man & nature # 212 ~ chasing the light (or maybe not)

Driveway to Asgaard Farm ~ Au Sable Forks, NY • click to embiggenLast evening I was unrestrained by normal household / family patterns which dictate that the dinner hour is 7PM give or take a bit. The wife and our young adults were on a day trip to Montreal for the purpose of visiting McGill University as a possibility for coma-girl's semester "abroad" - even though Montreal is only an hour away, they speak french and it is a "foreign" country (yah, so many Canadians don't ya know).

So, I ate an early dinner and managed to get out of the house at a time (and on a day) when the evening light was on display in a picture-perfect manner. Within a very short time and within a very short distance from the house I was presented with quite a number of great picturing possibilities - or so I believe. I'll let you be the judge of that.

This picture is the second of seven - the first being Plant life at the Hollywood Theatre in the following entry. More to come.

man & nature # 211 ~ back to pictures

Plant life at the Hollywood Theatre ~ Au Sable Forks, NY • click to embiggenWhen last we spoke photography-wise, the topic was manipulation. My primary point regarding the idea of picture manipulation was that manipulation is perhaps easier to see / recognize than it is to categorize / define.

IMO, much of the attempt to categorize / define what constitutes manipulation focuses on the usual suspects of doing so - cloning (in or out), staging, over-the-top contrast / color / saturation, etc. - rather than on what I believe really matters; intent, presentation and, to a lesser extent, effect.

That said, while it can be assumed that picture makers come to their own personal picture making with some form of intent, it should also be assumed that, good or bad intentions aside, the picture maker can't always control or predict the effect on the viewer that their intentions may invoke.

As an example, my personal prejudices dictate that when I see a typical drama-queen landscape picture I react with a yawn and a shrug. Over-the-top landscape pictures usually have on me what I assume to be the opposite effect of the picture makers intent - which I assume is to produce a reaction of wow and awe.

All of that said, I am always somewhat amazed at the near pavlovian (and, IMO, intellectually lazy) response of so many picture makers whenever the subject of manipulation comes up. Like little puppies who roll over and assume the genitals-up posture of submission, they mouth some variation of the standard line, "just taking a picture is a form of manipulation" which basically a subset of the notion that "all art is a form of manipulation".

Case in point, the Spanish culture minister declared in a recent article regarding Robert Capa's famous Falling Soldier, “Art is always manipulation, from the moment you point a camera in one direction and not another.”

Now, it is true that picture making involves the art of selection as one of its defining characteristics. Where you point your camera and what you decide to include or not include within the edges of the frame is, indeed, part and parcel of the process of selection and therefore an important tool for implementing and reinforcing the picture makers intent but ...

IMO, doing so (pointing a camera) is not a de facto act of manipulation.

There are plenty of pictures that depict the natural beauty to be found in our nation's parks. Almost none, at least amongst those that we see as prints or in print, depict the often negative - litter, congestion, tacky concessions, and the like - presence of humankind. Here in the Adirondacks, tourism pictures are always metaphorically speaking "clean as a whistle" - the sun always shines, everybody's happy, and everything is just hunky-dory.

The picture makers have decided to engage in the act of selection by pointing their cameras in one direction,the one that depicts only beauty, and not in another, the one that depicts a different reality.

Now, I'm not suggesting that tourism promotion groups should be in the business of addressing rural poverty, environmental pollution, or even rainy days but what I am suggesting is that those "glossy" pictures - even though they may be made to the strictest standards of straight photography - are fine examples of pictures that are made to be manipulative. Even though the pictures may be absolutely true the reality they depict, they are made with the intent to invoke an effect upon the viewer that creates and reinforces an agenda / image that is less than true.

That said, IMO, as a genre tourism pictures are pictures that have been made with the intent to manipulate the viewers understanding and perceptions in a manner that is only partly true. Even if the pictures would be considered as straight photography, they are manipulated both by the makers intent and the context within which they are presented.

That said, the notion that all acts of selection are manipulative is, IMO, rather specious.

