ku # 522 ~ it's matter of educated opinion

Forest floor detritus • click to embiggenA little while back the ever-popular yet oft-dreaded topic of What Is Art? was bantered about here on The Landscapist. As is nearly always the case, the populous idea that Art is whatever I deem it to be was proffered right along side the other regularly conflated idea that Art can not be defined.

In response to which I put forth a single word - "educated".

Sorry if this sounds elitist, but the fact remains - the more you know, the more you can know. That adage holds true for just about any human endeavor. Everything builds on what came before. Knowledge matters.

"Ok.", you might say, but how does this help define Art?

In my time, I have done quite a bit of investigating into the matter of what makes art, Art. I was even a credited consultant for the seminal book, The New Color Photography by Sally Eauclaire. In this book, published in 1981, art critic Eauclaire (my next door neighbor) explored the formal and technical innovations of forty of the most prominent color photographers of the time - Eggleston, Shore, Meyerowitz, Callahan, Grover, Epstein, et al - and systematically examines and compares their work. My relatively minor participation in this book was, nevertheless, a seminal moment in my growth and development as both a picture maker and an viewer of pictures - two decidedly different disciplines (more on this in the next entry).

All of that said, it should not be inferred that I have all the answers but it does seem readily apparent that there is, in fact, a consensus in the Art world regarding the experience of viewing Art. By extension, an easy to comprehend notion regarding is it Art? / what is Art? can be inferred or deduced.

The most straightforward elucidation on the experience of viewing Art that I have encountered is in the book, Photography's multiple roles wherein there is an essay, Spaces for the self ~ the symbolic imagery of place, by (take a deep breath) Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. In it, he writes:

When approached as works of art, photographs are created to express an individual vision that ranges far beyond the recording of personal history. And viewers may decode the message of art photographs along many more dimensions than they can snapshots pasted in family albums. While domestic pictures are likely to have stronger meanings and a more important place in a person's identity, photography as art is likely to provide a broader range of experiences, and lead to a more diverse growth of perceptual and cognitive abilities.

There are many ways of looking at any work of art. They vary from a passing glance to a deep involvement of the senses, the mind, and the emotions. What is usually called an "aesthetic experience" is simply an intense involvement between a viewer and the work. Aesthetic experiences can be briefly described as having four dimensions:perceptual responses, which refer to visual elements such as balance, form, and harmony; emotional responses, which emphasize personal reactions to the feeling embedded in the work; intellectual responses, which include theoretical and art historical questions; and, finally, what might be called communicative responses, wherein there is a desire to relate to the artist, or to his or her time, or to his or her culture, through the mediation of the work of art.

Now, without question, there are many who would disagree with this aesthetic experience as being the sine qua non for their personal aesthetic experience. OK, fine. But that personal preference simply does not negate the fact that Art critics, curators, gallery owners / managers, collectors and other influential individuals or institutions who are the key holders / gate keepers to the world of Art hold those truths to be self evident in determining what is and what isn't Art. Or what, at the very least, might be considered to be Art.

And, yes, when viewing a work, different viewers will bring different biases towards one or more of the 4 dimensions - such as the academic lunatic fringe and its fetishistic preoccupation with # 3 - but I don't have a single problem with all 4 dimensions as necessary in some substantive manner for a work to be considered as Art.

These criteria define nothing less than a hierarchal order in field of Art, no more or less than other definable criteria determine hierarchal order in any other field of human endeavor.

Which is not to say that opinion doesn't enter into it. It does. One could even say, in heaping doses ...but ... that said, what really matters is the educated opinion of those who weight in on the matter.

Update on Friday, June 20, 2008 at 12:40PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Jim Jirka asked: "... is it for me to define my picturing as art, or is it for someone else to define it as art?

my response: IMO, I really think that it is for others to decide whether what you make is Art or not. Ultimately, it's up to the educated viewers of one's work to determine whether or not it succeeds, in any meaningful manner, in touching them in the aforementioned 4 domains / dimensions. This does not mean that on occasion the "educated" do not miss the mark or get it wrong. Time tends to be the ultimate arbiter of that.

And, of course, the "educated" can't see every body of work there is to see. Not by a long shot. One skill an emerging / developing Artist needs is the determination, the tenacity, the hustle (both meanings), and the unadulterated chutzpah to get one's work seen by the "educated".

All of that said, with a bit of education, self-scrutiny, and self-knowledge, I believe one can have an inkling of what one is making.

civilized ku # 87 ~ more than meets the eye

Information • click to embiggenUnlike yesterday's street picture, this one seems to thrive on color without which it just sort of dies. The color of this scene is very much a part of the 'experience' - both the real one and the trace one. And, I'll say it again, one the medium's characteristics which distinguishs photography from the other visual arts is the fact that photography is, intrinsically, an inimitable cohort with the real.

