ku # 707 ~ surprise vs going the distance

Erratic top growth and detritus • click to embiggenPursuant to yesterday's entry about the utilization and organization of the flat 2D surface of the print, to include ideas and concepts about visual language, one could rightfully conclude that what appears on the surface of the print constitutes, in no small way, most of the purely decorative qualities of the print.

Color, shapes, spatial relationships/tension, tonality, and the like are what catches the eye. Sometimes they delight / soothe / comfort the eye and sometimes they irritate / agitate / confuse or otherwise unsettle it. And, dependent upon a viewer's tastes, preferences, mood, and the like (or any given combination thereof), a picture may be deemed to be visually involving or not.

It is also interesting to note that any particular picture that is deemed to be un-involving upon first viewing may, with a change in any of the aforementioned variables, be deemed, upon further and/or repeated viewing, to be interesting to the eye. Some pictures become more so upon repeated viewings. Others just tend to fade away.

Keep in mind here, that we are talking about the purely 2D surface characteristics of the print that are independent of the print's referent - the thing depicted.

I mentioned in yesterday's entry that these 2D qualities to be seen on a print are, in the photography world at large, one of the least understood / recognized qualities of a print. IMO, the reason for that is quite simple - most people on the planet, to include the overwhelming majority of picture makers, view pictures in much the same manner as Szarkowski suggests ... you're not suppose to look at the thing, you're suppose to look through it. It's a window.

When viewing a print (the thing), most people don't "see" the print, they look right through it and "see" the thing depicted. Not that this should come as a big surprise, after all, a picture is just a picture, right? And, to a certain extent, the medium's most unique characteristic - that which distinguishes from the other visual arts - its inherent and irrevocable relationship to and as a cohort of "the real", tends to work against the perception of anything but what is depicted.

A print is most often judged only by what it depicts in a very literal sense. It is what it appears to be and nothing else. It only represents the denoted. There is no such thing as the connoted.

Because the medium is so rooted in "the real", there seems to be no room at all in the minds of the masses for concepts such as metaphor, symbolism, irony, paradox, allegory, allusion, and the like - concepts and devices that are readily accepted, studied, applied, and understood in a whole host of other arts.

IMO, and that of many many others, the understanding and perception of such concepts and devices in pictures is what, ultimately, separates the wheat from the chaff in determining what is and is not "Real Art". Those concepts and devices in pictures are what separates the flash-in-the-pan pictures from those with legs.

civilized ku # 458 ~ there is the surface - now think

Play park and house on a hill ~ in the Adirondack PARK - Jay, NY• click to embiggen

The ultimate wisdom of the photographic image is to say, 'There is the surface. Now think - or rather feel, intuit - what is beyond it, what the reality must be like if it looks that way. 'Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy... The very muteness of what is, hypothetically, comprehensible in photographs is what constitutes their attraction and provocativeness. - Susan Sontag

civilized ku # 457 ~ uninterested people

Roadside landscaping ~ in the NE Adirondack PARK - Jay, NY• click to embiggen

My creative process begins when I get out with the camera and interact with the world. A camera is truly a license to explore. There are no uninteresting things. There are just uninterested people. - Jerry Uelsmann

FYI ~ Easy! Ya just don't lead 'em so much!

If you haven't seen / heard / read about it yet, here's a link to horrible reality about our military adventures in the Middle East and "Our Nation's Finest".

... the video does not show hostile action. Instead, it begins with a group of people milling around on a street, among them, according to WikiLeaks, Mr. Noor-Eldeen and Mr. Chmagh. The pilots believe them to be insurgents, and mistake Mr. Noor-Eldeen’s camera for a weapon. They aim and fire at the group, then revel in their kills.

“Look at those dead bastards,” one pilot says. “Nice,” the other responds.

A wounded man can be seen crawling and the pilots impatiently hope that he will try to fire at them so that under the rules of engagement they can shoot him again. “All you gotta do is pick up a weapon,” one pilot says.

A short time later a van arrives to pick up the wounded and the pilots open fire on it, wounding two children inside. “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle,” one pilot says.

At another point, an American armored vehicle arrives and appears to roll over one of the dead. “I think they just drove over a body,” one of the pilots says, chuckling a little. ~ from NY Times article on the video/incident

I can't help but think of how right right Stanley Kubrick got it in his movie, Full Metal Jacket - the best war movie ever made -

Door Gunner: Git some! Git some! Git some, yeah, yeah, yeah! Anyone who runs, is a VC. Anyone who stands still, is a well-disciplined VC! .... I done got me 157 dead gooks killed. Plus 50 water buffalo, too! Them's all confirmed!
Private Joker: Any women or children?
Door Gunner: Sometimes!
Private Joker: How can you shoot women or children?
Door Gunner: Easy! Ya just don't lead 'em so much! Ain't war hell?

civilized ku # 456 / picture window # 47 ~ too much work / thought for some people

Playground ~ in the NE Adirondack PARK - Au Sable Forks, NY • click to embiggenWhen looking at pictures, there are a number of ways to go about it -

The photo is a thing in itself. And that's what still photography is all about. ~ Garry Winogrand

The basic material of photographs is not intrinsically beautiful. It's not like ivory or tapestry or bronze or oil on canvas. You're not supposed to look at the thing, you're supposed to look through it. It's a window. ~ John Szarkowski

A photograph is usually looked at - seldom looked into. ~ Ansel Adams

Whereas Winogrand and Szarkowski seem to come at it from different POVs (although I think that they are each taking different routes to the same destination), I tend to view it both ways - the photo as an object and the photo as a window.

