urban ku # 82 ~ a nautical oddity

A submarine on an Adirondack lake • click to embiggenDetails, details. If you're not paying attention, they tend to be invisible.

About yesterday's everyone's an artist entry, Paul Maxim wrote; "... 'Genius in the details'? Sorry, I don't see it my friend ... sometimes 'everyday life' is just that - it's something we see everyday; it is, in fact, boring, and in no way inspirational to anyone other than the photographer. An old green trailer sitting in front of an old barn is nothing more than what it is. If it has some special meaning for you (you used to own it or something), then the image has intrinsic value for you. But I can wander around rural Monroe County and find similar views of similar scenes. They are no more "special" than this one."

Well, on the surface of things, it is, indeed, a picture of 'An old green trailer sitting in front of an old barn'. The picture's referent (the studium/denoted) is as plain to see as the nose on your face and, as such, it does make reference to the 'old trailer/old barn' cliche and, if that's where one stops 'looking', then that's all one will 'see'. As the Rock Man from The Point said; "You see what you want to see, you hear what you want to hear."

Now, on the other hand, after reading Paul's critique (IMO, honest and sincere) Mary Dennis had a different take; "I think the word "details" is important here. I'm wondering how many old parked trailers there are that are painted with what appears to be very fresh green paint AND a personalized adirondack type canoe/water landscape. Not too many I presume. I think about the "who" and the "why" when I look at this (ed. emphasis) and believe it to be relatively atypical of the old-parked-travel-trailer genre ... I think a hippie painted it."

It seems that Mary 'looked' beyond the denoted and got a glimpse of the connoted, which, in fact, was a part of my motivation for making the picture. For her, the picture had both studium and punctum (studium denoting the cultural, linguistic, and political interpretation of a photograph, punctum denoting the wounding, personally touching detail which establishes a direct relationship with the object or person within it - 'I think a hippie painted it.' I can't stop LOL).

I can also layer on a number of my personal punctum(s) which mostly concern notions about what it means to be human (which I believe would be shared by many others who view the picture). I'll mention just one - since the dawn of humankind, art/decoration has gone hand-in-hand with human evolution. Early cave art is an obvious example and I see the 'art' on this trailer as a direct 'descendant' of that early human need for art/decoration.

And, of course, I love the postmodern irony that this picture is also a result of my desire to make art/decoration by picturing the results of someone else's desire to make art/decoration.

So, while at times it is true that a cigar is just a cigar, in the Art world things are so much richer when things are more than they seem to be.

PS re: today's detail - for those of you in the NJ and PA area, in these parts a long skinny sandwich is called a 'sub' which is short for 'submarine'. So, to get the joke, please think of the hoagie as a submarine.

Update on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at 01:43PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Paul Maxim wrote; I cannot let the "You see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear" remark pass unchallenged. That's just an easy way to not so subtly suggest to the viewer that if you don't get it, then you're simply not "seeing" it. You haven't achieved that elevated state of nirvana that allows you to truly see the world in all its richness.

my response: Paul, I am neither saying or suggesting that 'if you don't get it, then you're simply not "seeing" it.' What I am suggesting, as I have previously, that what observers get out of a picture is directly proportional to what they put into it. All Art is that way. The meaning(s) and appreciation that one gleans from a picture is very dependent upon the knowledge, experience, desire and openess one brings to the viewing experience.

Does this mean that all pictures have 'deep' meaning? No. Does this mean that all pictures have only one 'right' way to view, understand and appreciate them? No. Does this mean that if one doesn't see a picture the way others see it that he/she is a dumbass? No.

It is apparent from the comments so far that everyone's an artist has a variety of meanings for those who view it. Some, such as yourself (I assume), see only that this 'emperor has no clothes'.

That's ok with me, because I don't believe that I have 'achieved that elevated state of nirvana that allows you to truly see the world in all its richness.' Not at all, but I do know that I see things, both literally and figuratively, that many others don't see. Whether any of those others choose (see what you want to see...) to be engaged by my vision is entirely up to them. And I say that without a hint or suggestion of condescension.

urban ku # 81 ~ everyone's an artist

A scenic in a scene • click to embiggenDuring her brief but meteorically brilliant tenure as guest host, Chantal wrote this about the 'seeing eye' - 'The act of ‘Seeing’ seems to be an innate ability to see Life fully: the good, the bad; wonder in the tiniest of things, splendor in the ordinary or even beauty in things others would find unsightly. Those who See understand that its more about looking with your eyes, its about knowing, and appreciation, and in that, there’s a desire to want to communicate what we see, how we perceive our world. For many, it’s a near spiritual experience.' - to which I can only add, "Yup."

Then, yesterday, in a private email, I received this regarding yesterday's totems picture - 'My first thought when I saw this photo was: "Did he really have the balls to ask this woman to stand there?" - and then I thought, "No, he didn't, this is just one of those strange detail things he found and snapped a picture of...."' - to which I can only add, "Yup."

