tuscany # 98 - 100 ~ variations on "the light" in Tuscana
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/af5d0/af5d02e165c3ab18fee122daef291f9637f2f33a" alt="Date Date"
Jewelry shops on Ponte Vecchio ~ Firenze, Tuscana• click to embiggen
Arno River from Ponte Vecchio ~ Firenze, Tuscana • click to embiggen
Arno River from Ponte Vecchio ~ Firenze, Tuscana • click to embiggenIMO, it would be rather ludicrous to deny that light is a prime ingredient of the medium of photography. After all, the word "photography" itself comes from the Greek / Latin words for light and write, as in, writing with light. In addition, it should go without stating that, without light striking light-sensitive media, there would be no photography.
That said, I find the idea that light, because it is a prime ingredient in the process of the medium, is what photography is "about" - as in, photography is about "the light".
Picturing making is no more "about the light" than picturing painting is about the paint.
Sure enough, "the light" can (and does) have a dual role in picturing making - both as part of the process of the medium and as a potentially significant index / sign (amongst other indices / signs) regarding a picture's meaning. No question about it, but ...
... if all that a picture "is about", is "the light" ... well then ... I guess that's all its about. Which, to my eye and sensibilities, is a rather narrow emotional and intellectual framework on which to hang a hat.
Picture makers whose exclusive M.O. is that of "chasing the light" are, IMO, both intellectually and emotionally lazy - cheap-shot artists who rely on the rather easy one-trick-pony technique of a time-worn and schmaltzy / sentimentalized troupe that is guaranteed to get a pavlovian "wow" from the great unwashed masses.
Now, it must be stated that "chasing the light" is most definitely not for the physically lazy crowd nor is it recommended for the technically lazy amongst the picture making throngs. Light-chasers go to great lengths (literally traveling across continents and oceans to iconic locations) to be in the "right" spot at the "right" time where they can then work feverishly to apply gnd / polarizer / warming filter techniques to "dramatize" something or another that is never quite dramatic enough for them as it '"naturally" presents itself. After which there is the virtuoso performance / application of a plethora of post-picturing techniques that serve to further "dramatize" the apparently undramatic and emphasize their preeminent position amongst the ever-swelling ranks of Photoshop Pinball Wizards.
Ok. Fine. Sure. Everybody's got to have a hobby. But, what I can't help but wonder about is that so many fantasy-makers are attracted to a medium that has as a primary distinguishing characteristic, which separates from the other arts, its intrinsic relationship with / as a cohort with the real.
I find it very disconcerting and highly ironic that so many picture makers of the landscape variety - who profess to love and appreciate the natural world - want to make pictures that offer very little regarding the truth and reality of that world.
FYI, the picture of Ponte Vecchio - the bridge street scene - illustrates the fact that the entire bridge street level is lined, wall-to-wall, with small jewelry shops. The wife can be observed looking (longingly?) at some of the wares on offer. None of it was "junk" jewelry, at least not in price.