man & nature # 244 ~ yesterday's light

Rainbow over Vermont ~ Lake Champlain, NY • click to embiggen

man & nature # 243 ~ different strokes for different folks

At the turn ~ The Sagamore - Bolton Landing (on Lake George), NY • click to embiggenHave you ever given any thought to the idea of making pictures on a golf course?

Of course, there are golf courses and then there are golf courses. Here in the Adirondacks, the area is home to numerous courses - virtually all of them, in fact - that are very "mature" which is to say that they are in the neighborhood of 100 years old. Most are a few years either side of that number.

What this means is that they were carved out of the landscape without the use of modern earth moving equipment. What that means is that the landscape, the natural nature of the terrain, is most prominent in the look and feel of the place. The courses take on the appearance of a finely crafted park. Add to that the fact that they are situated in a forever-wild wilderness, most of the views on these course are rather spectacular.

All of that said, the characteristic that I most appreciate about these golf courses is that, in a very real way, they are the embodiment of the character of the Adirondacks themselves - man & nature co-existing in a harmonious and sustainable relationship.

As an example, golf-wise, virtually every course in the Adirondacks has numerous protected mini nature preserves spread throughout their confines. These mini-preserves, as well as the golf courses in their entirety, are sanctuaries / homes to an incredibly diverse population of flora and fauna. Many a round of golf, especially late in the day when I prefer to play, includes wildlife sightings of bear, deer, fox, coyote, raptors of all kinds, ducks, geese, an incredible array of aviary species, to name just a few of the possibilities.

I don't know it's like in your part of the world, but in mine, golf is rarely "a good walk, spoiled". ~ Mark Twain

man & nature # 242 ~ the quest for the perfect pumpkin and gourds

Signs of Autumn in the NE ~ Peru, NY • click to embiggenI'm going to be taking a swipe at painting gourds. Maybe if I like it, I'll sell all my picturing gear .....

man & nature # 241 / tuscany # 58 ~ the light

Adirondack light • click to embiggen
Tuscan light • click to embiggenWhen my brother asked if we would be interested in going to Tuscany with him and his wife, my very first thought was ... oh yeh, making pictures under Tuscan light.

I suppose that it's possible that there might be a picture maker, Landscape Division, out there who hasn't heard of / seen pictures of Tuscan light but I'm not one of them. I owned (it was destroyed in the flood) only one of them - Tuscany: Inside the Light by Joel Meyerowitz - but virtually every one of the Tuscany picture books I have seen make reference to "the light".

FYI, I would not recommend the Meyerowitz book only because the reproduction is second rate - I have seen some of the original prints and they look very little like what they look like in the book. That said, the reproductions in the book do "resemble" the originals that I saw in as much as in both cases the visual results fall into the category of what would be called "delicate and subtle". In that sense, they differ remarkably from the typical Tuscan pictures which are almost always on the color saturated / garish side of things, picture-wise.

That delicate and subtle quality was what I was expecting in Tuscany and for the most part that's exactly what I got. However, I would not attribute those characteristics to "the light". I found Tuscan light to be pretty much just like "the light" here in the Adirondacks. Light is, as they, just light.

Is there a difference in the manner in which the light interacts with the elements that make up the Tuscan landscape as opposed to the manner in which in it interacts with the elements that make up the Adirondack landscape? Absolutely, without a doubt.

I was thinking about how I would explain this difference when I came across an interview with Joel Meyerowitz that touched on just that subject. The interview is well worth a read for a number of reasons but here's the thing about "the light":

This particular valley, called the Vald’Orcia, which is below Sienna, is composed of a kind of white clay ... its got a white base to it, it’s not black earth, or rich American earth, and so when the light rains down in this valley, and because it’s a valley there’s a particular kind of moisture always trapped in it. So, the valley itself has a kind of pearlescent quality its as if the air in the valley is illuminated from within. Because sunlight striking the ground rises up from the ground it doesn’t suck up the light because of dark earth so there is a funny kind of glow around everything ... it infused the photographs that not only I made but my students made.

In so many words, that's about how I see / saw it as well. It's not the light per se that is different, it's a combination of many other factors as well that create the visual character of the place.

The same holds true for the Adirondacks. The light is just light but, just as in Tuscany, it interacts with elements in the landscape to achieve a look that is particular to the place. The Adirondacks is not composed of white clay nor is it an "open" landscape. In most locales the earth is, if not covered by the canopy of the forest, blanketed by a thick cover of vegetation of some sort - there is very little reflected light, the light that adds the luminescent (glowing) quality to "Tuscan light".