For me, it is all about details, especially the everyday details of everyday life. The things that almost everyone 'sees' but doesn't pay any attention to. Part of what I am trying to accomplish is to bring attention to those seen-but-not-seen details because I fervently believe that the genius really is in the details.

urban ku # 80 ~ hobbit light

A very odd and eerie light • click to emmbiggenLast evening as the wife and I were discussing some family matters, my eye was caught by a small sliver of sky that was peeking through a bush outside of a window on the side of our house. What little I could see looked incredibly odd.

I jumped to my feet, headed to the front door and I was immediately struck by the sensation that I was looking through a tinted window. Even though I have only experienced it 3 or 4 times in my life, I knew right way as I emerged from the house that it was 'hobbit light'. I started yelling for anyone to hear, "Get out here, get out here. It's hobbit light."

As the wife, one of the college kids and I wandered about in a state of wonder, neighbors began to emerge from their houses as well. They too had been drawn by/to the light. None could recall ever having experienced it before - the entire landscape was bathed/saturated in a deep, soft, other-worldly reddish glow.

The entirely odd and disconcerting thing was that there was absolutely no visible sunset. The western sky was covered entirely (north to south) by bank of low dark grey rain clouds. The cloud bank also extended, west to east, from the horizon to cover about 1/2 of the sky. Well above this bank of dark clouds were more 'regular' clouds with a deep blue sky poking through. These clouds were bathed in the a soft and subtle warm light from the sunset (the sun must have been below the horizon) and it was this light that was reflected on the landscape.

I don't know if this phenomenom has a 'real' name. I call it 'hobbit light' because the first time I experienced it (many, many years ago), I was deep in the thrawl of one of Tolkien's books and there was a particular passage that involved a vividly described eerie light upon the land. So, it was dubbed 'hobbit light'.

PS - on a techincal note, some might suspect that I used the H/S slider on this picture and, in fact, I did. However, contrary to what you might think, I used it to desaturate the color.

Update on Thursday, July 12, 2007 at 10:27PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Timothy Kingston wrote; ... I've seen, what I'm quite sure you are talking about a few times ... Usually it occurs in the evening ,usually after or sometimes just before a thunderstorm. Also, oftem there is no wind, I mean even the trembling aspen are totally still ...

My response: Timothy - in my experience, always after a thunderstorm and, yes. you're absolutely right - as still and silent as death.

urban ku # 79 ~ into the sunset

A nearby view • click to embiggenEvery once in a while, an individual seizes a moment in time and bends it to his will. In recent times, Einstein did it, Dylan did it, and Ghandi did it. They, amongst others, took what came before and irrevocably changed it forever.

Beyond the shadow of a doubt, the single reason that we have the discussions we do here on The Landscapist is because of one visionary individual who took what came before and irrevocably changed it forever - 'it' being photography. That one individual, John Szarkowski, single-handedly grabbed the medium by the throat and elevated it to the status of Art. Period. End of discussion.

I never met the man or heard him speak but his shadow has followed me like a ghost throughout my photography life. While he never influenced me directly, the pictures of those he 'ordained' into the ecclesiastical hierarchy of photography certainly opened my eyes to new possibilities. So I was deeply saddened to learn of his death on July 9 at the age of 81.

An obituary can be found here.

I won't go into all his accomplishments as I am certain that much will be written in the coming days but I will leave you with this from his introduction to “The Work of Atget,” published in conjunction with a series of exhibitions at MoMA from 1981 to 1985 -

'One might compare the art of photography to the act of pointing, It must be true that some of us point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others ... The talented practitioner of the new discipline would perform with a special grace, sense of timing, narrative sweep, and wit, thus endowing the act not merely with intelligence, but with that quality of formal rigor that identifies a work of art, so that we would be uncertain, when remembering the adventure of the tour, how much our pleasure and sense of enlargement had come from the things pointed to and how much from a pattern created by the pointer.'

urban ku # 78 ~ summer colors

Summer colors • click to embiggenSeems like it has rained everyday for the past week. Maybe that's because it has rained everyday for the past week.

The upside to that is that everything is growing like crazy. It is as lush a summer as I can remember. And the rain saturates everything including the colors of summer in my backyard - green, violet, orange and yellow.

urban ku # 77 ~ two chairs

Two chairs on the 4th of July • click to embiggenHey, Joe, this one's for you.

On urban ku # 76 Paul Maxim wrote: "... On a lighter note, I loved your "left brain wall" comment in the previous discussion. I've been reading Adam's book for that very reason - trying to figure out what makes people take (or make) photographs. If photography is a form of visual expression, then those who make images must be trying to "say something", right?"

Right. Although, most rarely get by saying "wow" and "ain't this pretty" over and over again.

Consider this from an interview with photographer Robert Holmgrem (thanks to Joe Reifer) - We struggle to explain what what we see. Photographers observe what other photographers do and we see that serious work tends to get high-minded analysis that seems to suggest events outside of the frame. Sometimes this is expressed as social criticism, psychoanalysis or revisiting some historical period of the medium with new eyes. It gets to the point where you begin wondering if any value exists without the aid of art critics. I'm a fan of Garry Winogrand's pictures, but I have no concern for what others think they mean, nor do I believe did he. Winogrand famously said that he took pictures "to see how things would look as photographs". It was a model of plain spoken. The pictures did the speaking and still we struggle to explain.

