urban ku # 49 ~ a new place

A split second • click to embiggenI am emerging from a kind of modernist/postmodernist what-the-hell-is-what haze. After delving into the notions, it seems incredibly complex or equally simple depending on deep you want to go. I went deep enough to feel, at the extremes, like I was drowning in a sea of either simplistic sentimental dreck (modernism) or wretched intellectual/academic obfuscation (postmodernism).

That said, it seems that there is an emerging middle ground out there where the two cultural paradigms collide and out of the smashed particles a new stew is being brewed - perhaps a kind of post-postmodernism.

Photography-wise, a place where neither intellectual concept nor visual referent reign supreme. A place where the skeptical/questioning gaze of the camera does not descend fully into the 'end-of-the-line-everything-is-used-up' paradigm of postmodernism but rather, it creates a glimmer of it's-not-over-yet hope because, unlike radical postmodernism, the photographer actually believes that the referent matters.

A place where, even though the referent matters, the skeptical/questioning gaze of the camera never places it on an altar of idolatry that drips with sappy sentimentality. A place where the referent is addressed with a respect that preserves its authenticity but still allows the photography-observer to move well beyond the 'actuality of the real world'.

A place where the denoted and the connoted co-exist on equal footing. A place where photography can both illustrate and illuminate.

In short, a place where I want to be.

urban ku # 48

Red truck on an early spring evening • click to embiggenSpring is trying to assert itself. It can definitely be felt 'in the air'. Even though there's still good skiing on Whiteface, snow is all but gone except in higher elevations. Nice.

Word has it that my hometown golf course here in Au Sable Forks, about 2 blocks from my house, is open. Nice.

I haven't beem able to answer any comments over the last 4-5 days (or check out if the golf course really is open) because I'm cramming - trying to get the Summer Guide out on schedule. I'm mere single-digit hours from mission accomplished. Nice.

Now, if they can just schedule the press run (in Pittsburgh, PA) to coincide with a Penguin home playoff game, everything will be even more Nice.

Tomorrow will bring a return to my regulary scheduled program. Should be Nice.

urban ku # 47 - why I'm a postmodernist (sort of)

Vac • click to embiggen"I'm no art historian, Bret Kosmider wrote here recently, but I am aware of Straight photography (Ansel and the boys) as a direct response to Pictorialism. Pictorialism died away in the 19-teens replaced by Modernism. There's some debate as to where postmodernism fits into this ...

For those who are interested in such things, it's an interesting idea.

For those who are a bit confused by such matters, it's a change to learn something. So, first a couple very brief definitions (both of which are topics for never-ending discussion and debate):

Modernism - the 'modern' dates from the 18th century Age of Enlightenment with the emergence of and emphasis on rationality, technical progress and the explanatory power of emperical sciences - the basic hallmarks of Western thought and culture. In Landscape Photography, think of Ansel Adams as a consumate moderist.

Postmodernism - literally 'after the modern'. In Art terms, that means just about anything that challenges modern concepts and concerns. Think William Eggleston as a consumate postmodernist.

To further simplify photography-wise, modernist photography adheres to 'rules' and concentrats on 'grand-theme' subject matter. Postmodernist photography rejects the 'rules' and concentrats on 'banal' subject matter. Modern photography is filled with evident warm 'passion', postmodern photography is said to be 'dispassionate' and 'cold'.

Now, to be certain, there was, and is, lots of cross-pollination between the movements. Like life, it's a messy world out there.

All of that said, here's my point. I consider myself to be a somewhat messy, cross-pollinated postmodernist because (a few highlights) -

My photography stands in direct and deliberate contrast to modernist Ansel-Adams-ish landscape photography - I have deliberately rejected his 'grand-landscape' theme in my photographic pursuit of the everyday (considered banal by many). Photo-modernists overwhelmingly reject the pursuit of the 'everyday' under the oft-mentioned banner of 'who cares?', 'so what?', and, 'you can't just take a picture of 'anything''.