The act of selection is, in other words, an act of drawing attention to something. IMO, it is possible to draw attention to something without "taking a position", pro or con, regarding it; to picture the thing as an observer / reporter rather than as a propagandist.

Think of it this way - most of my pictures are quite simply about what I see. Sure enough, I tend to picture things that I see that I find interesting. Things that I find interesting for one reason or another, or, most often for many reasons or some others. I am, in fact, drawing attention (by pointing my camera in one direction or another) to those things that I find interesting.

However, I picture and present my pictures in a very straight and straightforward manner because my desire (intent) is merely to "report" what I see and present it as it is in order to let the viewer come to their own understandings, conclusions, and appreciations (or lack thereof) about what I find interesting.

That said, and as many of you know, my stated intent is to draw attention to what I consider to be the everyday / mundane / commonplace beauty that I believe is to be found all around us. However, in doing so it is also my intent to do so by utilizing and honoring the medium's inherent characteristic as a cohort with the real.

I use me and my picturing as an example but I am certain that there are many, many others who take a similar approach to making pictures - tell it like it is and let the chips fall where they may. And, I think it's time for those picture makers to stand up and be counted for, not only their own work, but also for the inherent integrity of the medium itself when it is employed as a cohort with the real.

man & nature # 210 ~ the last word on the Paul Lester Affair

A humid Summer morning on the Au Sable • click to embiggenA fair number of Paul Lester friends and apologists have come to the fore to excoriate me for labeling his "opinion" and "doubts" - that healthcare expeditions are fictitious until "proven" otherwise - as ignorant and that he was acting ignorantly in denying their existence because all evidence that he had seen/read was merely "hearsay".

It has also been suggested that I used a racial epitaph - to call a spade, a spade - in calling ignorance, ignorance. Give me a break .... long before ignorant and hateful people misappropriated the phrase, it simply meant To speak plainly - to describe something as it really is. That is exactly how I used it and how I meant it. To suggest otherwise is entirely unwarranted and utterly without merit of any kind.

Several followers of The Landscapist have indicated that they will no longer do so. Hey, FYI, people come and people go. And it's worth noting that, with one notable exception, those who have stated that they are moving on have contributed absolutely nothing to the proceedings here - you won't be missed.

It has been suggested that I would never talk face-to-face with Paul Lester in the manner in which I have addressed him "from hundreds of miles away". FYI, try me.

It has also been inferred that I do not walk-the-walk as stated in my stand up and be counted entry. FYI, I did not include the notion of suffering-fools-(or foolish behavior)-gladly amongst my many virtues.

The list and the beat goes on and on.

What I find very interesting in all of this is that not a single Lester apologist has addressed his "hearsay" statement regarding healthcare expeditions. You might remember that topic - you know, the one that started this ruckus.

The "opinion" that ranks right up there with those regarding "death panels", and Obama - the Socialist Nazi foreigner, euthanizing the elderly and infirm, and all the rest of the ignorant stuff that is polluting the discussion on healthcare in this here US of A.

Now here's the thing, some have stated that Paul Lester is a nice guy but, if one hoists this notion up Lester's own petard, those statements are nothing but hearsay. After all, I have not seen Paul Lester with my own eyes. I have not personally witnessed that he is a nice guy. Hey, for all I know, there is no Paul Lester and this whole thing is waste of time.

All I know about Paul Lester is contained in the ridiculous comments he left on this blog regarding healthcare expeditions. That and the fact that he implied, inferred, or suggested on his blog that my "personal belief" that healthcare expeditions exist was, well, ignorant.

His CYA protestation (self-serving deniability at its finest) that his opinion regarding my actions was not an Ad Hominem attack aside, Paul Lester was suggesting nothing less than the fact that I was acting without knowledge of, information about, and awareness of healthcare expeditions - that I was spreading hearsay.

He was, quite simply, questioning my integrity. Of course he was only doing so because, being the reasonable man that he is, he was just trying to discover the truth.

But enough about Paul Lester, let's talk about me.