In the Adirondacks the light tends to be characterized by a quality that is often described as "Hudson River School light" - a "type" of light that emphasizes the bold contrasts between light and dark. It also is strongly identified with dramatic skies - storms and especially sunsets. FYi, the Adirondack picture above has rather remarkable Hudson River School qualities, both color and light, that are the product of the light and the elements that day, not the result of post processing.

The above Tuscan picture really does illustrate very typical mid-day Tuscan light although it is perhaps not what most picture makers think of as typical.

They are much more familiar with the color-drenched pictures of Tuscan fields cover with sunflowers and the like. A kind of Tuscan light that has been reduced to the same color-drenched light that they literally create for every picture they make no matter the location or the actual quality and characteristics of the light to be found there.

ku # 626 ~ autumn

Out of bounds ~ 12th fairway, Sagamore Resort • click to embiggenNo, my ball not in the woods but as I was walking down the fairway towards my ball (which was in the middle of the fairway) this little scene caught my eye.

man & nature # 240 ~ I'm just asking

Sunday evening ~ South of Plattsburg • click to embiggenBecause I often get myself all worked up, photography-wise, over the camera club propensity / fetish for making pretty pictures, it has been assumed in some quarters that I am not a fan of beauty, photography-wise. That because I do not, Spinal Tap-wise, turn the Hue & Saturation slider up to 11, that because I do not "chase the light", that because I have never owned/used a GND filter, that because most of my referents are found in / depict the "mundane" or "everyday" world, that I am therefore not a fan of beauty or that I, in fact, reject the notion of beauty in any form.

That assumption is utterly, totally, and completely without merit.

It has also been suggested that my fulminating, re: the pretty picture crowd and their pretty pictures, is nothing more than my creation of a bogeyman / straw man - something to rail against in order to work out some personal problems / demons. Because ... really ... after all, what's the harm in making pictures that bear no resemblance to the real? It's just a form of self-expression / art, is it not?

Well .... I'll grant you the "form of self-expression / art" part (at in the less formal sense re: art) but I will not in anyway accept the notion that making pretty pictures that bear no resemblance to the real - sentimental, romanticized, fanciful "interpretations of the natural world (especially the of grand scenic icons) - is not harmful to the cause of preservation / conservation / appreciation of our natural world.

I find it interesting that most would not accept the retouched Playboy centerfold version of women as representative of real women. Many would even go as far as to say that that fanciful interpretation of women is, in fact and without a doubt, harmful to the reality of real women. That many people are hard pressed if not totally incapable of differentiating the fantasy from the reality - women who want to achieve the "ideal" and men who expect it of "their" women.

The retouched visual version of women - to include how they are depicted in advertising and popular media culture - contributes mightily to the objectification of women - a "thing" to be treated as a tool for one's own purposes, a "thing" that is treated as if lacking in agency or self-determination, a "thing" that is treated as if there is no need to show concern for the 'object's' feelings and experiences.

That said, can someone explain to me how the objectification of the natural world in pictures - representing nature as a fanciful abstraction that is independent of its actual attributes and characteristics - is not as harmful to the understanding and acceptance of the natural world on its own terms as is the visual objectification of women is to the understanding and acceptance of women on their own terms (so to speak)?

Now I am certain that a fair number of pretty picture makers would respond by saying that they are just having fun and that they know the difference between their "interpretations" and the "real thing". Fine. Good for them. But here's the thing - maybe they should just keep their "interpretations" in an archival acid-free storage box under their bed because most of the people they might otherwise show them to are going to accept them as some kind of version or another of the real.

Most of the people they might show the "interpretations" to are going to be hard pressed if not totally incapable of differentiating the fantasy from the reality. And, here's the real problem - the "interpretations" are going to set up an impossibly unrealistic standard / expectation of what is worth preserving, conserving, and appreciating re: the natural world.

These fanciful "interpretations" also serve to provide an emotional / intellectual rationale wherein it doesn't matter if we pave over 90% of the rest of the world because we can always take a vacation and go to insert a National Park name here and see "nature".

