has the tempering effect of the St. Lawrence River.

This past weekend in Philadelphia, most trees were sporting quite a display of color and, as I was picturing some of it, I came to the realization that in many ways I like fall foliage in city environs at least as much if not more so than I do in the mountains of the Adirondacks. In fact, it is rather amazing how much trees (at any time of the year) in a city transform the urban landscape.

The unfortunate aspect of that equation is that trees are usually only found in neighborhoods that are higher up on the personal income scale. And make no mistake about, the City Line Ave. neighborhood pictured here is well into the upper income register. FYI, I found myself in this neighborhood while visiting coma girl in her student-housing apartment (Saint Joseph's University).

In any event, it's kinda weird having a rolling / extended fall foliage season as we travel about the NE region.

civilized ku # 123 ~ empty space filled with details

Recently vacated parking spot ~ Philadelphia, Pa. • click to embiggenLast weekend it was Montreal. This weekend it was Philadelphia / South New Jersey. Later this week, it's NYC (for the opening of Aaron's show). I feel like I'm on a merry-go-round that won't stop.

In any event, everywhere I go, there I am and with cameras at the ready, there's always something to grab the eye.

A picture should draw you on to admire it, not show you everything at a glance. After a satisfactory general effect, beauty after beauty should unfold itself, and they should not all shout at once . . . This quality [mystery] has never been so much appreciated in photography as it deserved. The object seems to have been always to tell all you know.. This is a great mistake. Tell everything to your lawyer, your doctor, and your photographer (especially your defects when you have your portrait taken, that the sympathetic photographer may have a chance of dealing with them), but never to your critic. He much prefers to judge whether that is a boathouse in the shadow of the trees, or only a shepherd's hut. We all like to have a bit left for our imagination to play with. Photography would have been settled a fine art long ago if we had not, in more ways than one, gone so much into detail. We have always been too proud of the detail of our work and the ordinary detail of our processes. - Henry Peach Robinson

IMO, the ability of the medium of photography to capture details is a big part of what it's all about. The medium's ability to do so is so much a part of its intrinsic and inimitable relationship with the real. But, that said, if your pictures are all about the details, maybe you should consider a career in CAD (computer aided design).

civilized ku # 122 ~ two people walking

Signs - Deux Cotes et Arret • Montreal, CA. • click to embiggen

civilized ku # 121 ~ 3 red rectangles

Camion $20.00 • Montreal, CA. • click to embiggen

civilized ku # 120 ~ it ain't what you eat, it's the way how you chew it

Reflected light • click to embiggenOn yesterday's entry, Mark Meyer parried my basic premise (and most of my past stuff as well) with the idea of "neoclassicists looking back to Aristotle's Poetics" who managed to "get it (art & beauty) right" and that most of my critical approach is based on the idea that "neoclassicists looking back to Aristotle's Poetics" got it wrong.

Well, I must admit that Mark is part right. When it comes to the medium of photography, I do think that "neoclassicists looking back to Aristotle's Poetics" have got it wrong.

Why? Let's start with this (sorry Mark, another quote):

Let us first say what photography is not. A photograph is not a painting, a poem, a symphony, a dance. It is not just a pretty picture, not an exercise in contortionist techniques and sheer print quality ... ~ Bernice Abbott

It always amuses me (when it doesn't annoy me) that so many practitioners of the act of picture making seem to think that photography is basically painting done with a machine. Their aesthetics come straight from the school of "neoclassicists looking back to Aristotle's Poetics". They faithfully mimics both their ideas and ideals.

[CAVEAT let me once again be clear on this point - if your muse is predisposed to head in the direction of "neoclassicists looking back to Aristotle's Poetics", have at it. Enjoy yourself. Have fun. Be the best that you can be. My thoughts on the matter should not give you one single moment's pause].

However, my ideas about the possibilities of medium of photography go far beyond that of pursuing /picturing "ideals". The single paradigm-changing (art-wise) characteristic of the medium of photography is its intrinsic and inimitable relationship with the real. Not idealized forms, but rather, the real.

Language (and photography is a visual language) is said to be composed of 2 inseparable parts, words and the manner in which words are used to communicate ideas, AKA, Content (words) and Form (the way the words are used).

The visual language of photography is no different. It utilizes Content (the subject of the camera's gaze) and Form (the manner in which the content is pictured and presented) in order to communicate ideas and meanings.

It goes without saying that in either case - the spoken/written word and visual language - how you "say it" goes a long way in determining / influencing how the idea(s) and meaning(s) you wish to express are received and understood. So, Content must be mated to the appropriate Form in order to effectively communicate the author's intent.

That is why so many current (and a fair number of previous) practitioners of the act of making pictures (photography-wise) who are interested in pursuing the possibilities of the medium with respect to the real, utilize distinctly different types of Form from those "neoclassicists looking back to Aristotle's Poetics" utilize.

Many current practitioners believe that a "new" type of Content - the real - demands a "new" type of Form in order to communicate their ideas and meanings.

So, IMO, it's not so much that the ancient Greeks got it "wrong" as it is that they simply weren't photographers.

Let me close with this:

... The assumption that (Ansel) Adams and his kind are the only "real" photographers usually indicates an aversion to the dissonant and playful spirit of modern art ... - John Rosenthal

civilized ku # 119 ~ public square

Soaring monument and monumental edifice • Montreal, CA • click to embiggen

civilized ku # 118 ~ stone

Entrance - 64 Saint Paul ouest • Montreal, CA. • click to embiggen