Just a question

Does anyone know what has become of Tim Atherton of MUSE-INGS fame?

Without any notice of any kind, he suddenly stopped posting on May 13th. I have sent off an email inquiry, but a couple weeks later now, there has been no reply. I am beginning to fear the worst.

ku # 527 ~ getting real

Tangled fallen trees • click to embiggenOne of the comments that I regularly encounter, re: the truth and the real, especially as those notions apply to my conceptual approach and practical to making pictures, is the absolute relativist's claim that there is no absolute truth and that any notion of the nature of reality is highly speculative.

Now, I like to sit around with friends (and some drink) and speculate (philosophically, of course) about such matters and it's all very .... well .... speculative and philosophical.

That's all well and good, of course, but at the end of the day, what matters most is where the rubber meets the road - how, based on all that speculative and philosophical stuff, one actually lives one's life. And, what is obvious to any aware, sensate, and sentient human being is that, in order to live a decent life in a sane society, he/she must agree upon commonly held / shared truths (derived from reality) which become the glue that holds it all together. Some of these truths are even thought to self-evident.

I bring this up for 2 reasons; 1) because my next couple entries will be about my re-writing of my artist statement as it applies to both my ku and decay & disgust bodies of work - both of which are wrapped up in notions of the real and truth; and, 2) because the irrepressible Mark Meyer has "stated", "... What I did say (and I stand by it) is that you don't have a privileged view of the Real world", and, that my tag line - photography that aims at being true ... - is either "silly", "insane", or, quite possibly both.

Regarding item #2, just let me state unequivocally that I, in fact, do have a "privileged" view of the real world - at the very least, the real world of the Adirondacks. I live here. I know it intimately. I am immersed in both it's past and present cultural and natural history. I know and live the rhythms of its natural cycles, its topography, its uniqueness as a model of sustainability on the planet (and all of the cultural / societal realities, past and present, that have had and continue to have a profound influence on the shaping of that reality).

It short, I live here and I am "privileged" to be able to do so. By exploring, in depth, as many of the possibilities of that privilege as I am able, I have, indeed, arrived at a place of "a privileged view of the Real world", Adirondack-style. For one to deny that would be ... well ... more than a bit "silly". And, if not "insane", at the very least, a denial of reality.

PS a note to Don who didn't know that Art could be so "testy" - art without passion is no Art at all.

decay # 22 ~ listen to what I am saying

Pan and corks • click to embiggenIn a recent comment, Mark Meyer took a great deal of time and thought to tell me that my insistence upon picturing the world as I see and by rejecting the "advice" from others as to how they would like me to see it, is "blinding you (i.e., Me) to other ways of seeing this image".

To be fair, Mark seems to be coming from the online photo forum mentality that telling someone how one thinks / believes "they should have done it" is the way to help someone grow as a photographer. This is primarily based on the notion that, by doing so, the picture maker, as he states, "could produce a more abstractly pleasing composition". By which, he probably means a "composition" that better conforms to the standard rules of composition - one that will please the most viewers.

If trying to please all of the people, all of the time is your picturing objective, by all means, follow convention. But, understand this - if you think that listening to what others have to say about how you should do it will help you grow as an Artist, you're f----d before you start.

Consider this from August Sander:

If I, August Sander, a man in good physical and emotional health, purport to see things as they are and not as they should or could be, then I hope I will be forgiven, for I cannot do otherwise. I have been a photographer for 30 years and have dedicated myself to my work with all the devotion that I have to give, the path I have chosen has varied, but it has taught me to recognize my mistakes. The exhibition in the Cologne Art Gallery represents the results of my research, and I hope I am on the right track. Nothing is more abhorrent to me than sugary-sweet photography full of pretense, poses, and gimmickry. For this reason, I have allowed myself to tell the truth about our times and people in a sincere manner.

Apparently, Mark Meyer would choose not to forgive poor August. It seems from his comments that he would feel compelled to set him straight about the errors of self-actualization - Hey August, get with the program. Let others tell you what your mistakes are. Let others tell you what path to take. Let others tell you what is real. Let others tell you what the truth is. Oh, and BTW, stop being so sincere - and start pandering to the crowd.

Please, give me (and those trying to find their own unique voice) a break. Stop telling us what to say and how to say it.

By all means, if someone wants advice on how to avoid blown highlights in his/her pictures because highlight detail is an integral part of what they are trying to say, point them in the right direction. BUT, when viewing a picture, don't assume that blown highlights are a "mistake". Instead, try to think about what the picture maker is saying because, maybe, just maybe, the absence of highlight detail just might be an integral part of what they are saying.

ku # 526 ~ guest host anyone?

