decay # 23 ~ art disease

Tea kettle meltdown • click
to embiggenI have often wondered whether those who were first drawn to my blog by the name Landscapist, which implies landscape pictures, have been disappointed by the fact that over time my oeuvre of posted pictures has diversified to include some subjects - most notably my Decay & Disgust and Picture Windows works - that are pretty far afield from "picture(s) representing a view of natural inland scenery" (from the Merriam-Webster dictionary).

It's true that, for a 3 year period, I did concentrate almost exclusively on "pure" landscape picturing. But, the thing that I could/can not deny - my need to explore other facets of humankind's (to include my) relationship to the world around us - came back to haunt and drive me. I say "came back" because in my life in photography, especially in my professional career, I have always been rather diversified.

One of things that I am particularly pleased with are the 2 coffee table books that feature my pictures - 2 books that could not be more different in content and style. They are as different as Pumpkin Mousse with Cabernet Sauvignon Sun-Dried Cherry Sauce is from someone dying right in front of you in the ER.

2 entirely different exercises - Allegheny General ~ Portrait of an Urban Medical Center and The Duquesne Club Cookbook ~ Celebrating 125 Years • click to embiggen

As different as picturing in color with a tripod mounted medium format camera and controlled lighting is from picturing in BW with a handheld rotating lens panoramic camera and available light. As different as an ultra-controlled subject and one that is fluid and fast-paced.

What I am particularly happy about, aside from the work itself, is that 2 different organizations with 2 distinctly different pictures needs chose me to create the work. In the upper reaches of the pro photo world this highly irregular. Most pro shooters have one specific area of expertise - journalism, still life, fashion/people, location, studio, etc.

It should be noted that, when I started out in commercial photography, my intent was to be a studio-based still life shooter. I can't really tell you exactly how I morphed from that intent to becoming an accomplished shooter in several commercial disciplines other than to say that when you are first starting out any type of assignment that helps pay the bills is a good assignment.

In any event, I eventually became known to some agencies / clients as a studio product still life / food guy, to others as the fashion / people guy, and to still others as an annual report / corporate communications, location / reportage guy. What was interesting about this was that individual agencies / clients saw me as one kind of specialist or another but very rarely as a multi-discipline shooter.Very rare was the client (Kodak was one) that used me for anything other than one specific type of shooting.

In the later stages of my pro life, I actually had 3 different portfolios, each using an assumed name. The names were derivations of my real name (Mark Hobson): R.K. Hobs, who photographed on location in the British expeditionary tradition; Ma Son, who created studio illustrations in the tradition of exquisite Oriental detail; and, Ar Öbso, who specialized, in the Scandinavian tradition of contemporary design, in pictures of real people with real lives, doing real things.

It was all done a bit tongue-in-cheek of course, but nevertheless, on many occasions, art directors / clients, when seeing the portfolios for the first time, actually assumed that the works were, indeed, the product of different shooters.

I mention all of this because after coming across this quote, I realized, more than ever, how enjoyable the diversification in my picturing life made it so much more enjoyable and interesting:

Hardening of the categories causes art disease. ~ W. Eugene Smith

Do any of you ever feel as though you are suffering from hardening of the categories?

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.

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.

decay # 20 ~ if it's not one thing, it's another

Light variation of decay # 19 • click to embiggenAs much as I rail against the limitations of the digital capture world of photography, I have come to the conclusion that I am, for all intents and purposes, trapped in that world.

As much as I would like to shoot film, it is, by the very nature of where I live, very impractical - if for no other reason than the closest lab is over 35 miles away. The thought of driving 140 miles for a roll of film - 70 miles round trip x2 (drop off and pick up) - is both logistically and environmentally absurd. Yes, I know I could wait until I had 10 rolls (or more) of film or I could use the US Mail, but, to be perfectly honest, I am too impatient to wait for up to 3-4 weeks to see the results of my picturing.

And even that's a moote point, in as much as that lab is scheduled to shut down within a year. Then what?

The only opinion I can think of is to get back in the business of developing my own film. This is not exactly Mission Impossible but it does require an investment in time, money, and space - space being the most difficult issue. That means isolating and renovating a space - albeit small - that can be made light-tight, virtually dust free, and has water and a drain. With all of the household renovations that have been going on here, the thought of another one leaves me a bit cold.

Althougth, while thinking about a new darkroom (as I write this), there is a new small closet right next to an about to be built new bathroom - all part of our bedroom / upstairs renovation ......

decay # 19 ~ this is a test

<Green water and sunflowers • click to embiggenEveryone here knows of my 'thing' for the real / truth in photography. Unless, of course, you're a relative newbie and haven't spent the last 50 hours of your life reading the archives.

If you have been following my postulations, opinions, theories, and assorted folderol, you probably also know that I believe that the current rage of 'fake'/staged pictures can also contain truth(s) and an accurate representation of the real.

Furthermore, the medium of photography has a decided advantage in all the visual arts at conveying / suggesting truth and real simply because the referents in photographs look so damn 'real'.

