urban ku # 183 ~ limited imagination - ouch!

Montral skyline #2 • click to embiggenWhile looking or info about a book, LS/L by Beate Gutschow, I came across a review of it by Jörg Colberg. The book is a photo book by a German photographer who is creating completely manufactured - in Photoshop, using bits and pieces of photos - landscape / cityscape pictures that look remarkably real.

Colberg likes the pictures in part because they are "... a prime and excellent example of the use of digital technologies in photography". He likes the use of digital technologies in photography because he thinks "... that digital technologies are least interesting where they are merely a different tool (and that's what most discussions still appear to be centered on) and most interesting where they enable doing something new."

Even though I tend to use digital technologies as a means to the same end - "traditional" pictures that are contingent upon the "real" world, I don't disagree with Colberg's statement. Despite what some think - that digital has "destroyed" photography's "truth", I think that digital technologies have opened up a new photo-genre, that is, expanded the possibilities of the medium.

But that is not why I bring up Colberg's review of the book. Rather, I am struck by the unveiled ferocity of his closing statement in defense of digital technologies;

Of course, you can stick with, say, street photography (ed. - or, in our case, nature / landscape photography) and say that there is just so much more out there to be seen than to be found in your own - limited - imagination. Beate Gütschow's LS/S very convincingly exposes the flaw in that thinking: There are no limits to photographic imagination.

IMO, this strikes directly at the heart of my recent unease(?) / dissatisfaction(?) / question mark (?) / something or other (?) with my "pure" ku picturing. Despite Mary Dennis' reminder that I am not "a very small insignificant piece of shit" photography-wise, I can't help but think that my ku are lacking in imagination - which is not, by any stretch, to say that they lack significant illustrative and illuminative properties and value. It's just that ... well ... as I mentioned ... um ... um .........

It's not that I don't really, really appreciate the work of photographers - to include me - who go out into the world and make pictures of the "real" thing. Far from it - some of my favorite work comes from that traditional genre. But, that said, it seems as though digital technologies, no matter if they are used as 'just another tool' or to make 'new' or altered realities, have upped the ante when it comes to using your imagination - that just adding your own "take" on what has already been done just doesn't seem to be enough anymore.

Any thoughts on the matter?

urban ku # 182 ~ décrépitude delicieux

Montreal skyline # 1 • click to embiggenThe wife and I spent the weekend in Montreal with the avowed intent of indulging in the pleasures of the flesh with a touch of those of the mind and heart as well.

This was quite a sacrifice for me as on this weekend was: 1) a Hockey Night in Pittsburgh, and 2) The Masters. Normally such a combination has me glued to the tube (the plasma? the LCD?), even if the sky is failing. Nevertheless, we struck a fine balance and a good time was had by all.

Part of my good time was enhanced by a last minute pre-trip idea - one that could only have happened in this digital age - I decided, about 2 hours before our departure, that since we would be in a neighborhood (the Old City) with several art galleries, I should bring a portfolio of my photography to show around.

Now, I have several portfolios ready to go but not one of my recent Decay work. So, undeterred, I opened my Decay folder, selected 10 images, warmed up the printer, and less than 2 hours later I had a neatly trimmed set of 10 Decay prints with a cover / title sheet ready to go.

Try doing that in a wet darkroom.

This was my first attempt at printing a presentation of my Decay work. When I viewed the final prints as a set I was quite impressed. It was very apparent to me, in a manner that I had not fully realized before viewing the work as all of a piece, that a statement was emerging. It seems that, as a result of just following the urging of my inner un-thought known, I have "stumbled upon" something well worth pursuing in earnest.

This is not a big surprise for me. It has happened before and I am aware of this happening to others as well - artists just scratching an itch who end up finding what they didn't know they were looking for.

I mention this because I am also aware of quite a number of photographers who are struggling to find something to sink their photo-teeth into. IMO, their problem is simply that they are thinking about it too much. Instead, what they should be doing is clearing their head and then they should just do it. Pick up a camera with no preconceived intentions and just look around.