Limb, moss, lichen • click to embiggenIt's that time again - this coming Saturday, the wife, the kids, the kids' kids, the ex, and a few assorted friends head out for a week in Shangri La. Really. Shangri-La, right here in the Adirondacks.

So what that means is that I am once again (like this time last year) extending an invitation for a one week stint as Guest Host here on The Landscapist. I'll give you the keys, you can fire it up and take it for a spin where ever you want to go. The only thing I ask is for at least an entry a day (more, if you like), next Monday through Friday - this Sunday and next Saturday are optional.

I'd like to stipulate that this is first come, first served but, if more than one volunteer steps forward, I am open to splitting the week up.

In any event, he who hesitates is lost. So, step right up and give me a email - last entry on the Navigation section on the right.

FYI, this picture is the one of my all-time favorites candidate from last week's forced march.

ku # 525 ~ thinking, thinking, thinking

QIntessential high peaks region river • click to embiggenYesterday I mentioned a waning enthusiasm for my landscape ku picturing. I guess that should come as no surprise after making more than 1,000 ku pictures.

Nevertheless, this week I did something that I have never done before - forced myself to take a hike with the intent of making ku pictures. The word "forced" may be too strong in as much as taking a hike up here is hardly a disagreeable thing whatever your intent but I did have to will myself to do it (where's the u-shaped electric cattle prod when you need it?) in a manner to which I was unaccustomed.

That said, the point of the exercise was to see, once I was out there, if the natural world was still speaking to me in the way it has up until this point, which could be summed up like this - I listen. Nature speaks. I picture. Or, like this:

That's one of the problems about taking pictures, some people think when they are taking pictures ... they shouldn't think, thinking is bad for taking pictures. Thinking is good for conceptualizing. Taking pictures has to do with seeing things, being surprised, being interested, it is not about thinking, it is about discovering." - Eliott Erwitt

Of course, Erwitt (and I) are speaking about making "conceptual snapshots" - those pictures with which the "mental labour employed in it" is expended well before one takes camera in hand and ventures forth to picture. And, as I mentioned in yesterday's entry, I have been more engaged recently in thinking as part an integral part of the act of picturing - "constructing" and "staging" the visual referents in my decay & disgust pictures.

I must admit that all of this picture-making thinking has led me to a moment of self-doubt about my non-thinking ku picturing - is it just the lazy way of making a picture? You know, you just do a few index finger stretching / flexing reps, use a little Visine, grab a camera, and get to it.

I mean, how hard is that?

OK. OK. Calm down. It is should be obvious from the sheer astronomical number of mediocre and outright bad pictures out there that making good pictures (see Ku # 522 ~ it's a matter of educated opinion for a notion about "good") is not all that easy. But, I think you get my point.

So, you might ask (getting back to the matter at hand), how did the forced march go? Quite well, in fact. Once in the environment, I found the natural world is still singing and speaking and my eye is still seeing. It was a very productive hike, picturing-wise. Several good additions to the ku body of work were created, including one that may turn out to be one of my all-time favorites.

It appears that I've still got the ku in me. In fact, I am relatively certain that I will always have it in me. It's just that, to paraphrase the Walrus, the time has come to think of other things ....

There is, however, plenty more ku to come.

decay # 21 ~ it's a competition

Apple and strawberries • click to embiggenI am not a fan of photographers who are basically, consciously or not, trying to be painters. To quote Edward Weston:

People who wouldn't think of taking a sieve to the well to draw water fail to see the folly in taking a camera to make a painting.

My distaste for such photography is similar to August Sander's:

Nothing is more abhorrent to me than sugary-sweet photography full of pretense, poses, and gimmickry.

That said, I read the following in the introduction, by Kerry Brougher, to Joel Sternfeld's American Perspectives:

... Sternfeld chose to expand photography, corrupting its purity by injecting it with elements from other media. If photography was going to move forward, it would have to travel beyond the photographic community and into the art world in general, yet be more than a conceptual snapshot and replay of Evans and Frank. It was going to have to compete with painting. (my emphasis).

Whoa, Nellie. Photography vs painting. Shades of the gunfight at the O.K. Corral. A Battle of the Titans. Godzilla vs. Mothra ... (need I go on?)

A visit today to any Art museum with any pretense of a Photography Department will confront (some might say, assault) the visitor with BIG photographs. Really BIG - museum-wall sized prints. The Artist who uses photography, Jeff Wall, is the reigning champion of BIG pictures - up to 30 feet - because he deliberately set out to "compete" with painting.

The other thing one will notice in these museums is the nearly overwhelming presence of photographs that are staged or contrived. Again, Jeff Wall, is one of the foremost practitioners of this approach. Once again, because he deliberately set about to "compete" with painting.