So, that said, talk to me about decay # 19 ...

Update on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 03:15PM by gravitas et nugalis

ADDENDUM: Ok, let's make this a bit more interesting.

Anyone who passes the test gets an 8×8 (inches) decay print of their choice - there is no limit on the number of winners. Enter as many times as you like.

Hint: every single detail in the picture is both true and real. However, there is one not-so-small element of the photograph that is 'fake', although, some might say that, taken out of context, it really is a big thing.

Update on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 12:58PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Tom Frost wrote: "What do you mean, "faked"? Does that mean added in later and/or heavily manipulated in pshop, or does that mean an element that is not decaying, or what? The definition determines the response."

my response: Tom, answering your question pretty much gives the game away. On the other hand, there are several almost-winners who have figured it out but none have mentioned the exact answer so far. By "exact answer", I mean naming the "fake" element and the thing that truly identifies the "fake" element.

Indeed, there have been some very good notions about what identifies the "fake" - one of which caused me to fine tune the image. I will address a couple of the other notions when I repost the picture tomorrow.

FYI, the almost-winners are, in fact, winners. They will receive an 8×8 (inches) decay print of their choice. But, just to sweeten the pot, grand prize winners with the exact answer will receive a 12×12 (inches) decay print of their choice.

decay # 18 ~ a game against the machine

Spring bounty, decay-wise • click to embiggenFirst, a note to the wife; while moving some stuff on the upstairs porch, look what I found - a little bit of decay heaven. I will, really I will, try to remove it from the kitchen counter before your arrival.

Now, on to business - I want to express thanks to all who have contributed of late to The Landscapist with your all your comments and feedback. I've enjoyed hearing from some new voices as well as the 'regulars' and I sincerely hope that you are all appreciative of the added value that this brings to the site. Thanks much.

One particular comment that especially interested me was that from Ana regarding yesterday's limited imagination - ouch! entry.

I think you'd enjoy reading "towards a philosophy of photography" by Vilem Flusser. It's all about creative (as opposed to redundant) photography as a game against the machine (where, by machine, he means the entire technology and infrastructure behind photography). The work of all the photographers who have gone before have, to a certain extent, entered the arsenal of the machine --they become limiting and redundant. The point of the game is to outwit the machine by opening up a possibility that hasn't been seen before.

To which I will add, "Exactly." I'll probably buy (and read) the book, if for no other reason than Ana (she's a smart cookie) suggested it. Although my insatiable curiosity is a driving factor as well.

I have always been a fan of raging against the machine, any machine. Just pick one and I'll most likely be game to try and 'outwit' it in one fashion or another. Hey, ask the wife, I'm aways trying to outwit her machine. And, I really like Flusser's notion of thinking of the idea of "originality" as a game (of opportunity / possibility) as opposed to just trying like hell to be "original".

Another idea that seems to be implicit in Ana's synopsis of Flosser's philosophy is one of my favorite ideas of what it takes to avoid being redundant - the knowledge and understanding of what came before, or, as he (you?) put it, of the what, who, why, of the arsenal of the photography machine.

A question for all - how many of you have made an effort to really know and understand the arsenal of the machine, aka, the history of the medium? Do you think that it's important for your photography to do so?

decay # 17 ~ phew

Decay and remains • click to embiggenThere is a minor brouhaha of sorts going on urban ku # 181 involving,of all things, gear - a topic rarely discussed here.

It stems from a comment by Adam Maas that the newest and best of digital cameras can, in fact, match the dynamic range and tonal quality of color negative film. I have no desire to debate the issue but I still stand by my opinion that color negative capture is superior to digital capture in ways that matter to my eye. The differences may be small but my eye can see them.

To my eye, a digital capture has a visual 'digital' signature that is like the visual difference between motion picture film and video. Not as pronounced but, to my eye, still apparent. And, Adam's contention that I see this only in my work because I use an 'inferior' sensor is rather nonsensical because I see it in all still digital capture pictures - independent of the specific equipment in use.

As for Adam's contention that "the smaller sensor sites" (of my camera) " deliver less dynamic range" than the sensor in his D300 is also not true - both sensors deliver exactly the same dynamic range of 8.8. They do it in different ways - my camera sensor has less highlight headroom than his, his camera sensor doesn't reach as far into the shadows as mine. It's a trade off. In some cases, I might have to make a separate exposure for extreme highlight detail, and, in some cases, he might have to make a separate exposure for deep shadow detail - or either of us has to use some other workaround to get the full range that we want.

But, ultimately, this is a stupid discussion because it is one of gear vs. aesthetics. My opinion that "Nothing in the digital world can match the smooth tonal transitions, subtle color rendition, and dynamic range of color negative film" is based on my aesthetic sense of how a picture made with cn film looks when compared to one made with digital capture (same scene, same light, comparable lens etc.).

Each medium - cn vs. dig - is a trompe-l'oeil. Each medium accomplishes its trompe-l'oeil in an entirely different manner. To the discerning eye, there is a difference in the final output (on closely matched papers) - the print. Hell, even Adam states that "I find the results from the D300 look a heck of a lot like the results I get from my Mamiya 645." - please note the omission of the phrase "exactly like".