My reason(s) for the use of the words ignorant and ignorance to describe some of the ideas and actions that have been polluting our national discourse about healthcare is quite simple. I am horrified by the thought and the reality that the rest of the world - they are paying attention - sees / hears / and reads very little from those who believe and know that the words and actions (like holstered handguns and shoulder-slung assault weapons outside of townhall meetings) of a fringe element in our society are both ignorant and wrong.

IMO, it is well past the time for well-intentioned and informed people to speak out against this stupidity. To shout down those highly vocal and visible individuals (and organizations) who make us all seem like a country of ignorant idiots. It's time to drive them back into the dark shadows from whence they came.

It is time to stop tolerating those who advocate violence and spread lies and disinformation and do so behind the guise of "differing opinions" and their "right" to do so.

man & nature # 209 ~ sizzling hot

The air was thick and damp • click to embiggenThere continues to be a fair amount of chattering and brattling re: manipulated pictures - no doubt fueled by the recent NY Times dustup. Various opinions have been put forth in an attempt to codify the idea of what constitutes a "manipulated" picture.

IMO, it's fruitless endeavour. In large part due to the fact that so many conditions of manipulation put forth have exceptions to the rule.

Consider the clone nothing in, clone nothing out rule. If a picture maker who has taken every step possible, within the medium's capabilities to do so, to make pictures that are true to the real - things like aiming to represent natural color and natural tonal range, using "normal"-ish focal length lenses, and so on ... if such a picture maker clones out a tiny spec of a branch which intrudes upon edges of his selected scene has he produced a manipulated picture?

Is his/her relationship of that of a cohort with the real been severed?

IMO, it has not - unless, of course, he/she has been hired by the NY Times to make pictures that bear testament to the proposition that stray-objects-never-intrude-upon-the-edges-of-pictures.

Consider my decay pictures. They are most assuredly "staged" pictures. With the exception of the background - the countertop, the sink, and the floor - everything in the picture has been selected by and placed there by my hand.

Are the decay pictures "manipulated"?

IMO, they are not. The pictures are about decay - the natural process of decay with which I have not interfered.

Did the decay happen in the place in which I pictured it? No. Did the decay happen on the surface of the plates, bowls, or other surfaces on which it is pictured? Sometimes, yes - sometimes, no.

Does this constitute "manipulation"?

In the context of what the pictures are about - decay - the answer, IMO, is once again, No.

Everything depicted in my decay pictures are represented as true to their real nature as the medium allows.

ALTHOUGH ....... are the plates (etc.) - part of those things denoted - chosen with an eye towards how they might draw the attention of the viewer regarding the meaning(s) - the ideas and notions connoted - to be found in the pictures?

Absolutely.

Those items, working in contrast to the decay, are selected for their illustrative ability to focus attention upon the illuminative properties of the pictures, that is, drawing attention to the notion of vanitas - which, means "emptiness" (from Latin) which loosely corresponds to the meaninglessness of earthly life and the transient nature of vanity.

IMO, neither of the aforementioned examples of changing or making a picture constitute manipulation, at least not in the pejorative sense that is most commonly used - that is the manipulation (no matter the method) of a picture with the intent to deceive.

Let me be clear about the notion of intent to deceive - this does not include making pictures with the intent to draw the viewer's attention to a particular idea or notions that the picture might connote as long as those ideas / notion are treated in such a manner as to be open to drawing one's own conclusions regarding those ideas and notions.

A negative case in point, this month's cover of Yankee Magazine.
click to embiggenThe picture on the cover is used to make the idea of driving through Vermont in the Fall seem an attractive and desirable thing to do - which, if one avoids some wide-spread and significant areas of rural poverty, it most likely is. However, in a time-honored tradition of publishing / advertising, the photo editor and/or editor of the magazine has chosen to sell the sizzle, not the steak. In fact, steaks do sizzle, but the pictorial suggestion
that Fall in Vermont "sizzles" as it appears in the picture is an outright distortion.

