civilized ku # 463 ~ first camera, then fork

Fruit Loops on a blue-sky morning • click to embiggenIt's somewhat reassuring to know that I am not alone, or, as the wife remarked, "You're not so weird after all."

ku # 711 ~ twigs and trash - follow up

Lichen on fallen branch ~ in the NE Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenIt seems that twigs and trash as subject matter is a bit more alluring than a car wash - 4 participants have already submitted pictures and another 4 have indicated that they plan to do so. I'll get around to creating a gallery over the next couple days.

In the interim, if anyone of the participants would like me to add a link to more pictures or a website / webgallery along with their pictures, please send me the info asap.

civilized ku # 462 ~ a stepping stone

Where the East and West Branch of the Au Sable River meet ~ in the NE Adirondack PARK - Au Sable Forks, NY• click to embiggen

It should be possible for even the photographer - just as for the creative poet of painter - to use the object as a stepping stone to a realm of meaning completely beyond itself. ~ Clarence John Laughlin

ku # 709-10 ~ twigs and trash

River foam and froth ~ in the NE Adirondack PARK - Au Sable Forks, NY• click to embiggenIn response to yesterday's entry, civilized ku # 460, Tom Frost suggested:

Here's a survey you can host: pictures of twigs and trash. The only caveat is that they must be unique in point of view, content, or whatever parameter deemed significant. Pick a panel of experts or you be the arbiter.

By "survey", I assume that Tom means that I set up a gallery here on The Landscapist - not unlike the Kitchen Sink Project and the Wildness Close to Home galleries (see links in the right hand column). Those were 2 galleries that were set up to display the work of other picture makers made under the criteria as named in the gallery titles.

So, I have no issue with hosting a survey of pictures of twigs and trash. However, it requires the participation and efforts of The Landscapist audience - something that was sorely lacking in a recent suggestion for a car wash gallery project.

That lack of participation may have simply been the result of a lack of interest in the subject matter. Or, maybe it's just that nobody goes to a car wash anymore. Or, perhaps more to the point, most of The Landscapist audience is not all that inclined to partake in what amounts to camera-club assignments. I don't know the answer. All I know is that no one other than Don has pursued making car wash pictures.

Nevertheless, I'll ask the question .... any interest?

civilized ku # 461 ~ running amuck with cameras

River Park ~ in the NE Adirondack PARK - Au Sable Forks, NY • click to embiggen

The cumulative effect of one hundred and thirty years of man’s participation in the process of running amuck with cameras was the discovery that there was amazing amount of significance, historical and otherwise, in a great many things that no one had ever seen until snapshots began forcing people to see them. John Kouwenhoven

civilized ku # 460 ~ I don't want no stinkin' norms

River park ~ in the NE Adirondack PARK - Au Sable Forks, NY • click to embiggenMost likely because of my ongoing crusade, re: the ubiquitous pretty / petty picture, if I have heard it once, I've heard it a thousand times - why do you want everyone to make pictures just like yours?

At times, the question comes with a bit more verbiage, like, say, from the Old & Gnarly Guy ....

Once they saw the light (no pun intended), they’d change their ways in a hurry!  Then, instead of people posting all those pointless, iconic photographs that they do now, they’d be posting all kinds of different looks at twigs and trash and all that other interesting stuff.  All that “real” stuff.  We could all spend hours just admiring each other’s ”Art”.

Oh, but wait.  If we all did that, wouldn’t we just be trading one set of  pretty pictures for another?  If everyone had the same way of looking at things, wouldn’t that become the new norm, the new standard?

"If everyone had the same way of looking at things..." What a crock of shit.

Has anyone out there ever heard/read me advocating for "everyone having the same way of looking at things"? Or, for that mater, has anyone out there ever heard/read me advocating that anyone (but me) should be out there picturing "twigs and trash"? Is there anyone out there that thinks all I picture are "twigs and trash"?

All I have ever advocated is for throwing off the yoke and chains of making pictures that look like what you have been told are good pictures (and, ultimately, looking like everyone else's "good" pictures). And, in the process, figure out, by and for yourself, not only what to picture but also discovering and fostering one's own way of seeing. In other words, making pictures that are uniquely "you".

Unless one is living the life of an irreparable and unrepentant spo'ta - what I spo'ta do, massa?, chances are reasonably decent that, by making an effort to "free your mind", one can start making pictures that are not representative of "the same way of looking at things" as everyone else.

I found the following - by someone somewhere on the web - which I think states it rather well:

People who know the work of great photographers can see their touches everywhere – in the choice of subject matter, in the way they approach/get to know/relate to their subject matter, in the way they shoot, in the way they edit, in the way they realize their images, in the way they put everything together.

About the only thing I would add to that is ... anyone who thinks clearly and acts honestly for themselves, picture making wise, ain't gonna be making no pitchers that conform to any standard or norm.

Update on Friday, April 9, 2010 at 10:41AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Tom Frost (no link) wrote: "my last name is Frost, without any "quotes" as you added in your last defensive reply to a comment I made on this site, which was purely a question.

my response: Tom, this being the internet, I always try to check out the source of comments / info on the entry maker. I receive comments using web aliases all the time and, before I respond, I like to know a little bit about the comment maker (if that is possible).

In your case, I noticed that the email address left with your comment did not contain the name "Tom Frost" of "Tom" or "Frost" or any combination or abbreviation thereof. The email address contained what appeared to be an entirely different name.

Consequently, with no malice, sarcasm, or putdown of any kind intended or inferred, I put the name in quotes. Your clarification on the matter is appreciated.

re: my "defensive response" to your question* on ku # 698 - you did, indeed, make a request and I thought that I had responded it in a direct and informative manner. I would be interested in knowing what it was you thought I needed to "defensive" about inasmuch as I thought the request was a good / interesting one and I thoroughly enjoyed thinking about it and writing my answer.

I must confess that anytime anyone wishes to suggest a comparison between my pictures and those of Porter and Ketchum, I am much more apt to be flattered and appreciative than I am to be annoyed or defensive.

*your question - "I'd be interested in comparisons you might make with the picture you posted here with Robert Glenn Ketchum's "Order from Chaos" series, or almost any of Eliot Porter's nature pictures ...."

civilized ku # 459 ~ the tension between two realities

Behind Shop & Save ~ In the NE Adirondack PARK - Au Sable Forks, NY • click to embiggen

A photograph is what it appears to be. Already far from 'reality' because of its silence, lack of movement, two-dimensionality and isolation from everything outside the rectangle, it can create another reality, an emotion that did not exist in the 'true' situation. It's the tension between these two realities that lends it strength. ~ Richard Kalvar

ku # 708 ~ faith in things

In a bog ~ in the NE Adirondack PARK - • click to embiggen

The native realism of the camera seems to require that a photographer have more faith than others in "things," in landscape, in the capacity of "surface" to reveal itself while also containing a certain latency for symbol. ~ John Rosenthal