counter customizable free hit
About This Website

This blog is intended to showcase my pictures or those of other photographers who have moved beyond the pretty picture and for whom photography is more than entertainment - photography that aims at being true, not at being beautiful because what is true is most often beautiful..

>>>> Comments, commentary and lively discussions, re: my writings or any topic germane to the medium and its apparatus, are vigorously encouraged.

Search this site
Recent Topics
Journal Categories
Archives by Month
Subscribe
listed

Photography Directory by PhotoLinks

Powered by Squarespace
Login

BODIES OF WORK ~ PICTURE GALLERIES

  • my new GALLERIES WEBSITE
    ADK PLACES TO SIT / LIFE WITHOUT THE APA / RAIN / THE FORKS / EARLY WORK / TANGLES

BODIES OF WORK ~ BOOK LINKS

In Situ ~ la, la, how the life goes onLife without the APADoorsKitchen SinkRain2014 • Year in ReviewPlace To SitART ~ conveys / transports / reflectsDecay & DisgustSingle WomenPicture WindowsTangles ~ fields of visual energy (10 picture preview) • The Light + BW mini-galleryKitchen Life (gallery) • The Forks ~ there's no place like home (gallery)


Entries in crafted ku, a landscape of the mind (21)

Tuesday
Oct252011

civilized ku # 1162 ~ dancing solo

1044757-14803261-thumbnail.jpg
Parking lot cones ~ Saratoga, NY • click to embiggen
There are times when I know a given action on my part will create a rather negative reaction (also on my part) but I go ahead and do it regardless. It would seem that I just can't resist annoying myself. Although, in most cases, I am less annoyed with myself for allowing myself to be annoyed than I am by the annoyance I experience as a result of being annoyed by the annoying activities of others, if you know what I mean.

If you don't know what I mean, let me give you an example ...

As the result of seeing a link (on a photo blog) to an article - Understanding Criticism by Alain Briot - on The Luminous Landscape, I followed the link knowing full well there would most likely be something for me to be annoyed with.

caveat/full disclosure: I am neither a fan of The Luminous Landscape - way too gear/technicals oriented for my taste - nor the pictures of Alain Briot - way too pretty picture / clichéd for my eye and sensibilities. That said, it should be understood that I do not dislike the persons known as Michael Reichmann or Alain Briot in any way inasmuch as I have never met either individual. In the specific case of Alain Briot and the context of this entry, my comments, ironically enough, should be taken only as a critique of the ideas/notions found in Briot's article Understanding Criticism, not as a criticism of Briot's personhood. He and I have differing opinions on the subject. Should Briot come upon this entry, I hope he understands. end caveat/full disclosure

In installment # 2 of Understanding Criticism - item # 4, under the heading of Do not be your own critic, Briot states (the bold emphasis is mine in order to highlight some points I wish to address):

Do not be the critic of your own work. Your personal judgment for your work is based on considerations that are different from those of your audience. Personal emotions and memories are attached to the work that we created. Plus, creating artwork involves a significant amount of time, money, and effort. Therefore, we are understandably bias when it comes to our own work: we tend to think highly of it because of how hard we worked on it.

On the other hand we may also feel that no matter how much effort we put into our work the outcome falls short of our expectations. In that case we may not think much of our work, not because of what the work actually looks like, but because we are looking at the difference between what our original goal was and what we ended up with. Here too, we are bias[sic], but this time in a negative way.

Don’t do it. Instead, let people decide if they like your work or not. If you sell your work, let them ‘vote with their money.’ It works great and the answer is accurate and measurable. By keeping an open mind when it comes to the evaluation of your work, and by listening to your audience, you will learn valuable things that you may have missed if you only listened to your own opinion. People not involved in the creation of the work do not know what we know and did not experience what we went through. However, eventually, none of that matters. What matters is how our work comes across, and whether or not it successfully communicates to our audience the vision we want to share.

First and foremost, the idea that a picture maker should not be the critic of his/her own work is, IMO, a somewhat wacky notion. Given the idea of "personal vision" which springs from a picture maker's innermost intellect and emotions, who, other than the picture maker him/herself, is better suited to be a critic of their own work?

Furthermore, I thoroughly fail to understand how discovering, understanding, and trying to implement (in pictures) your own personal vision can be construed as a "bias" in any sense that might negate that knowledge / driving force as a basis - in fact, IMO, the absolute best basis - for self-critique.

Simply stated, it is my belief that you should be your own most demanding critic. You, and only you, know what you wish to express with your picture making endeavors. What anyone else may get or not get from viewing your pictures is entirely irrelevant to developing your own personal vision unless, of course, all you really want from the expression of your personal vision is praise, awards, accolades, and financial gain.

While there is no avoiding the fact, others (an audience) will decide whether "to like your work or not", using that decision to guide the development and expression of your personal vision - Briot suggests you keep "an open mind when it comes to the evaluation of your work, and by listening to your audience, you will learn valuable things that you may have missed if you only listened to your own opinion" - is a fool's errand**. After all, it's called a personal vision, not a group vision, right? So, what can an audience tell you about your own personal vision, that is to say, an inner voice begging and screaming to be let out of its inner box?