PS - a word of advice from Holmgrem - "Never throw out your mistakes. I'm surprised to find out how good I used to be before I got better.

Update on Thursday, July 5, 2007 at 11:40AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Bill Gotz wrote (in part): "... Or for an example of how a left brainer can suck (I mean destroy) most of the meaning out of an image leaving only some critic speak words, see the chapter "How Do We Read a Photograph? in Graham Clarke's book The Photograph.

It is an interesting book, but he does fail to understand the visual language of design and the deeper meanings available to the connections available to right brain thinking. A few paragraphs of words just can't come close to the degree of meaning we can get in a few moments with our right brain and non-verbal understandings. (Or maybe a left brainer has no interest in the visual language and rejects it for only that which can be named.) ..."

urban ku # 76 ~ July 4th

We, the people, must redeem
Our land, the mines, the plains, the rivers,
The mountains and the endless plain -
All, all the stretch of these great green states -
And make America again!

~ from Let America be America Again by Langston Hughes

Update on Thursday, July 5, 2007 at 08:32AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Paul Maxim wrote: "...Oh, and thanks for the reference to "The Point". Hadn't thought about Oblio and Arrow in years and years. I wonder if that music is still available? It was such great political and social farce."

My response: Paul, I just ordered the The Point on DVD at Borders. The sound track cd is also available.

BTW, my oldest son, Jason, barely escaped being named Oblio. On the other hand, we did name one of our dogs Arrow. I have also spent a lot of time throughout my life trying to find the 3 fat sisters (whose point was merriment and fun)

urban ku # 75 ~ Sunday afternoon sky

Sunday afternoon at Stewarts • click to embiggenOn ku # 477 (immediately below) Paul Maxim stated, 'Last week, in fact, I posted a question on such a forum asking the photographer why they'd posted a particular image. What was the "message", I asked? I simply didn't "get it". I received a very curt reply that there didn't have to be a "message" - they just "liked it". Apparently, I'd hit some "artistic" nerve'

IMO, this has relvance to another recent photo forum post titled, Do we over analyze images?. The general consensus was that they did analyze (technique-wise) pictures to a fair-thee-well but that was what they were suppose to do on a site dedicated to "learning", which is accurate enough if you are only concerned, as this site is, with technique/technicals. The site does dwell on things technical/technique almost to the exclusion of all things dealing with intellect/emotion in the medium of photography - except, of course, for the ever-popular emotion of "wow". Get beyond "wow" with message/meaning on the site and, as Paul also states, 'Images that do appear to have some underlying "meaning" are rarely commented on. They seem to make people nervous.'

So, when Paul asked about meaning/message, I don't think he hit an "artistic nerve" as much as he ran smack-dab into the middle of a left-brain wall. Photography, as a hobby, has much to offer the left-brain crowd. For those who are inclined to look first at the pieces, then put them together to get the whole, cameras, lens, sensors, rules of composition and so on are full of pieces that can, in the camera club/hobbyist world, occupy the mind endlessly. Meaning/message, if it matters at all, definitely comes low on the totem pole. Even then, mesage/meaning is always wrapped up in a preoccupation with 'easy' meaning/message of "wow" and "pretty".

Speaking for right-brainers, one person offered a dissent of sorts by stating, 'I think humans over-analyze everything ... When you look at a photograph and start to analyze it for flaws, or color balance, or saturation, or a host of other qualities, do you realize that you have lost the connection to the image that drew you to it in the first place?

This was meet with this response, 'That certainly does not mean that we should not be stringent and very serious about creating as powerful an image as we can, but we do need to strike a balance between our emotional awareness of the beauty of an image and analyzing which criteria it does and does not meet.'

Apparently, in the left-brain world, if one wishes to create 'as powerful an image as [one] can', one must be 'stringent and very serious' about technique/technicals and then, when the picture is viewed,
'analyz[e] which criteria it does and does not meet'.

IMO, even though left-brainers have given the world much, most (not all) are at a distinct disadvantage in the world of Art. Just take a look at this right brain and left brain inventory and decide for yourself which 'inventory' is best for making Art.

What kind of brainer are you?

Addendum - so, does being a left-brainer make you a 'shallow' person? IMO, not necessarily - unless a person's make up is so utterly dominated by logic/reason that intuition, empathy, compassion are totally banished to the pointless forest (see The Point).

Update on Tuesday, July 3, 2007 at 10:39AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Bret Kosmider wrote: "... I took the test ... Turns out I'm 70/30 right/left. Until now I'd classify most of my work as that shallow "wow" factor beauty-only crap. I still shoot that crap too. But according to the test my brain has a majority in the right column (and can overrule a veto too!) So am I merely fulfilling the "need to apply yourself to develop your potential" aspect of my right-brainyness? ... I should include that I've taken up the challenge to "apply myself" in the area of critical thought in my photography."

My response: I'm not a 'doctor' but I'd say you're on the road to developing your right-brain potential but always be aware that, if you wish your photography to be an extension of 'true' inner self, much of that 'critical thought' needs to be about yourself, not just your photography.