To paraphrase Brooks Jensen - forget about what you have been told is a good picture and simply start picturing what you "see". What Jensen failed to mention in his dictum is that it is very important to "forget" everything you "know" about pictures and picturing because then, and only then, can you hear what you feel. What you feel is the best "knowledge" that you can harness in the cause of making good pictures.

A question for you: Has anyone else out there "stumbled upon" what you didn't know you were looking for?

PS: As coincidence would have it, literally across the street from the back entrance to our hotel, there was a recently opened gallery - a branch of a very established gallery in Quebec (city). It specializes in Contemporary Art, to include photography. After a quick look at my portfolio, they requested that I submit a formal portfolio - to include a few exhibition sized prints (3×3 ft), bio, artist statement, etc.) - for a full review because they found it "very interesting".

Update on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 01:42PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Stephen Connor wrote: "Well, you may have missed Hockey Night in Pittsburgh, but at least you got a shot of Molson's brewery - long a part of Hockey Night in Canada!"

my response: Actually, I didn't say that I missed Hockey Night in Pittsburgh. I said a "fine balance was struck" - that "balance" included walking out the hotel back entrance (again) and across the street
Les 3 Brasseurs • click to embiggento the Les 3 Brasseurs micro brew pub - a place where good beer and big screen tvs are in ample supply.

The way I see it, the balance killed many birds with one stone - we got out of the hotel, the wife (and I) likes micro brew beers, I (and the wife) like watching the Pens, and, together, we were honoring the Canadian tradition of Canadian drinking beer (albeit Les 3 Brasseurs Amber by the pint, not Molson Canadian by the bottle) and watching a Canadian hockey team (lose) at night in Canada.

An aside: talk about hitting the Trifecta - staying in an utterly fantastic small luxury hotel, the Auberge du Vieux-Port (click on "Album" to see the place), walk out the rear entrance and a few steps to the left, a great Art gallery, or a few steps to the right, a great micro brewery. It's a little bit of heaven.

And, oh yeah, lest I forget - doing it all with the wife.

urban ku # 182 ~ high flying spirits

Flying high • click to embiggenIn recent posts I have pictured the some of the colors and sounds of Spring.

However, I have not pictured one of the absolute joys of Spring - fresh air and the warmth of the sun. Because Winter seemed to drag on and on and on this year, most people 'round these here parts are expressing a particularly keen appreciation of that particular joy. It just flat out feels good. Before too long, it should also start to look good as well.

As an added bonus, although I have no way of picturing it, there are 2 other joys of Spring that we are enjoying - the Pens beat the Sens in their first Stanley Cup playoff game, and Notre Dame beat Michigan in the semis of the NCAA Frozen Four. And, who knows, maybe Tiger will prevail at The Masters. There's a big Spring weekend ahead.

The only thing unsettling my Spring Sports Revelry at the moment is the question of why video camera makers insist on putting really inferior still-picture capabilities in their camcorders. What the hell is the point of that?

urban ku # 181 ~ digital immaturity

On an evening walk • click to embiggenA few days ago, Mr. Big Shot Artist, Aaron (the Cinemascape-ist), made this comment; "Today I shot off 16 exposures of 120 film using the Bronica Medium format camera I borrowed from you. Not only do I have no clue if they were properly in focus and/or metered, I now have to wait to get to a lab for processing, then a day or two after that I can pick up the film and give you the neg's to scan, and perhaps by next Monday I will see the outcome."

In response, all I can say is, "Welcome to the world of photography as I knew it for most of my life."

This is one of the notions on my mind as I continue to contemplate a return to film-based picturing. However, the single most important notion on my mind is that of picture quality and, re: that notion, my mind is convinced, without doubt or question, that color negative film is superior to digital capture in every way but ease of use.

Nothing in the digital world can match the smooth tonal transitions, subtle color rendition, and dynamic range of color negative film. One obvious example of this is the fact that noise in a digital capture changes depending upon which part of the tone curve it falls - shadow areas tend to exhibit more noise than mid-tone and highlight areas. Whereas film has a totally consistent grain pattern (it's form of "noise") across the entire tone curve.