The key to understanding the fascination in the Art world with staged / contrived pictures is fairly simple. One has only to look back to 1768 and this from Sir Joshua Reynolds writing for the Royal Academy in London:

The value and rank of every art is in proportion to the mental labour employed in it, or the mental pleasure produced by it. As this principle is observed or neglected, our profession becomes either a liberal art, or a mechanical trade.....

Hence, the statement from American Perspectives that photography must "be more than a conceptual snapshot" to be taken seriously in the general world of Art.

I mention all of this because of my continuing interest in building my decay & disgust body of work.

While I did not intentionally set out to compete with painting, one of the qualities that I deliberately created for the work is that of the paintings of classic Flemish / Dutch Still-Life Masters. Not only the visual characteristics (primarily the quality of light), but also the propensity of those painters to paint, with great detail, that which they found all around them - the everyday objects of their life and lives. And they did so without what the Art world calls "an ideal of form and expression", and with a "tendency to realism, to the exact copy of Nature in its most material forms."

My intention for the work is to print it big, or, more accurately, by today's standards, big-ish.

So, am I competing with painting? If you consider my painting referential approach in form, content, and concept; the obvious manifestations of my "mental labour employed in it" (authorial intent) which also derives from the "staged and contrived" arrangements of my referents; and the potential for "the mental pleasure produced by it" (contemplation of many meanings and associations that can be derived), I guess that the answer is yes.

All of which I have been aware of from the very start of this body of work. I think that this explains, to some extent, my recent diminished enthusiasm for my landscape ku - I am not so certain that it can "compete with painting" as well as my decay & disgust work can.

On that note,let me leave you with this:

A good photograph, like a good painting, speaks with a loud voice and demands time and attention if it is to be fully perceived. An art lover is perfectly willing to hang a painting on a wall for years on end, but ask him to study a single photograph for ten unbroken minutes and he’ll think it’s a waste of time. Staying power is difficult to build into a photograph. Mostly, it takes content. A good photograph can penetrate the subconscious – but only if it is allowed to speak for however much time it needs to get there. - Ralph Gibson

As always, your thoughts are appreciated.

Update on Friday, June 27, 2008 at 03:16PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Joe Reifer asked: "Size matters ... So how big are you going to print, and how does the price tag match the size?"

my response: I agree that size does matter, so, 36×36 inch image on 48×48 inch paper, editions of 6, priced at $2,500 (1-4), $4,000 (5,6)

Featured Comment: Mauro wrote: "I do not agree on the term competition. To compete you have to be in the same temporal/space dimension with your competitor."

my response: the same temporal/space dimension, aka, the "playing field", is the general world of art. And make no mistake, on that playing field in the world of contemporary Art, photography and painting are competing for collector's dollars.

ku # 524 ~ good grief, Charlie Brown

North Branch of the Boquet River • click to embiggenEvery now and then, for reasons I don't understand, I post a picture or 2 on an online nature photography forum. And, every now and then, there is a nugget of feedback that goes beyond the typical I would have ... stuff.

But, one thing that happens very regularly is very similar comments that help me understand more fully the notion that I have mentioned here before - the more you know, the more you can know. Or, to be more accurate in this case, the less you know, the less you can know.

Case in point - yesterday, I posted the above picture. It received the following 2 comments:

1) Wish the camera position was maybe a touch lower - I feel a little "crowded" by the fg on this one.

2) I would agree with ______, a lower look would help the view here. I also think its just a bit too dark as is.

Ignoring the wishful thinking, the thing that gets me, or, in fact, I should say, absolutely stuns me, is that both of these commenters actually "got" part of what I was trying to say. I just can't tell you how many times my pictures generate comments that demonstrate that the viewers actually see and feel what I am saying - they call out feeling that my pictures have incited - and then proceed to ignore the fact that what they see and feel is exactly what I was attempting to convey.

The only thing that I can figure is that they are more interested in what supposedly constitutes a "good" illustration to the point of ignoring the illuminative qualities of a picture - that which is beneath the surface of things.

Or, perhaps it is as simple as the fact that most people would rather revel in the idyllic than in the real.

In this case, and, to wit, the Adirondack natural world is a "crowded" place. The forest is densely packed. Bushwacking here does the word proud - virtually everywhere you go (off trail), you're gonna get wacked by a lot of "bushes". In the case of backwoods rivers, brooks, and streams, access to them is most often very limited because the dense forest and undergrowth goes right down to and overhangs the water's edge.
click to see what I mean

Therefore, while picturing this scene, it was my intent to illustrate the fact that the Adirondack forest is "crowded". There is a very real sense of being "cramped" and "hemmed in". Backcountry access to waterways is very often very limited to a bushwack through dense forested undergrowth, not to mention, over boulders and erratics. And, this should come as no surprise, under the densely packed Adirondack forest canopy, it is a bit dark, especially so on overcast days like the one pictured here. The sensation one has emerging from the forest to the water's edge is that of transitioning from the "dark" into the "light".

