urban ku # 65 ~ they're everywhere

Sluice on the Boquet at Wadhams • click to embiggenKent Wiley and Steve Durbin have been engaged in an interesting give and take on Kent's Truth & Beauty entry in the Guest Photographers Forum. It's an informed and thoughtful exchange, well worth reading (and you probably should read it to make sense of this entry).

The discussion revolves around a couple issues - 'truth' and 'idealized forms' - that have been the topic of many entries and discussions here on The Landscapist. I thought I would use this opportunity to try and clarify my position on these topics. A position, which, unless you have read every entry I have written since I started blogging, might be mis-understood by many. I'll try to keep it short and simple.

The 'reality factor' of photography, its inexorable connectedness to the object of the camera's gaze (the referent), is the one formal characteristic of the medium that truly distinquishes it from the other visual arts. In my picturing, I try to remain true to this characteristic of the medium.

In part, that is to say that my pictures conform (mostly) to the visual characteristics of the documentary style of picturing - they are true to the 'topographical' features of my referents (people, places, things). I picture in this manner because I have absolutely no inclination towards sentimentality and romanticism.

I have absolutely no inclination towards sentimentality and romanticism because, in part, my intent for my pictures (as mentioned in urban ku # 64) is to articulate concerns relating to contemporary global experiences and I don't believe that sentimentality/romanticism is the way to do it. IMO, looking at 'reality' with cool direct gaze is the only way to do it.

Does this mean that pictures which represent 'idealized forms' are sentimental dreck? Not necessarily so.

In fact, I consider most of my pictures to be 'idealize form's of expressing/representing reality. However, what they are not are pictures of idealized referents. There's a difference between the two, a huge difference. As one example, the world does not need another picture of moving rocks on Death Valley at sunset/sunrise. What it really needs are more pictures which 'articulate concerns relating to contemporary global experiences'.

Does this mean that pictures of moving rocks on Death Valley at sunset/sunrise (idealized referents) are sentimental dreck and have no value? No, not necessarily so.

But, frankly, in the scheme of articulating concerns relating to contemporary global experiences, they are little more than decorative photographic baubles.

Now listen up - this is important - I have quite a number of 'photographic baubles' just as I have lots of shmaltzy/kitschy trinkets and objects around the house. I collect them. They give me great pleasure. Many of them are in large built-in cabinet (with solid ornate wooden doors) which the wife refers to as The Museum.

I consider my photographic baubles and objects de kitsch to be decorative art. They are both pleasant to look at and, especially the pictures, ways to connect to pleasant memories of people, places and things. Far be it from me to say that they are 'valueless'. They just represent a very different kind of value from that which I am trying to infuse in my 'other' pictures.

Everyone has a need to 'disconnect' in a hyper-connected world. I am no exeception. My probelm with those who create nothing but decorative art (and more importantly, with the art itself) is simple - in a world which needs artists who articulate concerns relating to contemporary global experiences, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Update on Thursday, May 17, 2007 at 03:33PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comments: Bill Gotz asked; "What does "articulate concerns relating to contemporary global experiences" mean?"

My Response - as it is being applied to photography, I would venture that it means to create pictures which say something about the state of affairs on the planet/in the world today. Things like war, social injustice, pollution, poverty and corporate greed, as examples although I wouldn't rule out, kindless, compassion, good deeds and a host of other 'positives'.

In the postmodrn view of things it would also include questioning just about everything in the social/cultural construct.

urban ku # 64/crafted ku # 6 ~ Parking lot at sundown

Parking lot at sundown • click to embiggenMuch thanks to Bret Kosmider for passing along info about the Toronto Photography Festival. The festival's theme is The Constructed Image.

The festival organizers describe the festival as this - The exhibition demonstrates how the constructed image has irrevocably transformed photography’s relationship to reality.

Whether photographs are composites of multiple scenes or of various disciplines, materials and influences, hybridity is now a fundamental feature of the medium. Images are digitally altered, theatrically arranged, artificially staged and fabricated. Fashion, advertising and marketing strategies, many of which, ironically, were originally influenced by photography, are now frequently reinterpreted by photo-based artists as a means of expression. This directorial nature of working has moved photography away from the objective documentation of the world, and aligned it more closely with the freedom and infinite possibilities that theatre, film, painting and sculpture have always provided. Constructed modes of working are essential for these artists as they articulate concerns relating to contemporary global experiences.