Add to that the fact that film is a mature medium / technology. Digital is not - it is in a nearly constant state of flux. Does it bother anyone of you that the digital capture pictures that you make today will be technically inferior to those you might make in as little as 6 months if you choose to picture with an upgraded sensor? A sensor with less noise, more resolution, less fringing, more mp, a new color engine - these are technical upgrades that will definitely impact how your pictures look.

While these issues of consistency are little concern for the amateur snap-shooter and, interestingly enough, the pro, they are for an Artist who is creating an extended body of work. For them, in the digital capture world, there is only one solution - make your best guess on sensor choice and stick with it. It might also be advisable to disconnect from the outside world or at least that part of it concerned with photo equipment.

In my consideration of a return to film, I am not limited by equipment availability. I have everything from 110 slrs, a Nikon system, a Bronica system, 2 4×5 Arca Swiss VCs, 1 4×5 Nagaoka wooden field camera, 1 8×10 Acra Swiss VC, an assortment of VC lens, a panoramic roll film camera, to a surprising number of toy cameras to work with. My issue is making a choice and sticking with it.

A question for you - how many of you, especially those of you under the age of 30, have pictured with film or, for that matter, have ever owned a film camera?

urban ku # 180 ~ myth and daggers

kodak cameras and film • click to embiggenThere is a wonderful article in Vanity Fair about Robert Frank. Like my recent viewing of the Ansel Adams film, I enjoyed the Frank piece because it's not really about photography per se. It's about Frank, the man.

Not that I ever doubted it, but the more I learn about photographers as persons, not as photographers, the more I am convinced that good/great photography comes from 'within'. Just about anyone can learn the craft of photography but only a relative handful (relative to the total number of photographers out there) can make good/great pictures. By the phrase, "good/great pictures", I mean those pictures that are rich with meaning for more than just the photographer him/herself. Pictures that will survive the test of time. Pictures that have power that does not necessarily reside in what they depict but, rather, communicate a vision that offers something to think about and maybe even an occasion for wonder.

Robert Frank is, quite obviously, one such person. A person who, when he pictured what it meant to be human in 1950s America, created a seminal work, The Americans, that changed the face of photography and laid bare the myth of America. When the book was first published in 1959, Frank's portrayal of the American landscape and street corners was so contrary to the prevailing American Myth that no American publisher would touch it - it was first published in France. The work was roundly panned by all manner of commentators including Popular Photography magazine which called the book a "meaningless blur, grain, muddy exposures, drunken horizons and general sloppiness" and then went on to label Frank as "a joyless man who hates the country of his adoption." - a consummate act of denial and killing the messenger.

50 years later, the work is currently being republished for the 5th time and it is now being considered as the groundbreaking work - both as social commentary and photographic innovation - the really is/was. I like the comment from the VF piece which states that "... the genius lay in editing them (28,000 photographs) down to 83 daggers which he plunged directly into the heart of the Myth."

And, "... Before Frank, the visual orientation of photographs had been straight, horizontal, vertical. The subject of the picture was always obvious. You knew what the picture was about and what it meant to say. Frank, the shadowy little man, came along and changed the angles, made graininess a virtue, obscure lighting a benefit. His pictures were messy; you weren’t sure what to feel, who or what to focus on ... Frank intellectually changed photography—that is, what a photographer was supposed to look at. If Ansel Adams chose to capture the mightiness of nature, how could you argue with that? Where’s the fault in stone and sky and snow? There is no fault. And therein lies its fault. Frank snatched photography from the landscapists and the fashion portraitists and concentrated his lens on battered transvestites, women in housedresses, and sunken mouths. Life is not boulders and snow and perfume and chiffon. Life is difficult and sad and ephemeral. Life is flesh, not stone ..."

All of that said, here's what really interested me about Frank, the man.