That opinion stated, I've taken a hard look around and have not been able to find any bogeymen / straw men. So, I still have to ask - can someone explain to me how the objectification of the natural world in pictures - representing nature as a fanciful abstraction that is independent of its actual attributes and characteristics - is not as harmful to the understanding and acceptance of the natural world on its own terms as is the visual objectification of women is to the understanding and acceptance of women on their own terms (so to speak)?

man & nature # 235-39 ~ sky

Sunrise over Scotland • click to embiggen
Chased by the light ~ Paris to Florence • click to embiggen

Hear the mighty engines roar
See the silver wings on high
She's away and westward bound
Far above the clouds she flies ~ Early Morning Rain

What with the mighty engine's roar and all, who the hell can sleep on an airplane?

That said, I have nothing but praise for Air France - civilized flying at its best. The wife warned/advised me to stock up on treats for in-flight consumption "because it's a long flight and you'll get hungry".

Wrong.

As it turns out, how can one be hungry after a full steak dinner before the flight provided by Air France due to a short flight delay. Then, once on board, pre-dinner champagne with cheese and crackers, a full dinner such as Seafood terrine, spicy lemon pasta, herb chicken with potatoes and broccoli, cheese, apple tart, and chocolate covered nuts with Julienas red burgundy wine followed by cognac. And then, about an hour before landing in Paris, a light breakfast of fruit, juice, yogurt, and coffee.

All of this, within an 8 hour period, was quite good and totally complimentary. No wonder I couldn't sleep.

In any event, I offer up the above triptych as a twist on the chasing the light picturing fetish favored by so many - in this case, I was being chased by the light.

ku # 625 / man & nature # ~ America's Best Idea - sort of, but not really

Roadside Autumn splendor ~ near Ticonderoga, NY • click to embiggenMost here in the good 'ole US of America who have any interest in the landscape of America, photography-wise, probably watched all or part of the recent PBS / Ken Burns series, The National Parks: America's Best Idea. The 6-part documentary basically covers -

...the story of an idea as uniquely American as the Declaration of Independence and just as radical: that the most special places in the nation should be preserved, not for royalty or the rich, but for everyone. from - PBS.org

In the telling, the story -

...is a visual feast, featuring some of the most extensive, breathtaking images of the national parks system every captured on film. from - PBS.org

Need I even mention that Sir Ansel, his pictures and his conservation advocacy, was featured prominently in the "visual feast" of "breathtaking images"?

The media has fallen all over itself while heaping fawning praise and adulation upon the series. To be fair, there was some critical analysis of the series scattered about the media landscape but one is much more likely to be reading / hearing words like majestic, stunning, inspirational, pride, rich cinematography, scenery that is almost unspeakable in its gorgeousness, a must see, and so on.

That said, IMO, the words of Pittsburgh Penguins announcer, Mike Lange, are what come to my mind -

How much fried chicken can you eat?

Now, it should be stated that Mike uses that Langeism to denote a good thing - like when Evengi Malkin beats an opposing netminder "like a rented mule". However, I use that expression when I want to get across the idea of puking. You know, like when you eat way too much of a good thing (fried chicken?) and end up spewing lunch.

That said, I didn't watch much of America's Best Idea because, for the most part, it made me want to puke.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to rewrite history and/or eliminate / change America's National Parks. For the most part, they protect things that are very worthy of being protected. But ...

... unfortunately, for a wide variety of reasons - to include quite prominently presentations just like Burns' documentary - the idea of National Parks which are intended as "set-asides", primarily for the "grand and glorious", does an enormously harmful diservice to idea of preservation / conservation for the rest of the natural world.

To wit, if it ain't grand and glorious, pave it and put up a parking lot.

The very idea of a set-side, aka: National Park, is an idea that separates man from nature - indeed an idea that, at its core, separates man from his very nature as an integral part of nature. We are it. It is us. In a very real sense, the idea of National Parks as "special" places that are worthy of protection / preservation lays the mental and emotional groundwork / rationale that "anything goes" for the rest of the "un-special" planet.

Once again, don't get me wrong. I am certain that National Parks have captured the preservation / conservation imagination of some people and that some of those people have taken the fight for preservation / conservation to places that are on a smaller, less spectacular scale. But, I also suspect that for the majority of citizens in the good 'ole US of America, National Parks are little more than a Disneyland of sorts that one visits on vacation and then returns to their "normal" life of devouring the rest of the planet one small patch of earth at a time.

In effect, a visit to one or, for that matter, all of the National Parks might lead one to the belief that, as an American Indian park superintendent says in the film:

America is not sidewalks. America is not stores. America is not video games. America is not restaurants.

To which I would respond - what set-aside planet is he/she living on?