data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/49381/49381072f0dcadf8a20de6adbd598dd910aeec74" alt="1044757-2523790-thumbnail.jpg 1044757-2523790-thumbnail.jpg"
Late afternoon light ~ Bloomingdale, NY • click to embiggenAfter an afternoon spent tubing, participating in the Winter Carnival children's parade, and visit to the ice castle in and around the village of Saranac Lake, I decided to take the back way home.
The reason for this decision was based upon the light - it was a sunny day and it did not take a genius to realize that there would be some nice late day light dancing upon the landscape. The back-way-home choice was a good one. The light was indeed quite nice.
It should that even though I disparage those who have made a fetish of chasing the light I have absolutely no qualms about picturing the landscape while it is in the throes of a nice-light event. My feelings on the subject are remarkably similar to those expressed by this statement:
The word beauty is unavoidable … it accounts for my decision to photograph … There appeared a quality, beauty seemed the only appropriate word for it, in certain photographs, and I am compelled to live with the vocabulary of this new sight … through over many years [I] still find it embarrassing to use the word beauty, I fear I will be attacked for it, but I still believe in it. ~ Robert Adams
Although, to be accurate, I have never really had much of a problem with the word "beauty". It's the word "pretty" that bugs me - actually not the word itself but rather pictures which can be summed up almost in their entirety with that descriptor.
For me, the difference between "beauty" and "pretty" is all about depth. "Pretty" is all about surface. "Beauty" is about what lies beneath the surface. "Pretty" stays on the surface of things. "Beauty" dives/delves into the deep. "Pretty" is simple. "Beauty" is complex. "Pretty" embraces the straight and narrow. "Beauty" embraces contradictions. "Pretty" is contrived and self-absorbed. "Beauty" comes naturally and is outgoing.
And, IMO, 'pretty' is a lie and "beauty" is the truth. Therein lies my agita re: pretty landscape pictures.
At their core such pictures are intended by their makers to be "picture perfect" - not a "hair out of place", so to speak. But, unfortunately for the truth, the "natural world" is a complex and messy thing. So, in the name of "celebrating the beauty of the natural world", these picture makers create lies that mask an inconvenient truth.
Now wait just a minute, you might say - don't these photographers make pictures of the actual real world, in fact, the same one that I picture? Yep, they do. And the fact that they strive mightily to picture said natural world from the "perfect" angle, under "perfect"light, and with "perfect" composition really doesn't diminish the idea that they are picturing the real world. It may be an "idealized" and fleeting version of the real thing, but there is no denying it can be a picture of the real deal.
That said, it was those same "idealists" who embraced Velvia as the landscape picture making film of choice and suffice it to say that that choice was not based upon the film's relative color accuracy. Far from it. Velvia was embraced for its pump-it-up color rendition and those same folks who loved that characteristic are positively enthralled by Photoshop's Hue & Saturation slider and its luminosity masking capabilities - both of which are put to use in the cause of faking up the "beauty" of the natural world.
I mean, why leave it to god/mother nature when you can create your very own natural world "beauty"?
Of course, when confronted with the idea that their pictures are little more than eco-porn that actually does harm to the notion of conservation, the "idealists" usually counter with the rationalization that their pictures are "artistic interpretations" that are meant to spread an appreciation of the natural world in the cause of conservation. Artist interpretations they might be but the idea that you can increase appreciation for something by offering something for consideration that it is not is, at best, absurd, at worst, counterproductive.
Want proof? Riddle me this Batman - why is it that all almost all of our national parks, and by far the most popular/visited ones, are places that "preserve" the natural world's grandeur? Think about it. I mean really think about. Why is that we only strive to set aside and visit the "magnificent"? Where are the national parks that preserve "the ordinary" which, of course, no one wants to visit?
Here's the deal folks - we better start doing something about appreciating and preserving the beauty of the ordinary of the nature world because, when it comes right down to it, that is even more important than the extraordinary simply because there is so much more it.
Simply put, we need to get real.