He is quoted as saying about his children, "I wish I would have given them something ... their Jewishness or something." because, as he and the author of the piece agreed that the fantastic and fatal blessing of the American life [is] One can choose to be whatever one wants in America without the constraints of societal mores ... In America you might throw away ... old structures and live however you choose. But if you do not replace the old structure with a new one, this freedom will explode in your face like a car battery."

It should be noted that Frank states that "There was no agenda" when he set out on 3 successive Guggenheim grant-funded cross country car trips in the mid-50s. I don't doubt his words but I can't help but think that in his heart and soul he knew (an unthought known) that the American Myth was just that - a Myth. That, for a great many in America life, was indeed "difficult and sad and ephemeral". That in America, old structures and social mores had been thrown away not replaced with "something new". That, in fact, our freedom to live a life of the cult individuality had begun to "explode in the American face like a car battery".

What Frank did was nothing more than the seemingly simple act of picturing what he knew (consciously or not) to be true. There was "no agenda". The Americans was, in his words, "... a book of such simplicity." In fact, agenda-wise, He states that "It really doesn't say anything. It's apolitical. There's nothing happening in these photos ... I just went out into the streets and looked for interesting people."

It seems perfectly obvious to me that Frank was just being himself and the pictures flowed from within.

But there is one more very telling anecdote about Frank. When asked, "Do you carry any photographs in your wallet?”, Frank answered:

“One maybe.”

He removed his billfold from his back pocket, flipped through some receipts and a medical-insurance card. There it was. The only picture the master carried was a business-card photograph of Niagara Falls with block lettering underneath it that read, Niagara Falls, in case its holder should forget what it was he was looking at.

“It must be very beautiful, very romantic,” he said somewhat hopefully. As it turned out Robert Frank had never been to Niagara Falls. “Is it? Romantic?”

“Yes, quite romantic,” I lied. Let the old man be happy.

Kinda makes you wonder, despite what he knew to be true back in the 50s - ant, most likely, for his entire life, what it was he was looking for when he made all those pictures.

urban ku # 179 ~ objectivity vs passion

The Famous Grouse Scotch # 1 • click to embiggenDoug Stockdale asked (on his blog, singluarimages) "... what constitutes Contemporary Landscape Photography?" Past Landscapist guest host, Chantal Stone offered this answer -

Contemporary photography, I don’t think, is easily defined. But it’s more like photography without emotion…like a “way I see things” kind of thing. I think the idea of CP is to simply show the world, or snippets of the world, as objectively as possible. No easy task, imo ....

But in terms of landscape photography, I think CP is the best way to approach it. Contemporary landscape photography, I feel, is the most truthful way to show our world, as it is…the good, the bad, the pretty, the not so pretty. There’s no pretense with CLP, and with how rapidly our landscapes are changing I feel it’s important to document the world just as it is.

Chantal went on to opine that I - that's me, gravitas et nugalis - am "one of the best contemporary landscape photographers around" which implies that I might actually know what the hell it is that I am doing and, by extension, what 'Contemporary Landscape Photography' is as well. However, even though I rarely shrink from issuing forth with grand sweeping pronouncements, I am not going to rise that particular bait. That said, I would like to comment on the "photography without emotion ... show the world, or snippets of the world, as objectively as possible" thing.

IMBC&EO (In My Brilliantly Considered & Educated Opinion), there is an overwhelming and ubiquitous tendency, especially amongst those photographers given to pictorialism excesses or hopelessly romantic themes, to label landscape photography in which the referents are neither "spectacular" or iconic nor embellished with velvia-esque qualities (however attained) to be "without emotion". It also seems, IMBC&EO, that the emotion most cherished by the same crowd is that of "WOW!!!!"

From that reasoning, it is also assumed that photographers who make such 'non-conforming' photographs are doing so "objectively" - that is to say, uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. The way this notion is most often articulated by the pictorialist excesses crowd is, "... looks like the shutter was tripped by accident ...".

Now, I don't know about you, but the only way that I can conceive of a photograph being created, uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices, by a person (as opposed to, say, a surveillance camera) is for that person to be in a coma and hooked up to some sort of devise that trips a camera shutter every time that he/she twitches involuntarily- leaving aside the fact that a non-comatose co-creator who is influenced by emotions or personal prejudices (how ever weird) would have had to set the whole thing up.