To the point of the photo as a thing in itself, to my eye and sensibilities, a print - for purposes of further discussion, a photo becomes a "thing", when it becomes a "print" - can be, in fact, a thing in and of itself and, as such, can be viewed / judged solely on that basis. As in, it's a beautiful print, or, conversely, the print quality sucks.

Obviously, whether a print, in and of itself, is judged to be beautiful or to suck is dependent upon a number of factors - use of color, tone, paper type/surface, and the like - but one of the least understood / recognized qualities of a print is that of how the picture maker has utilized the possibilities inherent in what is (somewhat contrary to appearances) a 2-dimensional art form. That is to say, how the picture maker has, in the making of the picture (not the print), used / organized the flat 2D surface of the print.

Organizing the flat 2D surface of a print is most often considered to be the act of composition / composing a picture. An act that has been reduced to - for the "benefit" of the non-creative and unimaginative in the picture making crowd - the "rules" of "good" composition.

Those "rules" completely eliminate the need to investigate, learn about, and understand pesky things like visual language, visual energy, visual tension, visual dynamics, spatial relationships, color theory, and the like. Visual concepts and ideas that elevate art beyond the realm of early grade school see-spot-dick-jane platitudes and banalities.

You must have a visual sense if you want to be a photographer. It is a very subtle thing, this visual business. ~ Elliott Erwitt

It should be unreservedly stated that a picture maker / viewer does not need to be an "expert" in the many variants, concepts, and ideas of visual language. However, having at least "some small shred of insight" into those concepts and ideas can add considerably to one's appreciation and understanding of "Real Art", viewing pictures wise.

Those concepts and ideas explain why a print, in and of itself - totally independent of its referent (the thing depicted) - can be judged to be a beautiful object.

An Aside - I'm not so sure about those concepts and ideas, picture making wise. That's because, IMO, those concepts and ideas need to be applied intuitively rather than cognitively when making pictures. But, that's a subject for another entry.

In any event, stay tuned - more tomorrow on the "window" idea of looking through the print.

ku # 706 ~ simpleton is as simpleton does

Road cone and kudzu • click to embiggenIt's an irrefutable fact of life that, if someone doesn't see/get something, it doesn't exist. And, by oft-stated extension, those who do see/get it are derided by those who don't as effete, pointy headed, nonsensical, affected, and self-aggrandizing buffoons.

Some of you may have encountered this total abdication of critical thought. A good example might be like when the notion of Abstract Impressionism and Jackson Pollack, one of its most influential practitioners, arises ... say, as an example, in an attempt to get "some small shred of insight into 'Real Art'" ... the response is to label it all "a joke" and to reduce/label Pollock as nothing more than "Jack the Dripper".

To which, my response is most often to ask ... that's the best you can come up with? That's your idea of critical thought / art criticism? That's how you're attempting to get "some small shred of insight into 'Real Art'"?

You're joking, right?

civilized ku # 455 / ku # 705 ~ being in the moment

A balance beam and decaying birch • click to embiggenRelative to my recent entry, ku # 697, wherein I wrote about picture makers struggling to break out of the pretty picture making picturing MO, it seems that one old and gnarly guy is pining for "some small shred of insight into 'Real Art'".

OK, sure. I'll do what I can to help but, first things first .... IMO, one of the greatest influences on getting at least some small shred of insight into “Real Art” is the old Right Brain / Left Brain thing. To clarify:

The Left Brain favors Logical/Sequential, Rational, Analytical, Objective, and Looks-at-parts thinking. Traits that would serve well, say, a statistician or someone involved in chartered accountancy.

The Right Brain favors Random/Intuitive, Holistic/Synthesizing, Subjective, and Looks-at-wholes thinking. Traits that serve well, say, an artist or someone involved in interior design.

Left Brain thinkers are also said to be literal or verbal thinkers while Right Brain thinkers are said to be intuitive or visual thinkers. Most thinkers favor / use one side of the brain or the other as their dominant way of thinking - which is not to say that those different ways of thinking are mutually exclusive because, quite simply, they are not.

Most Right Brain dominant thinkers also tend toward free association - a spontaneous, logically unconstrained and undirected association of ideas, emotions, and feelings. Consequently, they lean toward questioning and challenging convention. In short, they like, one could even say that they are driven, to break the rules, unlike their Left Brain counterparts who are much more likely to unquestioningly follow the rules.

All of that said, there is little doubt that the Right Brain favors creativity, exploration, and risk taking. As a result, Right Brain thinking favors the artist and it should come as no surprise that Modern Dance, Abstract Impressionism, Modern Poetry, Free Form Jazz, and whole host of other "modern" artistic activities have sprung from the minds of Right Brain thinkers.

It should also come as no surprise that Right Brain thinkers - artists or not - tend to understand and/or appreciate many forms of "modern" art. A picture, a painting, a musical performance, a poem can trigger a whole range of free associations that move the viewer / observer well beyond the literal plane of mere appearances and words. In the mind of visual thinkers, ideas, feelings, and emotions are quite literally, hair-trigger sensitive.

In the visual arts and for the Right Brainers, colors and shapes can set off quite a cascade of seemingly random thoughts and emotions. That is why, for many, a Jackson Pollock painting is so much more than just a random splash and dash of paint on canvas. Why a Warhol print can be so much more than just a Campbells soup can. Why Eggleston's Tricycle is so much more than just a picture of a tricycle.

And, yes, Mr. Old and Gnarly, that is why a playground balance beam and a pile of twigs / detritus in the snow can be so much more than what mere appearances suggest they might be.

civilized ku # 454 ~ kitchen counter

Garlic and onion • click to embiggenMaybe it's a result of my past life, picture making wise, as a food specialist that keeps me attracted to stuff on my kitchen counter.