This tidbit from Bret arrived at about the same time I was reading this from Barry Frydlender (see urban ku # 5 for link), a photographer who creates constructed pictures; "David Hockney said that if you put five photographs of the same scene together, people look at them five times longer." Frydlender, when asked if his constructed pictures (which are made of many pictures) were/are an 'act of resistance to a culture increasingly focused on instanteous understanding and gratification?', responded, "Well, what could be more desieable? Do you want prople to just blink?"

My answer to Frydlaender is an emphatic, "No". But then again, how many of you out there want 'people to just blink' when viewing your pictures? No One? OK, but the question is, how do you get and hold viewers attention?

Those photographer-artists who work the found/unaltered side of the photographic street are faced with the monumental task of standing out from the overwhelming photographic clutter of the instant communication age. It was ever thus but now it is exponentially more so, especially considering the fact that there is some damn good stuff floating around in the clutter. These photographer-artists must find either 'new' referents or very new ways of seeing 'old' referents. Otherwise, it's 'blink' and they're gone.

Those artists who use photography to create 'constructed' pictures (in all of their guises) have an advantage on the new playng field - at least when it comes to attracting attention. The naturally curious and eager-to-learn on the planet are inevitably attracted to these pictures because of the ambiguity most often found in constructed pictures. Pictures that are usually packed with information and possibilities just waiting to be explored. Of course, I have always thought that what distinguishes decorative photography from fine art photography is that the objective of the former is to turn off the brain and that the objective of the latter is to engage it.

So, I for one welcome the challenge of picturing in a way which 'transform[s] photography’s relationship to reality' and which 'articulate[s] concerns relating to contemporary global experiences'. In fact, although no one seems to have picked up on it, I have been posting quite a few 'constructed' pictures. Hint: if it says 'crafted' it's constructed (in some fashion).

PS - anyone interested in going with or meeting me in Toronto for the festival? Looks like there's at least a couple days worth of gallery cruising available.

urban ku # 63 ~ Wadhams, NY

Boquet River ~ Wahdams, NY • click to embiggenBefore we moved to the Adirondacks, I had spent all of my time in the Adirondacks on the water (2,500 lakes and ponds, 20,000 miles of waterways) and in the forest and mountains. All together that accounts for about 95 percent of the Adk Park.

One area which comprises a large part of the rest of the park, and one to which I had never ventured (before moving to the Adirondacks), is the Champlain Valley region. In fact, the entire eastern border of the park is the Lake Champlain shoreline. This region is rolling fertile farmlands - lots of apple orchards and grain - dotted with tiny lakefront quaint New England-style villages and hamlets.

Wadhams is located a few miles (as the crow flies) from the Lake Champlain. It use to be a mill town. Now it's just a tiny-tiny hamlet with a fantastic coffee/bakery shop and a few homes. The old dam on the Boquet still makes electricity which is sold to the 'grid'.

urban ku # 62 ~ a church in Essex

A church in the village of Essex • click to embiggenYesterday, on Royce Howland's Sodium Vapor Night Life picture Bill Gotz wrote; 'What is the definition of grand or iconic or pretty ... I often see stuff on this site that that I regard as grand, iconic and at least beautiful if not pretty. And strong denials that it is so. Do I have a different understanding of these words. What's wrong with me? (Or you?)'

My response: It is true that on ocassion a picture of a grand (sweeping scale) and iconic (executed according to a convention or tradition) nature is published here on The Landscapist. Why not? Those who hang out here are an open-minded bunch and I know of no prohibition against it. Although, I must state that most pictures do not have conventional icons (that which is the object of great attention and devotion) as their referent.

Re: 'beautiful' - of course, as the blog subhead implies, all of the photography seen here aims at being true, not at being beautiful because, what is true is most often beautiful. I consider the 'beauty' that unites all of the pictures here to be an underlying affection for life in all of its manifestations.

