My angry cat out in backyard • click to embiggenIf you have been following The Landscapist or my comments on other forums over the years, you probably know that photo equipment freaks and their inevitable rantings about 'the best' stuff bores me to tears. On occasion, it makes me mad.

One such occasion has (collectively) been happening over the past few days - dating from late Tuesday evening, in fact. That was the evening of the invitation-only launch of the new Olympus E-3 dslr, the pro 'flagship' of the Oly 'E'-line of dslrs. Since I am an Oly man (digital-wise), I have more than a passing interest in the new model for its 'pro' features, most importantly its ability to sync with studio flash equipment. That is something that is important to me in my professional life, photography-wise.

In any event, I (not unlike a lot of others) have been searching around for any solid info I can find. This has landed me on a number of forums which have turned out to be mostly dead ends, primarily because, instead of having any useful info, they are mainly exchanges along the lines of; "Olys ... 4/3rds format ... are crap ... etc." - this most often from Canon freaks with a few Nikon guys here and there (none of whom seem to have actually used an Oly).

These swell statements are met mostly with pithy retorts along the lines of; "Oh yeah! Well, you Canon guys are nothing but a bunch of crap-eating freaks .... etc." It goes without saying that all of the pro/con rants are about equipment and absolutely nothing about pictures. And, please note that I have used the word 'guys' because, unless there are some testosterone-laden chicks hiding behind forum user names, it all seems like some gigantic penile pissing party.

It's enough to drive you mad (both angry and insane).

If I could, I'd sic my angry cat on the whole lot of them.

Two can play that game • click to embiggenThis picture is kind of a father of cinemascapist pictures son of cinemascapist thing, or, a like-father, like-son thing, only in resverse.

Hugo and I had part of a Sunday afternoon to kill so off to the mill we went. It wasn't a picturing walk but I did have a camera with me. When this opportunity presented itself, I was able to grab 5 handheld frames for stitching.

The idea that it plants in my head is that the mill is ripe for pano picturing.

No use crying over water over the dam • click to embiggenAt one time they were everywhere in the Adirondacks - dams, that is. It seems that every river and stream was harnessed for one use or another, ranging from logging and power to recreation.

The dam pictured here is in my hometown of Au Sable Forks. It was first built and used to power the iron ore mill (none other than Benedict Arnold owned a mine here), which in turn 'powered' the village. Later the mill was converted to paper product production and the dam served that industry as well. Today, it just stands there although it does help create some nice recreational water above its confines.

There are still quite a few (most likely, hundreds) dams hanging around on the rivers. They are a form of the 'living history' of the Adirondacks and they fit right in with a book I am reading - Down To Earth, Nature's Role in American History. The author, environmental historian Ted Steinberg, 'offers a bold new critical synthesis od American environmental history ... by demonstrating the myriad but all too often unacknowledged ways in which familiar historical events have been intimately tied to the transformation and exploitation of the natural world ... [he] places the enviromment at the very center of our story ... [he] reminds readers that many critical episodes in our history were, in fact, environmental events ...' - from the book's dust jacket.

The premise of the book is simple - the causal effect of the environment in shaping human history. In effect, turning history on its head - looking at the nature world, not as a backdrop to human events, but rather, as one of the primary shapers of human events.

When viewed through the lens of the environment, one particularly stunning example of this 'causal effect' is the natural world's considerable influence in creating slavery, the Civil War and the eventual defeat of the Confederacy.

Think in these terms - without question, the environment in the South - length of growing season, days of sunshine, rainfall, average temperature, soil quality, etc. (aka, the climate) - was the primary reason southerners turned to a 'one-crop' agricultural economy based on cotton (and to a lesser extent, tobbaco). The agricultural particulars of growing cotton/tobacco, especially the labor-intensive system of land rotation which required ongoing labor at the lowest possible cost, was ideally suited to slave labor. Bingo! Slavery seemed like a damn good idea. And, it's also interesting to note that slavery has never taken hold in a cold northern climate.

Most obviously, the institution of slavery was a primary causal instigator of the Civil War and, fittingly, in a form nature's poetic justice, it was the South's slavish (pun intended) devotion/commitment to King Cotton that came back to bite it in the ass - with it's land tied up in the production of cotton, there was little land left or the economic inclination to grow food. Once an effective naval blockade of southern ports was in place, the South was literally straved to death. General Lee wondered as early as 1862 whether starvation, more than enemy forces, might prove the greater threat to the South. In the end, it was starvation (military and civilian) which brought the South to its knees.

What about military action, you might ask? Sure, but in the latter half of the war, many of the South's military decisions were based on/restricted by it's inability to keep its troops (and horses) fed.

What an idea - the course of human events as decided by the landscape. The moral of the story is evident - ignore or abuse the environment, it's gonna get you in the end.

PS - in case you missed a slightly subtle moral herein, be aware that the decisions to grow just cotton/tobacco and use slave labor to do it were based on unregulated market forces. Seems like the much-idolized 'invisible hand' didn't get it quite right.

