decay # 9 ~ 'sticking your camera randomly into a ditch'

Broccoli and ketchup • click to embiggenOn yesterday's entry Tom Frost, playing the devil's advocate, asked; "Just to play the devil's advocate, how can I tell that it is different from sticking your camera randomly into a ditch?" He also stated; "FYI, most of what's in it is knapweed, one of the scourges introduced from Eurasia." A good question and a good observation.

Let me address the 'sticking your camera randomly into a ditch' issue first. That comment is one that is leveled at much contemporary (and decidedly Postmodern) Fine Art photography, not just mine. The derisively intended slur most often comes from photographers who come the Modernist tradition - photography made by following / applying the 'classic' rules of photography, most notably (and obliviously) those of composition.

As an example, it has been opined that Modernist American landscape photography was taken to it formal conclusion by Ansel Adams and Edward Weston. Their photography, which dazzles and seduces with technical and sensual qualities that aesthetically idealize the landscape, has been described as 'self-consciously photographic' and that it 'self-assuredly declares itself as art.'

Translation - those guys worked their butts off (with malice of forethought aplenty) applying all of the traditional techniques of the medium - dramatic light, dramatic subjects, maximum dynamic range, smooth, sensuous, almost 'liquid' tonality, 'tight and clean' composition, maximum depth of field, etc. - to create prints of incomparable technical and aesthetic beauty that were obviously intended to be 'art'. Additionally, the hand of the maker is all over their photography - their is no mistaking an Ansel Adams' print. One could justifiably state that, with his prints, Adams drew as much attention (or more) to himself as he did to his subjects.

The postmodern photographer eschews virtually all of the above. In fact, postmodern photography openly questions and blatantly defies all of the above. Much postmodern photography exhibits the so-called 'deadpan' look - a cold, clinical, art-less gaze that could also be described as, in the case of The Best ku Ever, 'sticking your camera randomly into a ditch' because the hand of the maker is not everywhere evident in the guise of self-consciously applied 'technical and sensual qualities'.

However, it must be said, that most postmodern photography, despite its appearance, is anything but 'random' or thoughtlessly composed. Most of it very deliberately created with the intentionality of creating the impression of 'random'.

Why? Speaking for myself (working in the postmodern world), part of the conceptuality and intentionality of my photography is to question the very act of observing - what does it mean to actually 'see' or 'observe'? When going about one's daily life, no one 'sees' or 'observes' according the classic rules of the 2-dimensional art world, so why must Art be so directed? If a photograph is not so directed, can it still be Art?

And ultimately, my photographs are intended, by the very intrinsic nature of their 'random' look, to question the idea of what is Art? Is there such a thing as a 'proper' subject for Art? Is there a 'proper' way to make Art?

So, with all of that in mind, and in answer to your question, I would say that the more you know, the more you can know - if one sets out to know more about the history, movements, theories, and practices of the art world in general (and photography in particular), the more one can know about any particular piece of Art and the less apt one might be to ask if someone is 'sticking their camera randomly into a ditch'.

On the subject of knapweed - Many of my Adirondack photographs exhibit evidence of invasive species. While this is not always deliberate, it is, unfortunately, not always avoidable. But, in fact, I use that as part of my postmodern approach. As I mentioned in yesterday's entry, I make photographs that 'present plain facts (none of that 'aesthetically idealizing the landscape' modernism for me) using metaphor, allegory, and hints of something bigger'. I should have also included the use of irony, because, while many of my photographs could be said to picture nature's beauty (which they do), they can also be read to understand the ugly side of the hand of man.

Update on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 04:00PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Eric Fredine wrote; "I'm uncomfortable with your neat division of photography in to 'modern' and 'post-modern'. It just isn't that simple. Was Walker Evans modern or post-modern? How about Diane Arbus? Robert Frank? Adams, Weston and the f64 group just represented one narrow strand of photography - among many."

my response: Despite my simplification of the notions of modern / postmodern, most Art produced since around 1885 to the present can be considered to fall into one school or the other. However, that is not to say that any particular artist or work of art is 'purely' of one school or the other. Fortunately, (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), Art (or life) is rarely that clean-cut.