My much-questioned and oft-maligned corner vignetting is a very deliberate rejection of the photo-modernist pursuit of technical 'pefection'. Sure, I use the most modern of tools, but I thoroughly reject the notion of 'salvation' throught the pursuit of 'scientific' perfectionism. I obviously haven't spent enough time with lens-comparo charts. Anyone know what the 'best' aperture is on my Zuiko 11-22mm lens is?

My photographs are very often reffered to as 'accidents' by adherents of the modernist photographic tradition - surely, the camera was activated by 'accident' since the subject itself is not worthy of consideration and the 'composition' is so utterly random. Haven't I ever heard about the Rule of Thirds?

And, of course, adherents of photo-modernist photography most often find my photographs to be deviod of 'meaning', at least that's what I infer from the endless stream of 'what's-this-photograph-suppose-to be-about-anyways?' comments which my photographs elicit from them. What am I trying to 'say' anyhow?

So why am I bothering you with all of this personal drivel? Consider this.

All of the preceeding 'becauses' about my pictures can be synopsized in the most prevalent criticism leveled at postmodern photography - that it's all a silly, self-absorbed opposition-for-opposition-sake reaction to modernism. Re-active rather than pro-active. You know, being against something without knowing what you stand for. Little more than affecting the mantle of the 'enfant terrible'.

Bunk.

For some photo-postmodernists, I'm certain that is the case but you can't ignore the fact that postmodernism did not erupt in a culture-vacuum. It was, and continues to be, the honest product of a segement of the culture that, at the very least, questions the perceived foundations/wisdoms of the prevailing paradigm - societal, political, art and otherwise.

It's no mystery to me that photo-postmodernism emerged to prominence on to the world scene in the 70s. You know, right after the bomb nihilism of the 50s, the cultural unrest of 60s and the political mess of the 70s - the duck-and-cover, burn your bra and the flag era.

I lived through that time. While some jumped onto the Peace Train for the party and the free ride, many (a distinct minority of the baby boom, baby generation) did not. They (include me in) were profoundly effected, and continue to be, by the times and the questions. While they may have not known precisely what they stood for, they knew what they stood against. They and their heirs and descendents continue to this day to pursue, in all walks of life, the self-knowledge of what they stand for.

The Arts are no exception. Photography, as the most modern of arts, has been very instrumental in this pursuit. If you will, call it 'postmodern' in its current state. Everything has to have a name, right? But, in my mind, it's just another round in the Culture Wars.

So, when I hear the accusation that, with my photography, I am just being-different-to-be-different (sorta postmodernist), I am tempted to respond, "F**kin' A, man. Bummer. You're stepping on my trip, man. Chill out and free your mind. This is heavy s**t, dude."

urban ku # 43/44/45

Ice jam at Main St. bridge • click on photo to embiggen itI was typing away on today's entry when I got a phone call from Aaron. He told me to get my a-- out the door and check out the ice jam on Main Street. His assistant, who goes through the Forks on his way to work, told him about it.

Ice jams at bridges is a common spring-thaw thing 'round these parts. The odd thing about this one is that it rarely happens at this bridge (on the West Branch of the Au Sable)- it alwayshappens at the bridge on the other end of Main Street (on the East Branch of the Au Sable).

The other odd thing is that the ice jam is on both sides of the bridge. Should get interesting - it's going to rain all day and it's warm so melting snow is going to add to the mix.

The funny thing is that I was going to write about things emerging from under their wintery blanket (with photo to match). I'll do that tomorrow. Today, it's all about submerging.

urban ku # 42 ~ Zawsze Kwadrat, głupcze!

On his blog, Marcin Szymczak wrote; 'Ostatnio chodzą za mną zdjęcia Marka Hobsona. Chodzą za mną, i aż dziw - bo przecież kolorowe aż nadto - teoretycznie nie w moim typie. Może to "ku" - kwadratowa filozofia Marka - mnie ujęła? Te zdjęcia nie przedstawiają spektakularnych widoków - mimo to, bardzo je lubię - są takie spokojne, delikatne, trochę baśniowe...'