At least that's how I see it.

urban ku # 61 ~ Muffin

Today - Muffin • click to embiggenTo take photographs means to recognize - simultaneously and within a fraction of a second - both the fact itself and the rigorous organization of visually perceived forms that give it meaning. It is putting one's head, one's eye and one's heart on the same axis. ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson

HCB also stated that We photographers deal in things which are continually vanishing, and when they have vanished there is no contrivance on earth can make them come back again. We cannot develop and print a memory.

To which, Jeff Wall responds (indirectly); I didn’t want to spend my time running around trying to find an event that could be made into a picture that would be good ... and, his photographs ... are pictures whose subjects were suggested by my direct experience, and ones in which I tried to recollect that experience as precisely as I could, and to reconstruct and represent it precisely and accurately. Although the pictures with figures are done with the collaboration of the people who appear in them, I want them to feel as if they easily could be documentary photographs. In some way they claim to be a plausible account of, or a report on, what the events depicted are like, or were like, when they passed without being photographed.

Those things having been stated, I have passed by (without being photographed) Fran Betters flyfishing shop a zillions times.
My idle curiosity kicks in • click to embiggen It is a local, regional and even national landmark of sorts. Recently, Fran has moved his shop - a rambling ramshackle edifice - about a quarter mile down the road into a newly renovated bluiding complete with his own restaurant (managed by his wife) and 8-unit motel. It's a mini all-in-one flyfishing resort right by the legendary West Branch of the Au Sable River.

As upscale (relatively speaking) as it is, it still retains the slightly off-center character of its proprietor. It is still a rambling and disjointed place. I like it a lot. So, I decided after 7 years to take a photograph - one that captured a bit of the flavor of the place.

My question to you is this; Is it real or is it Memorex? Does it matter if signs were moved for dramatic and/or humorous effect? What if the daily special was fried batter and not "Muffin"? Would changing the word (pre or post picturing) matter? Would the photograph have more or less meaning for you if it were pictured 'as is' or 'set up'?

What do you think? Is it real or is it memorex?

Update on Friday, May 4, 2007 at 10:59AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Amongst many other fine points, Royce Howland wrote; "... Photography has a relationship to reality in a way that painting doesn't. But I still feel the Picasso quote applies -- "We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth, at least the truth that is given to us to understand."

Kent Wiley wrote;"It's certainly a set-up." - In fact, it is not. It was pictured exactly as found. Why "Muffin" is leaning up against the ice machine is a bit of a mystery, especially since I had to wait to picture this scene while someone removed 'Muffin" from in front of the ice machine - so someone could get ice - and replace her in the exact same spot.

urban ku #60

Row, row, row your boat • click to embiggenThis is the reason that I left my happy home in the Adirondacks this weekend past and went down-state to Westchester and the Bronx. A glorious spring weekend just right for golfing, biking, canoeing or just finishing the clean up of the backyard's winter worth of dog piles.

FYI, I will be reintroducing the found v. contrived topic of yesterday (which vanished into the family-harmony ether) later today. Stay tuned.

urban ku # 59 - the terms of our existence

City Island views - The Bronx, NY • click to embiggenFrom this past weekend's itinerary, City Island is a small island approximately 1.5 mi long by 0.5 mi wide. It is part of the New York City borough of the Bronx. City Island is located at the extreme western end of Long Island Sound, south of Pelham Bay and east of Eastchester Bay. Stepping Stones Lighthouse, marking the main shipping channel into New York, is off the southern tip of the island, near the Long Island shore.

The truly odd thing - I would even go so far as to say, positively disorienting thing - about City Island is its quaint New England fishing village feel and look. A drive or walk down its main street, City Island Avenue, which is lined with small speciality and antique shops and about a billion seafood restaurants, does nothing to dispell the notion. So it's odd when you keep reminding yourself that you're in The Bronx. You know, the home of The Bronx Bombers and Yankee Stadium.

French fry tossing • click to embiggen Photo by The WifeNot that you really have to keep reminding yourself - there are plenty of visual cues. Most of those cues are people. There are no cute grey-haired salt-o'-the-earth New England grannies or Barnacle Bills the sailors dotting the cityscape. The population is predominantly hispanic and black. It is, don't forget, the Bronx.

The residents have also managed to create an indigenous form of wildlife-based entertainment - the seagull french fry toss. From my limited observation, it seems to be requisite ritual at all the waterfront eateries, especially those with menus brimming with artery-busting deep fried seafood.