Of course, I, as do many others, make pictures that give the appearance of being 'cool', 'detached', or 'unaffected' observation, but, as we all know (or should), that appearance is an illusion. And, it's worth stating that 'cool', 'detached', and 'unaffected' are all actual emotional states - the opposite of 'impassioned', perhaps, but emotional states, nevertheless.

Why adopt such a so-called 'emotionless' appearance for my photographs? It's very simple, really. While my personal prejudices come to the fore in my act of referent selection, that is to say, in choosing that to which I am attracted and to which I wish to direct the viewer's attention, initially, I want the viewer to react to my pictures influenced by their emotions or personal prejudices. However, ultimately, I hope that my pictures will also cause the viewer to question their emotions or personal prejudices regarding the referent(s) presented in my pictures.

In my experience, and especially when viewed by those who are not hopelessly enthralled with pictorialist excesses, my pictures do just that. They often cause those who view them with an open mind to say things such as, "I never noticed that before" or, "I never thought of that in that way before", or even "I'm not sure about this, but I'll have to think about it."

It is my belief that they have this reaction because I give the viewer room to move, both emotionally and intellectually. I do not put them in an emotional / intellectual stupor by bludgeoning them with first-glance, nearly overwhelming 'shock and awe'. I treat the viewers of my pictures with intellectual and emotional respect - a sort of 'freedom of (thinking) choice', if you will. I assume they have a brain and that they know how to use it without me telling them how to use it.

And, on the subject of 'passion', I am very passionate, no matter how emotionally and intellectually dis-passionate my pictures appear to be, in the pursuit of making those pictures.

I don't know how well all of this goes towards defining "Contemporary Landscape Photography" but it's does define (in part) the how and why I make my contemporary landscape pictures.

PS: if you're listening, Chantal - thanks for the compliment.

urban ku # 177 ~ what I wouldn't give for a good critique

Storm front over Rochester • click to embiggenI have previously mentioned the photography critic A.D. Coleman. His book, light readings, is a collection of his writing - mainly photography / photographer criticism from his Village Voice column, Latent Image - spanning the years 1968-78. For me, the book has 2 primary points of interest:

1. He writes about a number of photographers with whom I am not familiar, so it's a great resource (together with Google) for 'discovering' new (unknown to me) photography and photographers. That alone is worth the price of admission but another bonus is that, even when he writes about a photographer with whom I am familiar, I most often come away with a new insight about that photographer and his/her work.

2. IMO, the #1 reason to read the book is Coleman's writing. Much of his criticism (to 'critique', not to 'criticize') reads like poetry. His descriptions of pictures incite in me many new ways of looking at and 'reading' photographic images. Such as:

Clarence John Laughlin is an obsessed romantic, a Southerner to the marrow, he makes photographs which exude that peculiarly southern aura: nostalgia amplified to the level of metaphor, guilt as a fetish object, decay as perfume. There may be such a thing as a New South, but that is not Laughlin's concern. His focus is strictly on the Old South, that "country of the mind" of Faulkner ... a spiritual territory where rank, decrepit mythologies still live on in hope of resurrection ...

... From the collapsing plantation homes, which are tombs of the past, Laughlin moves to untended cemeteries, and the tombs of the dreamers ...

If only there were more writing about pictures that read like the above. And, if more photographers actually took the time to read such writing, maybe they could talk about or write a forum critique about pictures that got beyond the rules of thirds or how much they like the color.

BTW, before reading Coleman, I was not familiar with Clarence John Laughlin. After reading Coleman, I sure as hell wanted to become familiar with Laughlin and his pictures. I Googled him and I'm glad I did.