For those of you not conversant in Polish - 'Recently, I have Mark Hobson's pictures on my mind all the time. Quite strange - pictures are full of colors, so - theoritically - not my type.
Dirty snow • click on photo to embiggenMaybe it's by "ku" - Mark's square philosophy. Although these photos are not "spectacular" - I like them very, very much; there is so much calm, gentleness, and fairy-tale magic in here.' And, lest I forget, the blog title is 'Always square, stupid', which Marcin states; 'pretty well express my approach to photography ;)'

I bring this up, not so much as a press release from my Shameless Self Promotion Department, but rather to continue the discussion on meaning. In particular, I was struck by Marcin's statement that these photos are not "spectacular" .... there is so much calm, gentleness, and fairy-tale magic in here.'

As Wallace (of Wallace & Gromit fame) says, 'there's no use in prevaracating around the bush', so here's my question to you -

Do you think Marcin got it (the meaning) right? Do you see 'much calm, gentleness, and fairy-tale magic' in my ku?

PS - Marcin, thank you very much for the comments and the mention on your blog. And, yes, it's 'always square, stupid!'

urban ku # 41 - 2 types of memory and a little bit of meaning

Photographs are inexorably tied to memory. After all, every photograph becomes, de facto, a trace of something past mere moments after it is created - click the shutter, glance at the LCD and, voila, instant 'memory' - a visual fragment of something from the past.

This self-evident characteristic of the photographic medium evidences itself in 2 distinctly different manners.

On the surface of things, it can flesh-out specific details in the service of voluntary memory - the conscious attempt to recall the past. In this capacity, it serves as a document that can be rich with remarkably accurate 'details and fragments' of that which one is trying to (re)call to mind. For instance, if I want to remember what my childhood house at 321 West Malloy Road looked like, nothing can illustrate the details like a photograph of the house at 321 West Malloy Road (aka, the 'referent'), circa 1950-55.

On the other hand, if I pull out a photograph of the house at 321 West Malloy Road, circa 1953-55, and start to study the details, another type of memory - involuntary memory (derived from the 'connoted')- kicks in. My mind, my heart and my soul are flooded with memories of a life lived at the house at 321 West Malloy Road. I 'see' my mom and dad, my brothers, the games, the sun, the snow and the rain of my childhood. It all comes flooding back - not with the clarity and detail found in the photograph of the house at 321 West Malloy Road, but full-bodied and rich with emotion nevertheless.

I suspect that 'involuntary memory' plays a key role in the meaning an observer of a
Roadside memory • click on photo to embiggen it photograph (in this case, functioning as a 'trigger') creates for him/herself. I suspect that if I were to show you a photograph of my house at 321 West Malloy Road, circa 1950-55, for you, it, at first glance, would be a simple document of the past - a house, circa 1950-55. But I also suspect that without too much prompting, it would trigger a flood of involuntary memories of your childhood house/home.

And, no doubt, this flood of memories would cause you to 'feel' a specific emotion(s) - happiness, sadness, loss, joy,, etc. - which you would 'attach' to the photograph as meaning, your meaning.

A meaning which certainly did not exist in the mind of the photographer.

Update on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 at 05:26PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: both Steve Durbin amd Paul Butzi took issue with the statement - 'A meaning which certainly did not exist in the mind of the photographer.' In both cases, they stated that a photograph of the house at 321 West Malloy Road would be affected by the state of mind of the photographer and that state of mind would be evident to the observer of the photograph.

To which I would add a resounding 'maybe'.

A photographer, who was aware of and very adept at using the apparatus of the medium, could indeed create a photograph that conveyed happiness, sadness, etc. But in the case of any photograph of the house at 321 West Malloy Road at my disposal (consequently, the one I would show you), the photographer was either my father or grandfather. I can state unequivocally that neither was even aware of the apparatus of the medium much less trying in any manner to imbue the photographs with any such emnotion(s). They were engaged in making documents, a record of the house for the family album.