Of course, not everyone has a begging and screaming inner voice. For most, the notion of expressing oneself (as opposed to one's self) is very wrapped up with the notion of desiring / seeking praise, awards, accolades, and financial gain. That is why I believe Brooks Jensen was right on the mark when he wrote:

... eventually every photographer who sticks with it long enough arrives at a technical plateau where production of a technically good photograph is relatively easy. It is here that real photography starts and most photographers quit.

"Real photography", in Jensen's opinion,

... begins when we let go of what we have been told [ed. - by an audience or "gurus"] is a good photograph and start photographing what we see.

IMO, standing on your own two feet, three if you're using a tripod (or is it five), when it comes to personal vision, picture making wise, requires a certain amount of insular introspection and personal strength. That is, the ability to not only to shut off the "audience" and learn to listen to your own self, but to also have the fortitude to stand by that self and go your own way (responsibly, of course).

All of that said, I hope I haven't annoyed you.

*for the purposes of expressing one's self, making less than technically "perfect" prints might be part of the vision.

**the only exception being for those whose financial livelihood is dependent upon the sales of their pictures or assignments from clients to make more of the same. In those cases, pleasing the audience/client is everything.

Tuesday
Feb152011

crafted ku # 20 - pigeon regulation n˚ 1 (made by me, not Di Liu)

1044757-10757869-thumbnail.jpg
Pigeon Regulation n˚ 1 ~ Chelsea, NYC • click to embiggen
As mentioned, one of the exhibits I found very interesting was reGeneration2: tomorrow's photographers today - a group exhibition of the work of 80 picture makers selected from the top 120 photography schools around the world.

According to the exhibition's organizers, curators from Musée de l'Elysée in Lausanne, Switzerland, the aim of the exhibit was stated as:

As the study of any artist's career makes clear, early works contain the seed of the mature artist ... [B]y taking a young photographer at the outset of his or her career, we would have an idea, however imperfect, of what he or she could be doing twenty years hence. And by taking a significant number of photographers ... it just might add up to a tantalizing glimpse of what form or forms photography might take when the museum's fiftieth anniversary come around.

Only time will tell us what "form or forms photography might take" 30 years hence, but nevertheless, the exhibit certainly did feature a wide ranging diversity of genres and genre-bending pictures. That fact was what made this exhibit so interesting to me.

While it is unquestionably true that I am a devotee of "straight" picture making, I also appreciate most other genres of picture making. Hell, my own flesh and blood, AKA - The Cinemascapist makes cinematic inspired mise-en-scène ("constructed") pictures that blur the lines between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy, and what is and what isn't. And add to that the fact that I am in the process of creating / crafting, for a summer exhibition, 3 more pictures in my life without the APA series - pictures that are each made up of 3 (or more) reality-based pictures blended together to create an imagined, but very realistic, "reality".

I mention constructed / crafted pictures because about 1/2 of the 80+ pictures in the reGeneration2 exhibit were constructed pictures. FYI, "constructed" includes staged pictures wherein an "event" is pictured in any entirely straightforward manner but the event itself is orchestrated. The pictures, which I like very much, from Tereza Vlckova's A Perfect Day, Elise ... series (the first 8 pictures on the page) would be an excellent example of staged events.

On the other hand, many constructed / crafted pictures usually are made from separate images or parts thereof which are blended together to create an imagined reality. Some imagined realities have the look of the real - the blending is virtually undetectable, while others stretch the look of the real into regions of pure and visually obvious fantasies. The pictures from Di Liu's Animal Regulation series are an excellent and, to my eye and sensibilities, a very interesting example of stretching to the breaking point the medium's characteristic of being a cohort to the real.

It is interesting to note that, of the other exhibits I viewed, there was a similar division of straight vs. constructed pictures. To be precise, about 2/3rds of the exhibits were of straight pictures while other 1/3 were of constructed pictures.

And, just to be perfectly clear, I pick and choose which pictures I like based upon whether or not, independent of genre, I like a picture or series of pictures. My reasons for liking a picture or series of pictures is often predicated upon many factors but rarely is it dependent upon genre.

Thursday
Mar112010

civilized ku # 430 ~ a shared truth about the nature of reality

1044757-6097462-thumbnail.jpg
Serv-O-Matics • click to embiggen
It is certainly true that on occasion here on The Landscapist there is heated debate and discussion about quite a number of topics, both picture wise and culture / society / politic wise - especially so regarding truth and reality.

However, I do believe that there is one truth about the nature of reality with which there is little, if any, disagreement. Who amongst us would beg to differ with the notion that a household without a Serv-O-Matic is like a day without sunshine.

IMO, I can't begin to imagine what my life would be like without a couple of Brandt Peters Serv-O-Matics around the house to talk to - get a little support, a little advice, and a little insight into things that really matter.

And why not? After all, they exist, as is clearly stated on the boxes they come in, To Serve and Protect. And you know they will because they are Quality Tested • Performance Guaranteed.