Interestingly, and rather ironically, in the same issue of the magazine the editor has also chosen to publish an article entitled, The Leaf Seeker: Jeff "Foliage" Folger Is On A Mission To Memorialize Fall In New England - One Tree At A Time. In an article sidebar which illuminates Folger's picturing MO and philosophy, he quite clearly states:

I see pictures with colors that Mother Nature just didn't create. Just because you can take that slider for saturation all the way to the right, that doesn't mean you should.

Apparently, in making the cover picture selection, the photo editor and/or editor did NOT (the word "not" was omitted in the 1st posting of this entry) follow that advice.

In any event, like hard-core pornography which was considered hard to define by Justice Potter Stewart (as he stated below), what constitutes a "manipulated picture" may lack clearly-defined parameters. Nevertheless, I agree with Justice Stewart:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it ...

man & nature # 207 ~ reality challenged

Pay no attention to the man (or the mess he created) behind the curtain • click to embiggenIt has been oft stated that ignorance is bliss and, to a certain extent, that may be true. However, no matter how you cut it, ignorance is still ignorance.

Ignorance comes in many forms - there is the ignorance of the uneducated, that of the unaware, and that of the uninformed - all of which mean a lack of knowledge, learning, and information. And, it is worth noting that the word ignorance derives from the word "ignore" which means to refrain from noticing or recognizing.

The reasons for ignorance are many but the one that always amazes me is that of those who choose to be ignorant. That is to say, those who choose to refrain from noticing or recognizing the means and/or opportunities to be educated, aware, and informed or to acquire knowledge, learning, and information.

Why would anyone choose to be ignorant? My suspicion for this choice is that, while it may not exactly induce a state of bliss, it certainly provides a rationale for not dealing with inconvenient truths.

Witness the reality-challenged Paul Lester for whom nothing is unless he personally sees it. Despite numerous media coverage (print, web, broadcast) - replete with video and pictures, including at least one of a person receiving healthcare in an animal stall - of the annual healthcare expedition in Wise, Virginia where people stand in line, sleep in cars, and are basically herded like cattle in order to obtain healthcare that they can not otherwise obtain, Paul Lester has decided to refrain from noticing or recognizing, not only the fact/reality of the event, but that the healthcare system in the US of A is a horrific mess.

Paul Lester defends his ignorance on the specious and frankly quite lame notion that all of the documentation of the event is "hearsay" - he doesn't believe a first-person account of the event, not because that person lied, but because he (PauL Lester) just doesn't believe him (????). Judging from his entry on his blog regarding this topic, he believes it all to be "hearsay" because all media coverage is "spin" and "propaganda" put forth in the cause of supporting an "agenda".

Paul Lester also offered a couple really ignorant "observations" regarding why such an event might be needed (or not) - not that he actually suggested that it did exist:

I'm sure that there are some shortfalls in many rural communities where access to immediate health care is limited because of the poorness of the town, county, or, in the case of West Virginia, possibly the whole state. This could even be the case with health care reform. It doesn't bring the hospital closer.

Paul, here's a news flash for you - the primary lack/denial of access to healthcare is not geography nor is it limited to just poor rural communities. If you weren't so ignorant you would know this.

Paul Lester also stated that, in fact, maybe there isn't a need for such events because:

Also, there are hospitals that take uninsured folks.

Paul, another news flash for you - also, there are hospitals that do not take uninsured folks. And, even if every hospital took uninsured folks, you would know, if you weren't so ignorant, that using hospitals - usually emergency room services - for the everyday healthcare needs of uninsured folks is the absolute worst and most costly delivery method of those medical services.

All of that said, my suspicion re: Paul Lester's choice to be ignorant, is that his seemingly reasoned and rational explanation about why he is "quite careful these days about what I consider truth" is little more than a feint to veil his real agenda (about which I will not speculate - you can draw your own conclusions).