For all I know, they were recording a new paint job on the trim, a fresh cut lawn, a new lawn ornament, new shingles on the roof, or who knows what. The fact is, I just don't know what they were thinking at the pro-filmic moment, and, if I had mentioned that phrase or anything like it to them, they would have looked at me like I had lobsters crawling out of my ears - especially since I was only 3-8 years old during the circa in question.

As a single document, I think any photograph of the house at 321 West Malloy Road is very emotion-neutral. In the greater context of the family album - me and my friends, me and my brothers, me and Ginger Dockweller, me at Notre Dame football games, me and ... (well, you get what I'm driving at) I am pretty certain that, for all but the most twisted, the house at 321 West Malloy Road would be assumed to be a happy one.

Update on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 11:16AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Paul Butzi wrote (in part): "Sigh. That's not what I said ... (I (the publisher) said - In both cases, they stated that a photograph of the house at 321 West Malloy Road would be affected by the state of mind of the photographer and that state of mind would be evident to the observer of the photograph.) ... How you got from what I wrote to what you think I wrote, I haven't a clue."

publisher's response: Paul, my apologies. There was no intent to misrepresent what you wrote. My synopsis-reasoning went like this:

When you wrote that the 'vast majority of photographs like this are made with ... specific intent', I deduced that 'specific intent' indicated a 'state of mind' on the part of the photographer. And I deduced further that the photographer intended that the photograph, created with that 'state of mind', communicate the 'specific intent', which flowed from his/her 'state of mind', to the observer. To go a step further, I also deduced from the preceeding that you thought that the observer would 'get it'.

Mundane Suburban Neighorhood Shots with Partially Cropped Cars

In a case of Mistaken Browser Window Identity, Joe Reifer left a comment meant for another blog (gasp!!) on my Speaking of Words topic that goes like this; "Awhile back I noticed how a lot of 70's color street photography had cars everywhere. Shore is a particularly good example. After discussing this issue with a friend, I started a group on Flickr as a lark called
Mundane Adirondack Neighorhood Shot with Partially Cropped Snowplow • click on photo to embiggen itMundane Suburban Neighorhood Shots with Partially Cropped Cars, or MSNSPCC for short. It's officially a trope now."

Joe sent me an email in which he explained the error of his ways and he also wrote that I could delete it, but, in an attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, I thought that I'd leave it intact in case you were looking for something to look at on a Sunday afternoon.

urban ku # 40 ~ meaning # 2

Considered together, urban ku # 39 and # 40 might be understood to mean that I have developed an attraction to tow trailers parked in yards. Truth be told, 'round these parts tow trailers of all stripes are rather ubiquitous and they might be rich fodder for a body of photographic work with meaning, but that's not where I'm headed.

Where I am headed with this thread is to attempt to drive a nail in the coffin of the stupid notion that, because photography is a visual medium, a photograph that needs words to 'explain' it is a failure. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. I might also add 'dung'.

At best, photography employs a 'language' of visual symbols - something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible (Amer. Heritage Dictionary). Literally, a photograph represents something else - its 'referent'. Figuratively, a photograph implies a 'connoted' - the 'invisible' meaning.

This is not about trailers #2 • click on photo to embiggen itBUT, because symbols are ambiguous - their 'interpretation' depends on so many variables which the viewer brings to the table - the connoted meaning is also ambiguous. IMO, the only definitive action that can mediate and restrict (not eliminate) the range of ambiguities is an addendum of words.

IMO, 2 recent comments on The Landscapist bring this into focus; #1) Ana wrote; "...it's about discourse: in the art world, it's the discourse surrounding the work that defines it as art." #2 Ian wrote; "...if a title of a picture is a required element for conveying or exploring whatever idea it is that the artist has, then the unit of art (publisher's emphasis) would be 'image and title'."

To which I would add - All hail the Artist's Statement.

Featured Comment Sean wrote: "This is touching on semiotics. You could then look at a 'language' of visual symbols' in the following manner:

symbol: an arbitary or purely conventional sign (the spoken/written word).

icon: a sign that resembles or imitates that which it depicts (a painting).

index: a sign directly connected (a photograph)."