Decay # 8 ~ the assumption that a photograph is an indexical cohort with reality

Decay # 8 • click to embiggenI am starting to come to grips with my Decay photographs. By that I mean that I am slowly coming to a conscious understanding of what it is I am doing.

Here are some random thoughts.

On the subject of self-awareness, I have known since early childhood that I am interested in matters of decay. On the surface of things, I am seemingly preternaturally drawn to how things in the state of decay look/appear to the eye. I don't know why (but isn't that the way of things that seem to be preternatural?) Suffice it to say that I just plain like the way things in various states of decay look. I find them to be visually, if not appealing, at the very least, interesting.

Beneath the surface of things, I am beginning to think that part of my attraction to decay is that I know intuitively that the state of decay is, in fact, the true nature of everything. It's called "entropy", aka, the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We'll set aside, for the moment, the theory that from disorder comes order, aka, the Law of maximum Entropy Production.

Now, HANG ON FOR A MOMENT. I'm not gonna go all obtuse and scientific on you. What I'm driving at is simply the fact that all physical things and systems have period of maximum 'energy' or 'efficiency' after which they inevitably start to decay.

Obviously, my Decay photographs are about things that are past their prime. They are past their prime, not only as a source of nourishment, but also as things that, in their prime, are considered to be rather 'attractive' - both pleasing to the eye and the palate. But, once things start going downhill, most would rather not think about it or see it.

And that, I am beginning to realize, is a big part of the point of this exercise.

My life experience has taught me that life is 'messy'. Sure, there are moments (relatively speaking)of unadulterated joy, happiness, pleasure, and order. And, yes, when all is said and done, one can live a 'satisfying' life. Although, that 'reality' must come with a massive caveat - for some of us, but certainly, not all of us. And even for those who are lucky / privileged / blessed with a/the 'good' life, everything is not a bed of roses.

However, that 'truth' about the 'real' state of things stands in direct contrast to what the masters of desire want us to see (and not see) and consequently believe - the Leave It To beaver, Father Knows Best, Mary Tyler Moore slant on 'reality'.

So, I have deliberately set my objects of decay in what appears to be a very orderly environment. One that visually / literally opposes the disorder of objects of decay and also does so figuratively by what it connotes, humankind's proclivity to create order (even where none exists). A desire to create order that insulates us from disorder. Not by eliminating disorder, because that can't be done, but by creating a veneer that denies disorder exists. A kind of out of sight, out of mind slight of hand.

FYI ~ how's your ontology doing?

My projects - a 'warning' from the wife • click to embiggenOK class, today's assignment is to read this little ditty.

In truth, it's not really a 'little ditty'. It's a long-ish essay that is written in some (at times) rather obtuse academic-speak but please don't let that discourage you from reading it - just open up a dictionary (http://www.dictionary.com) and dive in.

The reason I encourage you to read this piece is simple - just about everything you need to know about photography as an Art form is contained in this essay. Really. I'm not kidding around. More than a month's worth of fodder / food for thought for journal entries on The Landscapist can be had in this ultimately interesting and challenging piece of writing.

Update on Friday, December 14, 2007 at 11:25AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Steve Durbin wrote; "Bedford takes three pages to say that there's no good art criticism of photography because art critics--including himself--don't understand it. I'd pretty much agree. (Of course, I happen to think most photographers don't understand it very well, either.)"

my response: I also happen to think most photographers don't understand it very well, either.

Decay # 7(a) ~ Asparagus # 2

Asparagus # 2 * click to embiggenWhat a difference a day makes. I can see now that one of the keys to getting it 'right', decay-wise, is to keep these things hanging around and observing and picturing the process of decay.

The objective would still be to have one final picture for each object of decay. However, it seems that due to my inexperience in matters of decay, it's to my advantage to have pictures of various stages of decay from which to pick my final image. As an example, I have yet to discard the pepper / banana / wishbone ensemble and I'm liking it more and more with each passing day.

On the subject of the Decay series, Kent Wiley wrote; " Is the series confined to the plate on the countertop beside the sink? If so, my imagination is a lot worse than what could ever be "acceptable" in the kitchen."