Or, maybe it's simply that he is too damn lazy to spend the time and make the effort to eradicate his apparent ignorance on the subject of the reality of healthcare in this here US of A. You know what I mean - spend the time and make the effort to determine, to decide, to discern what is, at the very least, (and despite the belief that there is no objective reality) more true than not regarding this topic.

However, I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to happen because for so many ignorance is indeed some form of "bliss".

Update on Monday, August 17, 2009 at 12:42PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: "Ron" wrote: "Talking about Ignorance, how are we going to pay for "free" healthcare without bankrupting us all?"

To which "the infamous j" responded: "Ignorance is not recognizing a red herring when one is presenting it ... Name one modern economy that is going bankrupt from providing their citizens with some form of universal healthcare"?

my response: Well, Ron? We're waiting for an answer.

And, here's another question for you - who the hell ever said healthcare was going to be free?

Of course it has to be paid for and, quite frankly, it's very difficult for me to believe that the richest nation on earth can't afford or figure out a method - one that doesn't bankrupt us - to pay for universal healthcare.

And, as long as you brought up the subject of "bankrupt", here's another question for you - care to put up a guess on the number of individual Americans who have lost everything because of a bankruptcy due to healthcare costs? And, as long as we're piling on question-wise - how many of those filing bankruptcy for healthcare related expenses actually had health insurance (at least at the start of their illness)?

Come on, Ron. We're waiting for your answers. (Here's a clue for you on the bankruptcy question - I just can't help wondering how many are Tennesseans?)

man & nature # 206 ~ stand up and be counted

Median topiary • click to embiggenThere are those who, like Mary Dennis, might wondering how I live my life. Do I walk the walk that I often write about here on The Landscapist. Driven by that curiosity, Mary asked (it's a fair question):

What are you actually doing about the things you care about other than blogging about them? ... I'm interested in hearing what concrete things you have changed in your life to be more in line with your deeply felt system of beliefs.

The quick and easy answer to that question is, to borrow a line from Mary, I live a life with two eyes open. By that I simply mean that I try to live with my eyes, my mind, and my emotions attuned to the world (both around me and at large) with the knowledge that whatever I do, it matters or, in other words, with the knowledge that actions, both large and small, have consequences.

FYI, this way of living does not represent a change for me, a fact that I would attribute to my Catholic upbringing / education - an education that stressed (on the secular front) personal responsibility, compassion and understanding of/for others, charity, good works, and respect. Now that is not to say that I am a perfect practitioner of those principles but I am accutely aware of them in my everyday life.

All of that said, I realize that that statement might be a bit vague for some so I'll mention just a few specifics.

When it comes to the environment, we have always driven high mpg compact cars - cars that are well below our economic means. We live in a relatively modest "recycled" house, once again, well below our economic means. In both cases, we are trying to minimize our carbon footprint.

Again, re: the environment, our recreational pursuits are strictly human-powered - canoeing, biking, hiking, and the like. When I golf, I walk. I belong to a club that uses only reclaimed water, no pesticides, and has many protected sensitive-environment areas on the course that conform to the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses.

We try our best to be responsible consumers - buying what we need rather than what we want. Which is not to say that we live an austere life, but rather that we are definitely not part of the shop-till-you-drop or the live-to-shop crowd - not by a long shot. When we do buy, we try to buy quality stuff that will last as long as possible so that we will not have to replace things until they literally wear out after long use.

And when we do shop, we patronize small local businesses whenever possible and that includes our participation in a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) which means we buy virtually all of our seasonal food directly from a local farmer. We also buy most of our beef, pork, and poultry from a local farm as well.

In our community, we participate in a number of charitable / volunteer events (the wife is on the Board of the Local Red Cross). Our daughter (my step-daughter) just returned from a week of volunteer work on a New Mexico Indian reservation. My step-son is about to embark on a 1 year stint to teach English in Korea in hopes of improving his chances for Peace Corp volunteer acceptance.

Which brings up another very important part of our life - we take very seriously the notion expressed by Crosby Stills Nash & Young - teach your children well. We want them to live lives with two eyes open. Is there anything more important for a parent than that - to pass on values and knowledge that will help them to lead responsible lives?