In any event, City Island is a very interesting place. One I never knew existed. If you are ever anywhere close at hand, make it a must see.

That said, my urban ku # 59 look at City Island reminded me of the following from The Photograph by Graham Clarke (Oxford Press);

The images of Eggleston, Callahan, and Berman are examples of a new kind of art photography, which looks towards postmodern engagements with meaning and the nature of representation. Moving beyond a concern with the 'pure' and the aesthetic, they produce an imagery dedicated to the continuous probing of the terms of our existence ... they return art photography to a popular forum, releasing it to deal with the terms of our existence rather than the ideal of formal content divorced from the world of its meaning. Their images have an underlying ambiguity fed by a deep lyrical sense of the human context of photography's focus.

Update on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 08:56AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Jim Jirka wrote;

A man is with his boss as they are talking while having lunch.

The Man: " Only Baseball players and hookers live in the Bronx"
The Boss: " My wife is from the Bronx"
The Man Sqirming: " What position did she play?"

urban ku # 58

A little piece of bark • click to embiggenI have come to realize that I really loath the very idea of 'idealized forms'.

Think about it. How much of your life is spent admiring and pursuing 'idealized forms' - the perfect mate, the perfect house in the perfect neighborhood, the perfect car, the perfect clothes, the perfect vacation, the perfect camera, the perfect lens .... ? If I might be so bold as to suggest, what a perfect waste of time and creative energy.

Pictures of 'idealized forms' have always driven me batty. They get up under my skin and irritate the living hell out of me. I have frequently explained this agita in terms related to the pictures themselves - acting as an 'art critic'. The pictures were/are 'trite', 'cliched', 'sentimental', 'pretty', 'pandering to the lowest common denominator', etc. All of which, as far it went, was/is true.

But, I have come to understand consciously what I have always understood intuitively - that what really gnawed at my craw was/is the fact that most of the pictures which pissed me off had nothing to do with 'real' life. Most of the pictures, in fact, stood/stand in direct contrast to 'real' life.

In wallowing in the fields of "idealized forms', they refute and devalue the realities of everyday life.

You know the life I mean. The one which you live each and every day. The one with the dust balls under the bed with the sagging mattress. The one with toil and trouble. But, it is also the one with joy and happiness which comes from 'some things money can't buy' - things that can be experienced only by looking life square in the eye and, for lack of a better term, embracing and dealing with it.

Now, when it comes to picture making and picture viewing, many seem to think that pictures which depict 'real' life are somehow 'ugly' and 'depressing'. They fail to make even the slightest effort to find the beauty in truth. Better to escape into the realm and easily grasped false hope of 'idealized forms' than to 'work' at finding true hope in all which surrounds one's self.

Beauty in pictures is more than just what lies on the surface of the media.

That said, I have given the keys to the Guest Photographers Forum to many but it remains an under utilized asset here on The Landscapist. Where are the beautiful pictures, gang? Don't let Aaron's pictures intimidate you. Come on, get on board. If you have not been invited to post in the GPF but would like to participate, just send me an email.

BTW, today's picture is made with 4×5 Polaroid Type 59 film.

Update on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 09:00AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Paul Maxim wrote; "Jeez, Mark, evertime I think you might be returning to some semblance of rationality, you go and post something like this. Can you hear yourself? What in heavens name does "reality" (whatever that term means to you personally) have to do with how I or anyone else makes photographs? If I don't choose to photograph small trees with the bark falling off, does that mean that I can't see the beauty in everday life? If "beauty" for me is found in the red cliffs of Zion National Park, does that in some way diminish my efforts? Am I refuting the reality of everday life if I choose to photograph there? Does such an image have absolutely no "meaning" because someone else shrugs it off as simply a pretty picture? What kind of arrogant nonsense is that?

I have no problem with those who wish to photograph "real life", just as I have no problem with authors who claim to write about "real life". But it's their version of reality, not mine. I don't go to Barnes and Noble to buy books about the grisly details of everday existence - I can see that on my own whenever I walk out the door. True, there is much in our daily lives that is joyful and priceless. And it's often worth capturing photographically. But it's not, in general, what inspires me and I certainly don't expect it to inspire anyone else."