Hey, Kent let your imagination roam free. Mine is. The series will not be confined to things that fit on the plate. Decay # 4 is an example of that, and I already have the hunting / trapping guy saving all manner of things that will fit quite neatly in the coutertop space normally occupied by the plate.

I will, no doubt, be doing a lot of scrubbing and using a lot of disinfectant.

Decay # 7 ~ asparagus

8 day old asparagus • click to embiggenPersuant to Friday's discussion, er, ah ... I mean, non-discussion re: Is Photography Dead, let me say this about that -

Obviously, photography is not dead. As long there are people taking/making pictures, the beat goes on. However, that does not mean that photography can not become lifeless as an Art form.

At the end of his article, IPD?, Peter Plagens states, "As the great modern photographer Lisette Model once said, "Photography is the easiest art, which perhaps makes it the hardest." She had no idea how easy exotic effects would get, and just how hard that would make it to capture beauty and truth in the same photograph. The next great photographers—if there are to be any—will have to find a way to reclaim photography's special link to reality. And they'll have to do it in a brand-new way."

OK. In large part, I agree with that. I'm all for capturing 'beauty and truth in the same photograph'. And, doing so in 'a brand-new way' would be nice. Although, IMO,Mr. Plagens is missing the point of many of photography's 'fabricator practitioners' - in most cases, they are dealing directly with 'beauty and truth'. Even though their pictures may be 'staged' or 'constructed', they, in fact, touch on very real subjects in a brand-new way.

IMO, new life has been brought to the medium of photography - a medium that may have been sliding into a kind of postmodern, 'detached / dispassionate' stasis. In a way, the postmodern picture takers / makers taught us a new way of seeing and now the fabricators are injecting more than a little passion back into the vision.

Decay # 6 ~ Trifecta

A decay potpourri • click to embiggenKent Wiley asked, "I'm really wondering how far you're prepared to go with these decay images. And how far we'll be willing to follow!"

Also, Jimmie Nuffin asked, "Will "The Wife" permit you to leave the rotting food there long enough for it to reach the point of fruit flies?"

Kent, both are good questions and I really don't have the answer to either. However, I can venture a guess to question # 1 - I'm thinking that somewhere around Decay # 40-50, I wmight be calling it quits. That, of course, is only a guess.

My access to decay or my interest in the visual possibilities of decay might have run its course by then. On the other hand, you never know what might rear its ugly head.

As for question # 2 - only time will tell and only you can guess.

Jimmie, you'll have to ask the wife.

Decay # 5 ~ Decay # 1, one week later

Pepper # 1, one week later • click to embiggenThis is actually my green pepper from Decay # 1. I'm glad I didn't toss it. The wife was going to but she asked first. I think I'll hang on to it a while longer, but I can see that I'm going to have to find a decaying space somewhere out of sight and smell.

For those who are curious, I have also posted a picture of the Decay setup. FYI, that's a Majestic tripod for those of you haven't been around for 37 years like it has.
click to embiggenI haven't used it for a long, long time but it's perfect for this series because of the extension arm and the fact that I can leave it in the same configuration ad infinitum. If I could, I'd also bolt it to the floor for the duration but that might just push the wife over the edge.

The Prestone antifreeze counter-weight prevents the whole affair from doing a very expensive face-plant into the decay of the day. I use Prestone because it's either that or a $200 photographic counter-weight.

decay # 4 ~ "have a rotten day"

Sunflower leaves • click to embiggenThis morning, the wife introduced me to a new way to start my day by uttering, "Have a rotten day." as she left for work. I took it to mean that she has finally decided to lend her support to me through my Period of Decay, photography-wise, as opposed to my period of decay, age-wise. Then again, maybe she meant both.

This is my first go at a non-edible form of decay, although I suppose one could eat sunflower leaves. I also spent some time yesterday chatting-up a friend who not only hunts (anything and everything) but also traps (anything and everything). He's guy who, while watching the NY giants on tv, will have a frozen fisher thawing in a bucket right next to his couch.

He has assured me, much to the wife's chagrin, that he has plenty of stuff just waiting to decay. This could get really interesting.