In any event, don't you wish someone would write something like the above about your pictures, or better yet, that you could write something like that about someone else's pictures?

urban ku # 176 ~ straight from the people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing

Benches • Click to embiggenConsidering the long road to respectability that the medium of photography has had to traverse, there's a rather curious notion that is currently circulating on the web that goes like this - "... I wanted this (person) to be free to enjoy the print without all the ‘oh, this is valuable and fragile’ nonsense being loaded onto it. ... I’m less and less convinced that the whole ‘this piece of paper has been invested with the essence of my spirituality and thus you should pay a lot of money for it and henceforth treat it as a holy object’ business is a good thing for art in general." and this "... disposable art idea is a good one, I’d love to sell my pictures and have repeat sales because people want my latest hit single or album."

Most of this discussion revolves around print pricing and the desire to sell prints at an inexpensive price point so that more people can enjoy the work, which in and of itself is not a bad idea. In fact, that's an idea that, with some exceptions, I subscribe to. As I have mentioned before, the medium's innate ability to create an endless number of 'original' prints of a single picture, which is easier than ever in the digital domain, is an 'issue' that the high-falutin' Art world has steadfastly refused to acknowledge, much less deal with.

In a slightly modified form, the pricing model currently in use in the Art world for photographs is that of painting and sculpture wherein there exists only one original and hence its dollar value is determined (in part) by its uniqueness as an object. With photographs, their uniqueness as an object is arrived at by limiting the number of originals to a very small number, typically 5-10.

Of late, this practice is being challenged by some photographers - with the blessing of their galleries - by creating multiple editions of an image with only difference in editions being the size of the prints. The editions are generally created as; biggest, big, not so big with prices dropping along with the size. I am certain that the reason for this is simple - sell more prints by getting some of the work more modestly priced. Keep in mind though that 'modestly priced' in the Art world means 'only' $1200 for a 20×30 inch print as opposed to $8,000 for a 60×90 inch print.

Be that as it may, it is a decidedly different kettle of fish from the idea of "disposable art' or the entirely insipid idea that a photographic print is not a 'valuable or fragile' object.

It's true enough that the cost of materials and the (apparent) ease (but only after all the hard work is done) of making a print in the digital domain is low. But, it is only if you consider the print as a pure 'commodity' that, according to the 'laws of economics', its worth should be determined by the cost of 'manufacturing' alone.

Art (obviously to include photography), at least Fine Art as opposed to Decorative Art, has value well beyond the cost of manufacturing and, to a certain extent, beyond even the laws of supply and demand. That value is most often determined by "... the significance of an original photograph - as a statement, a work of art, a Ding an sich ... along with the intellectual and emotional factors involved in the process of making one." - from the photography critic a.d. coleman in his very first (1968) Latent Image column in the Village Voice.

a.d. coleman was amongst the very first photography critics and one of the earliest modern-era champions of photography as a serious Art medium. His mission was, through his column, to "be a continuing attempt, on a small scale, [to give] to photography the serious critical consideration it merits. It will be (I hope) a means for turning a sizeable potential audience on to photography as a creative medium, affirming the importance of original photographs as significant objects, and providing a dialogue between photographers and their audience."

Isn't it interesting to find, some 40 years later and after the medium has found its rightful standing in the Art world, that some are want to reverse the deed by declaring a photograph to be "disposable' and that it is not 'valuable' as a unique or, yes, a 'holy object'. Aside - I suspect that the word 'holy' is a bit of sarcastic hyperbole. I would substitute the word 'precious'.

FYI, and IMO, an object of great value in the medium of photography does not have to have a price of great monetary value. But please, do not equate a modestly priced print with the idea that the print can not be of great value otherwise and is therefore not worthy of special consideration.

Ultimately, I suspect that this 'movement' to turn back the clock on the 'value' (in the complete sense of the word) of photographic prints and, by extension, the very medium itself, will amount to little more than much to do about nothing. After all, who wants to purchase, at any price, a print that is no more than what the maker considers to be his/her "latest (and disposable) hit single" or one that is not "invested" with at least a hint of the maker's "spirituality".

Although, now that I think about it, lots of people like to by pictures that fit that bill. So, with that in mind, I wish them well in their attempt to reinvent the 10-penny postcard.