Parking lot at sundown • click to embiggenMuch thanks to Bret Kosmider for passing along info about the Toronto Photography Festival. The festival's theme is The Constructed Image.

The festival organizers describe the festival as this - The exhibition demonstrates how the constructed image has irrevocably transformed photography’s relationship to reality.

Whether photographs are composites of multiple scenes or of various disciplines, materials and influences, hybridity is now a fundamental feature of the medium. Images are digitally altered, theatrically arranged, artificially staged and fabricated. Fashion, advertising and marketing strategies, many of which, ironically, were originally influenced by photography, are now frequently reinterpreted by photo-based artists as a means of expression. This directorial nature of working has moved photography away from the objective documentation of the world, and aligned it more closely with the freedom and infinite possibilities that theatre, film, painting and sculpture have always provided. Constructed modes of working are essential for these artists as they articulate concerns relating to contemporary global experiences.

This tidbit from Bret arrived at about the same time I was reading this from Barry Frydlender (see urban ku # 5 for link), a photographer who creates constructed pictures; "David Hockney said that if you put five photographs of the same scene together, people look at them five times longer." Frydlender, when asked if his constructed pictures (which are made of many pictures) were/are an 'act of resistance to a culture increasingly focused on instanteous understanding and gratification?', responded, "Well, what could be more desieable? Do you want prople to just blink?"

My answer to Frydlaender is an emphatic, "No". But then again, how many of you out there want 'people to just blink' when viewing your pictures? No One? OK, but the question is, how do you get and hold viewers attention?

Those photographer-artists who work the found/unaltered side of the photographic street are faced with the monumental task of standing out from the overwhelming photographic clutter of the instant communication age. It was ever thus but now it is exponentially more so, especially considering the fact that there is some damn good stuff floating around in the clutter. These photographer-artists must find either 'new' referents or very new ways of seeing 'old' referents. Otherwise, it's 'blink' and they're gone.

Those artists who use photography to create 'constructed' pictures (in all of their guises) have an advantage on the new playng field - at least when it comes to attracting attention. The naturally curious and eager-to-learn on the planet are inevitably attracted to these pictures because of the ambiguity most often found in constructed pictures. Pictures that are usually packed with information and possibilities just waiting to be explored. Of course, I have always thought that what distinguishes decorative photography from fine art photography is that the objective of the former is to turn off the brain and that the objective of the latter is to engage it.

So, I for one welcome the challenge of picturing in a way which 'transform[s] photography’s relationship to reality' and which 'articulate[s] concerns relating to contemporary global experiences'. In fact, although no one seems to have picked up on it, I have been posting quite a few 'constructed' pictures. Hint: if it says 'crafted' it's constructed (in some fashion).

PS - anyone interested in going with or meeting me in Toronto for the festival? Looks like there's at least a couple days worth of gallery cruising available.

Drive thru - phone orders only • click to embiggenOne of the primary reasons for which I started blogging was to have a conversation about photography. The emphasis has been on 'landscape' and, over the 6 months since The Landscapist has been around, the notion of 'landscape' has evolved, in my mind, to a somewhat broader meaning than the 'traditional' idea of landscape photography.

Much of this transition has come about because of my 'thinking out-loud' here on The Landscapist and your reactions and responses to it. To those of you who have contributed to that process, pro and con - thanks very much. Your feedback and opinions have been much appreciated.

That said, where all this has lead to for me is this - I now have a much refined focus and sense of purpose for my photography. To wit:

For much of my adult life I have been drawn to the Adirondacks simply because of its natural beauty and my first photographic impulse after moving here was to picture that beauty. I have gone about doing that in a very personal way - picturing, in my own pecular photographic way, what I thought and felt was important and meaningful. In that sense I feel that I have accomplished much of what I set out to do - discover more about myself and my relationship to and with the natural world. Along the way I also think that I have created pictures which meet Robert Adams' three verities of landscape pictures - geography, autobiography, and metaphor.

But, time marches on and now I think that photography ain't worth the effort if it's all just about me. For sure, I have been trying (and succeeding) to 'communicate' with others on my path to personal discovery, however, I have had a feeling that something important has been 'missing' in my landscape photography.

That is why this recently struck a chord - Peter Galassi, the chief curator of photography at MOMA, said about the work of Barry Frydlender: the '...open descriptiveness of [his] style, which has its core the notion that facts are symbols, full of socially interpretive information ...', and, his pictures demonstrate a "... willingness to address a big question outside of [him]self."

I want to include in my pictures a big question outside of myself. That question for me is humankind's relationship to the land, aka, 'nature' because, IMO, there is probably no bigger question for our times.

I have also realized that by picturing as I go about my daily life in a park - which happens to be not only the largest wilderness east of the Mississippi but also the largest state park in the lower 48 (bigger than Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Everglades and Yosemite Nat'l parks combined) - I am creating a diary about one of the planet's few examples of a functioning, not theoretical, sustainable economy.