Like I stated before, you make your choice and you stick with it - whether it's in the domain of film or that of digital. Either way, it's the emotional and intellectual impact of the pictures that matters most.

decay # 16 ~ the anatomy of disgust

Cantaloupe and grater • click to embiggenAmongst many things, I have always considered the act of picturing to be an act in the process of self-discovery.

Why one pictures, what one pictures and how one pictures it speaks volumes about the photographer, especially so (but not entirely limited to) Fine Art photographers - who, for purposes of this entry, are those who are making pictures that are meant to be more than just decorative.

The more one knows about and understands his/her personal whys, whats, and hows, the better he/she is apt to become at forming and expressing one's personal vision, photography-wise. This is not rocket science - the best Art flows from within and the more one is in touch with the within, the better one's Art is apt to become.

That said, much of my personal vision that flows from within is an unthought known. I tend to follow my 'inner voice' which 'tells' me what to picture. Of course, I do not mean that I hear a voice in my head that says, "take a picture of that cantaloupe". Rather, I am acutely aware of an unbidden impulse to picture something that I am actually seeing at the time.

Currently, in addition to my attraction to the natural world and man's relationship to it, I am drawn to decay. Some have speculated that the attraction is that of someone who is himself, 'decaying' (commonly called "aging"). I wouldn't deny that that may play a part in the attraction but, in fact, I have been attracted to decay since early childhood.

I can say that I have never tried to understand the attraction nor have I ever pictured it as a body of work until quite recently. As a result of that picturing and the desire to better understand it, I have been thinking about decay (the "what") in a effort to discover (the) "why" I am picturing it.

Until last seek, the best I have been able to come up with is that, on a visual level, I find a great deal of visual beauty in decay. When asked about that idea of visual beauty, the best I can muster is to say that I like the colors and the textures of decay after which I throw in the metaphor bit about "the cycles of life" and the part of that cycle that most would rather not think about / deal with. At that point, I start to feel that I'm sounding a lot like a rather lame first-year art student mouthing art-cliches.

However, in my pursuit of knowing more, I went back to a resource that I knew about but never pursued - the book, The Anatomy of Disgust" (by William Ian Miller, Harvard University Press), because, regarding my decay pictures, I have heard the phrase "that's disgusting" quite a number of times. No big surprise - many find decay to be disgusting. Some have higher or lower thresholds of when decay becomes disgusting, but, inevitably, the word "disgusting" seems to be a common reaction to my decay pictures.

A quick perusal of Miller's book reveals that he believes, and for which he builds a very convincing case, that "Disgust helps mark boundaries of culture and boundaries of the self." I found that premise very interesting. Miller states "Consider that the boundary of the self is manned at its most crucial and vulnerable points by disgust ..."

By that he means that disgust is a barrier that humans erect to help define what they consider to be invasions of not only the "self" but also of "cultures". Who are the "intruders"? Miller considers them to range from humble items like hair, sweat, pus and excrement - what Mr. Miller calls "thick, greasy life" - up to more formidable threats from exotic ethnic groups or social classes higher or lower than our own. In short, he builds a great case for how disgust is clearly bound up with class, bourgeois good taste and moral values.

Now I feel much better. My decay pictures are all about class, bourgeois good taste, moral values, and cultural and personal boundaries, not just the lame "cycles of life" thing.

I knew that.

Really. As an unthought known, I have known that for most of my adult life. I have continually approached and broached cultural and personal barriers (since from I don't know when), not no much with pictures, but with words. If I had half a penny for every time I heard "you're/that's gross / disgusting" as result of something I've said, I'd be a multi-millionaire - just this past weekend, at the breakfast table (with Maggie, her 2 girlfriends, and 1 of their boyfriends), when Maggie took my last sausage patty, put it in her mouth, took it back out and then offered to share it with me, I responded by cutting it in half, saying "Sure. I'll just pretend we're french kissing", and then I ate it.

The girls, to include the wife, responded with a chorus of "eewwww"s, "that's gross"s, and, I must add, lots of laughter. My breakfast-table gross-isms are of long standing and legendary proportions amongst Maggie and her posse. But, over the years, it's how we managed to broach and then talk about all manner of 'sensitive' topics. And, on hindsight, there were times when the gross-isms were instigated or accompanied by pictures - just not mine (that I can remember).

All of that said, my decay series is now my Decay and Disgust series.

Update on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 at 01:11PM by gravitas et nugalis

Waiting to become Art • click to embiggenFeatured Comment: Frank Armstrong wrote: "What I can't figure out about this decaying stuff -- are you leaving it there with the intent of creating art, or are you just too damned lazy to clean your kitchen?"

my response: much to the wife's chagrin, there's a bunch of decay hanging around waiting to become Art. Although, I am operating under the threat of imminent disposal if I don't find a non-kitchen staging area.

The kitchen, itself, is usually quite spic 'n span.