So, there you have it. The 2 commenters were actually able to see what I was saying, but, apparently, in their zeal to be good and helpful critics on the subject of "accepted" rules and regulations re: how - to - make - a - "good" - picture, they made suggestions that, if implemented, would have pretty much destroyed the feeling I was trying to (and apparently succeeding) convey.

I find this stunning. They both "got it". They were able to immediately understand my use of elements of the medium's visual vernacular. Nevertheless, they ignored what they seemed to intuitively "know" - some combination of their intellects and emotions told them that the pictured conveyed "crowded" and "dark" - and decided instead to convey to me what they had been told was a good picture.

This is why, for the most part (and in spite of those every now and then aberrations of thoughtful insight), I emphatically believe that online photo forums are harmful to the development of picturing what you see as opposed to picturing what you have been told is a good picture.

caveat - it should be understood that I am NOT impugning the intelligence and/or integrity of the aforementioned commenters. I am merely attempting to point out that the more you know about the medium's vernacular, as opposed to its technical aspects and "rules", the more you can know about the pictures you view. The more you know about metaphoric constructs and the metaphoric process as a connection between language (in this case, visual language) and life, the more you can know about the pictures you view. The more you know about the language of signs and symbols, the more you can know about the pictures you view.

And, guess what? The more you know about that stuff, the more you can know about making good pictures of what you see and feel.

ku # 523 ~ a couple new things to consider

The quiet before a storm • click to embiggenA few things of note have passed my way recently so I thought I'd pass them on to you for your consideration.

The first item came via an email from Tyler Monson with the subject line, Fellow from Seattle. I did not know Tyler prior to this missive and the photo that was attached together with the text was ... well ... a bit off beat.
Tyler Monson, I presume • clickThe text read; "One hand for the camera, the other for a triple espresso...and not a drop spilled nor opportunity missed." The picture is on the left.

Undeterred, I followed the link to his blog.More Original Refrigerator Art, about which he states - "where a new image is posted every day, and words are few". That seems to be the case - there is no way to leave a comment, there does seem to be a picture a day, and his words are very few and far between.

IMO, his pictures are well worth the time spent viewing them. They are not of the new-way-of-seeing variety - they are very much in the postmodern idiom of cool and detached - but, that said, I find them to be very interesting and involving. Visually, the pictures are rather "formal", which I tend to like. There are occasional flirtations with humor - I laughed out loud at a couple pictures. IMO, it's very good stuff. But, 'nuff said from me. I am interested in reading what you might have to say.

Item # 2 is from Joe Reifer. His blog is one that I follow on a regular basis - it/he introduced me to the genre of night photography which, at its best, I also find interesting and involving. Joe's NP niche is junkyards by the light of the full moon. He also dispenses interesting photo tidbits from time to time.

That said, Joe recently posted 2 entries of recent work, Salvage Yard II & III, in which, IMO, he has made some very interesting and very involving pictures. Again, IMO, he's on to something big, something very big. The work has made such a dramatic impression upon me that I am going to write a full-blown review of it asap.

But, I don't want to give away the store here. Again, I would like to read your thoughts on the work.

FYI, I am trying, here on The Landscapist, to encourage critiques from you, the reader, about the photography of others (or mine) as a means of:

a) communicating about pictures in a manner related to content, not the tech crap or lame "I like the way you composed ... cropped ... used a GND .... etc. crap that is most often encountered on the web.

b) helping those who need and/or want to escape the inanity of item a) in order to start understanding the real capabilities / power of the medium so that they can develop their own personal way of seeing, aka, vision.

IMO, the best "education" one can get for the development of a personal vision is one based on looking at the pictures made by others and, starting with the ones that you don't understand / get, discuss your thoughts and questions with others on the same learning path. In short, work at it. Learn something new.

Despite what the it's-a-visual-art simpletons think, what a picture connotes is as important - in the Art world, more important - as its visual referent and/or its visual form. It's the idea(s) beneath the surface and how well the picture / picture-maker communicate that idea(s) that matters most.

Forget all that technique stuff, that really is the easy part. As has been stated by many, once you have an idea, the manner in which to express it flows naturally.

Don't be shy. Take a look at both links and let me / the rest of us know what you think. Then we can discuss it. who knows what we might learn.