The notion of a sustainable economy flies in the face of our current economic model, as practiced by both producers and consumers, which emphasises desire over need and depletion over conservation. If we don't want things to change for the worse, then things must change.

I want to be part of a change for the better and as David Hockney has opined; 'If we are to change our world view, images have to change. The artist now has a very important job to do. He's not a little peripheral figure entertaining rich people, he's really needed.'

So, there you have it. I am not changing the name of my blog to My Life in a Park but that is where my picturing is headed. I do think, however, that that will be the title of my book.

FYI a good read about Robert Adams

Commodities in a misty spring rain • no embiggen - it's a Polaroid

As I have mentioned previously, we are very fortunate here in the Adirondack Park to have a land use oversight agency, the APA, which governs all land - public and private - use. The APA is strict and thorough.

Of course, that doesn't stop private land owners from having self-serving subdivision wet dreams.

Interestingly enough, the most responsible land owners are the big corporations - primarily lumber and mining interests - whose land is mostly idle. Over the years they have worked with the state to grant easement rights for hikers and sportsmen and, as they divest themselves of their land holdings, they most often sell to the state and the land gets added to the public lands in the park. But, of course, it's not all about being good 'citizens' - tax breaks and other $$$$$ considerations provide a nice bunch of carrots.

The biggest problem are the small private land owners, who under the guise of 'property rights', believe that they can do anything they desire with their property. For them property is an 'investment' that is intented to maximise a return on the dollar. If putting up a 12 story tower - and destroying the character of the place - accomplishes that, well, it's their 'right' to do as they wish.

The really odd thing is that many of these idiots located here for the character of the place. But apparently when it's time to get theirs, it's f*** the rest and on with my show.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, thank goodness for the APA.

Everything comes in threes • click to embiggenIn 1785 Thomas Jefferson proposed U.S. Rectangular Land Survey - commonly know as the grid. Anyone who has flown across the U.S. knows exactly what that means. Congress passed the grid system into law and from that point on this checkerboard pattern was etched from Ohio across the western U.S. - what has been called one of the most far-reaching attempts at rationalizing a landscape in world history.

This exercise was another step in the ongoing process of commodifying nature. It was, and still is, all about markets and exchange. Early settlers in America set about commodifying everything - beaver, deer, forests, water and land.

Nature as a commodity. I am not suggesting that the basic notion is wrong but I have absoutely no hesitancy in suggesting that the notion has been horribly perverted.

a balmy spring late afternoon • lick to embiggenAfter 4 straight years of of creating 'pure'- but not classic - landscape pictures, I am feeling restless.

As many here know, I have, to go along with my ku, added urban ku, with a little civilized ku thrown in, to my picturing repertoire. As I have done so I have also been exploring the photography of others with an eye towards those photographers whose work includes a generous heaping of landscape along with some reference to or actual inclusion of people.

My reason for this is neatly summarized by Richard Misrach when he stated that "There’s a long history of people photographing clouds for their beauty, their formal beauty, and I just don’t think you can do that any more. They’re still beautiful but there’s no way we can look at them instantly and see beautiful abstractions and forms of light, because ... those sunsets, those beautiful reds are coming out of the pollution. Some of the clouds out there are completely man made. It’s a different time and a different way of thinking."

Things are changing within the 'landscape'. More than ever, the effects of the hand of man are everywhere even though they may not be visually apparent. I can no longer glide across the surface of an Adirondack body of water without thinking about the pervasive level of pollution that exists in othewise 'pristine' appearing scenes. Many 'pristine' appearing wilderness lakes and ponds are, in fact, dead as a doornail.

In the past, my 'pure' - no apparent signs of man - landscape ku focused on the commonplace/everyday aspect of the landscape world. The reason was to draw attention to the pervasive and 'overlooked' natural world around us. An attempt to develop an awareness of the beauty which is found in the commonplace and foster a realisation that it is the commonplace that needs our protection and conservation, not just the iconic set-asides of 'monumental' and conventional grandeur.

I am not about to abandon that 'mission'. But, I feel that I can no longer exclusively picture the landscape with only a connoted presence of humankind. This does not mean that I will be seeking out obvious signs of pollution/destruction of the landscape. I am more interested in pursuing a sense of humankind interacting with the landscape - most propably sometimes for the good, sometimes for the not so good.

I also think that, for reasons attributable to a number of postmodernist influences, I will me 'manufacturing' or 'contriving' much of the human presence because I will trying to tell a story with photography which, while it may not be visually "truthful', will use the 'reality factor' of the medium to drive its point home.

Stay tuned. Please do not adjust your set.

BTW, I would very much be interested in reading about any thoughts you might have about your photography. Are you 'satisfied' with depicting just 'pure' landscapes? In today's reality, can 'pure' landscapes be anything more than a convenient un-truth which distracts us from the inconvenient truth of the state of the natural world? - this is a question, not an accusation.

Comments please.