CAVEAT: for the younger readers in the audience - always keep in mind, once again as clearly stated on the boxes they come in: This is not a toy. Recommended for ages 15 & up

PS - Brandt Peters has a blog HERE.

Wednesday
Feb102010

civilized ku # 383 ~ damn it - a clarification, pt. II

1044757-5703518-thumbnail.jpg
The light at breakfast ~ Auberge du Vieux Port - Montreal, CA • click to embiggen
Anil Rao left a 2-part comment (see following entry for part 1) on yesterday's damn it entry. Part # 2 read:

2) In a recent post, you had stated that your new digital camera was so good that you really didn't see a need for other (supposedly bigger or better) cameras/formats, except of course for some very specialized needs ... So, why do you want to go back to a Hassy system, color negative film and scanners? Seems contradictory to your earlier position, no?

Good question. And, the truth of the matter is actually quite simple.

While I am indeed quite please and happy with my new digital camera - the Olympus m4/3rds EP-1 (I don't need no stinkin' EVF), I just can't get by the fact that a picture made utilizing large format color negative film (i.e., larger than 35mm) and good optics is, to my eye and sensibilities, the absolute pinnacle of the color print making craft.

IMO, color prints made utilizing digital print making materials and equipment are the equal to, and even surpass, the quality and look and feel of the traditional C-print. However, I have yet to experience a digital picture making device, i.e., sensor, that well and truly delivers the look and feel of a traditional color negative.

IMO, those who would claim otherwise simply haven't seen enough high-quality - custom, hand printed by an experience crafts-person - C-prints to render an informed opinion. To be perfectly clear, that would be an opinion, not about the quality of digital capture, but about "the look" digital image capture vis-a-vis "the look" of traditional analog / film image capture.

Let me also be perfectly clear on a related point - my preference for "the look" of pictures made with color negative film v. those made with digital capture is just that, an aesthetic preference.

All of that said, I really don't want to return to the picture making days of good ol' yesteryear. My picture making life has its fill of ill-processed film, the joys of embedded dust / dirt / scratches, jammed / locked-up Hasselblads, and other "nostalgic" folderol.

But, what I do want is a sensor that captures picturing "data" in a manner that replicates "the look" of color negative film.

Friday
Jan222010

civilized ku # 363 ~ what the world needs now is NOT love, sweet love

1044757-5472548-thumbnail.jpg
Nutcracker • click to embiggen
I have been avoiding entries of the political kind for a while now, although I would dearly like to have made a few. Heaven and Hell knows that there are a wealth of topics to touch on but ....

In any event, tonight I will be dining with a US Congressman who, on occasion, has had the ear of The President of these here US of America. So, I have drawn up a long list of things for him to pass on to President Obama, all of which fall under the title of "If I Were Running the World...." or "The World According to Mark" or, more specifically, "Could You Please Grow a Pair, or, Use the Pair You Got". Relative to the last title, it has been suggested in a growing chorus of voices that Obama should come out of his Ivory (Ivy League) Tower, put on the gloves, and take a stand or two or three or ...

I find that interesting in light of the fact that for the past 18 months or more, our house has been graced by the above pictured Hillary Clinton effigy. If you click to embiggen the picture you will most likely notice the ragged metal bars that line the top of her inseam. That apparatus aids immeasurably in her actions as a world-class nutcracker.

We, here in this household, tend to like Hillary in that "function" and, IMO, The President needs to adopt more than a little of the same "function", cuz if he don't start kickin' ass, bustin' balls, and taking names on quite a number of fronts and issues, we're the ones who are going to have our balls in a nutcracker. Although, if Obama keeps on the same path as he has been plodding, maybe Hillary will have his nuts in a cracker in 2012.

That said, I was wondering if any of you out there would like to add anything to my list of President Obama's "things to do".

Friday
Jan082010

crafted ku # 10 ~ my life is changed forever

1044757-5306711-thumbnail.jpg
The best of all possible worlds • click to embiggen
Just got back from a trip to our local Everything U Need For a Great Life franchise and I have to say that the wife and I were so overwhelmed with the feelings of grace and superiority that were bestowed upon us by the clarity and detail of 1080 HD TV that we couldn't settle for just 1, so we purchased 2.

What an epiphany. Screw truth and the real lo-def world. I may never leave the house again.

Friday
Dec252009

civilized ku # 303 ~ Merry Xmas and a ... say what?

1044757-5163746-thumbnail.jpg
Say again • click to embiggen
A Merry Xmas and/or Happy Holidays to one and all.

Enjoy your HDTV if Santa brought you one and good luck with "Some Assembly Required" and instructions translated by someone after / during an office party (in China).

Tuesday
Dec222009

crafted ku # 9 ~ ho, ho, ho

1044757-5140699-thumbnail.jpg
(in labor?) Awaiting the virgin birth • click to embiggen
Xmas is upon us and that brings to mind a joke:

Question: What's the difference between Tiger Woods and Santa Claus?

Answer: Even Santa stops at 3 hos.

With that notion cleared up, I was wondering if any of you had visions of sugar plum encrusted picture making gear on your list to Santa? Is there any gear-lust going on? And if so, what's the reason for it? Just curious.