Mary also mentioned that she thinks "about these things all the time and I have discussions and debates in real time with friends, family and sometimes strangers on the street or in the grocery store line." To which I would say that it sounds like she lives with two eyes open because, while thinking about these things is important, attempting to raise awareness regarding these things is what really matters.

That is a big part of the reason that, here on The Landscapist, I not only write about photography but also about those things that matter to me that fall outside of the purview of things photographic - an attempt to raise awareness about things that need to be thought about, talked about, and dealt with.

Regarding those public-square things that affect us all - things that concern the body politic - one of the most important and responsible things an individual can do is to be an informed citizen and to take a stand regarding those issues - a stand informed by knowledge and fact.

Writing this blog requires a sustained and time-consuming effort on my part. It is, not to brag, no small/easy feat. It is my hope that what I have to say, whether one agrees with it or not, is of some real value to those who encounter it.

Mary, I hope that all of this helps to provide an answer to your question. I would not consider my life to be "heroic" in the sense that I do extraordinary things when walking the walk. But, on the hand, it seems that in our world, especially here in the US of A, just living with two eyes open is, in fact, somewhat extraordinary.

man & nature # 205 ~ come on and surfari with me

Boogieboard dudes • click to embiggenSometimes photographers just wanna have fun.

Hugo, who has quite the penchant for making life-event schedules such as - "I will boogieboard by myself when I'm 5", was 5 days shy of his 5th birthday when these pictures were made (by the wife) last week at the Jersey Shore. So, it was piggyback boogieboarding for him or no boogieboarding at all.

Fortunately, on the only day that I actually visited the beach - late in the day after a very hot and muggy round of golf - there were some pretty good swells and breakers (5-6') that allowed for decent boogieboarding - waves that the big surfing dudes would call "ankle busters".

Nevertheless and fer sure, we were able to catch quite a number of really bitchin' rides all the way into the beach from about 50 yds. out in the bone yard. Even though we never shot the curl or got in the green room, Hugo (who is obviously a grommet, aka - a young hodad) thought the whole deal was mongo gnarlatious. He was stoked.

The fact that he didn't have to experience a wipe out or a neptune cocktail (after which one usually starts selling buicks) made the surfari totally awesome. Hugo was amped to the max. If the words "cowabunga" or "bonzai" were in his vocabulary, he certainly would have used them instead of repeatedly saying, "cool, way cool".

Me? I was just trying to breathe cause the stranglehold Hugo had on my throat was rather gnarly, dude.

FYI, if you need them, translations can be found here.

man & nature # 196-204 ~ topiary and architecture

Stone Harbor topiary #1 • click all photos to embiggen
Stone Harbor topiary #2
Stone Harbor topiary #3
Stone Harbor topiary #4
Stone Harbor topiary #5
Stone Harbor topiary #6
Stone Harbor topiary #7
Stone Harbor topiary #8
Stone Harbor topiary #9

I didn't really get in an extended picturing frame of mind while I was at the Jersey Shore other than one rainy overcast evening when I took a walk around the block. Actually, it was 2 blocks x 2 blocks but the idea's the same nevertheless.

What I found extremely interesting - although it is not evident in these pictures - was the fact that many of the smaller "original" houses had people sitting on their porches. The reason that it is not evident in these pictures is because, out of respect for their privacy, I did not picture any people on their porches. So, you'll have to take my word for it.

In contrast to that observation was the fact that not a single person was in evidence at the many MacMansions that were on the same streets. In fact, the MacMansions rarely had a "sit-ible" front porch and the few that did were devoid of humanity and, in most cases, devoid even of human touches. Such as they were, porches, like so many of the purely decorative architectural accents on the MacMansions, seem to be there as just thematic / stylistic touches.

The contrast was quite striking. The MacMansions had their porches and decks on the back of the houses away from the street.

What is it about money that, when people get more than enough of it, the first thing they do is isolate themselves behind fences, walls, gates, and impersonal facades?