That relationship with the real, however, does not damn the medium to the role of mechanistic documentation. I like what John Szarkowski had to say about what makes a good picture;

.... what a good picture does is demand your attention .... You try to bring as much of yourself to it as you can. In the course of a lifetime you might make up a hundred different stories about the same picture, all of which are indefensible but each of which is a kind of compliment .... Pictures .... attract to themselves wonderful rich bodies of speculation and superstition and fairy tale that, for better or worse, are part of what we're going to do to things that interest us.

Which is another way of saying what Susan Sontag had to say;

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.

Both of which seem to say that the medium of photography is more, much more, than "just" a visual art. Of course, this idea flies in the face of those who think that a good picture is one that is independent of words (and, I guess by extension, 'thoughts'). A picture is either "a feast for the eyes" or it is nothing.

But, then again, I like what Ansel Adams had to say about that;

A photograph is usually looked at – seldom looked into.

Update on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 01:08PM by gravitas et nugalis

color v bw • click to embiggenThere was a request to see a side-by-side view of the picture, so here it is.

the color of street photography - albeit 120 floors up

Holding on for life and/or love • click to embiggenIt must be obvious to most (from my last few entries) that I spent a little time in NYC this past weekend. The wife had to see a client in Hoboken, NJ on Friday so we packed up, grabbed the little guy (he loves to visit his girlfriend, Sophie, in Brooklyn) and headed out for a stay in the East Village with my best friend.

The visit had a kind of whirlwind character to it and I didn't really picture all that much but for some reason, during my last few trips to NYC, I have started to become interested in picturing "the streets", AKA, street photography. It's a somewhat sub-conscious thing in as much as I just seem to be seeing things to which I haven't paid much attention in the past.

What's interesting about the whole thing is the fact that, when I was finished processing a few of the pictures in color, they just didn't look "right". They seemed to be screaming, "BW. BW! BW!!!!"

At first, my thought was that I was just having a Pavlovian all street photography must be BW response. Nevertheless, I converted this picture to BW and, lo and behold, it just looked "right". Or, so it seems to me.

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Update on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 at 11:39AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Jim Jirka wrote: ".... As for the b&W conversion, does this fall under "the color image is crap, so I will make a masterpiece with it in B&W". I believe you once said that B&W is a thought process, a mode of picturing with B&W in mind during the creation process, not as an after treatment to save a color image gone bad."

my response: no, I wasn't trying "to save a color image gone bad". I like the color picture. I like the BW picture as well. That said, I seem to "connect" better with the BW but I don't know if this is because I have been conditioned to seeing street photography as BW pictures or because there is a quality to the BW picture that helps me to "read" it differently / better.

civilized ku # 86 ~ let's have a little fun

Eating pizza on a duck ~ late night, NYC • click to embiggenJust recently, I had both the honor and the pleasure of being the sole Juror for the 2008 Nocturnes Biennial Photo Exhibit / Competition.

The opportunity came out of the blue in as much as I am not a night photography guy although I do dabble in it from time to time. That said, a few NPers do visit The Landscapsit and one of them is Tim Baskerville, founder of The Nocturnes, an organization dedicated to night photography. It was Tim who extended the invitation to be the Juror.

The competition is over and I have rendered my verdicts - Best of Show and 2 Honorable Mentions - but I thought it might be fun for all of you out there to take a look at the exhibit / entries, pick your own BoS and HMs, and then share those choices with the rest of us here on The Landscapist.

I would truly like to read your thoughts on this genre of the medium.

So, don't be shy. Take a look at the exhibit entries (no peeking at my choices first) and let us know what you think.

cicilized ku # 85 ~ the pursuit of happiness

Midtown from King Kong's perch • click to embiggenA landscape / nature photographer with whom I am familiar wrote:

My goal as a person and, consequently, as a photographer, is to witness, participate in, and hopefully share the delicate beauty of wilderness – those moments in time when nature and spirit transcend the make-believe world of politics, economics, religious squabbles, fleeting fashion, mass “entertainment,” and other means of wasting the precious gift of thought and inspiration we are each endowed with.

At first acquaintance (online) and after realizing that we both shared similar views environment issues, a standing invitation was extended to share a beer or two if we were to ever meet in the flesh. After a year of getting to know each others views on landscape photography, that invitation evolved into more of a challenge for a battle to the death with broken ragged-edged beer bottles.

After recently discovering this quote from said photographer, it is perfectly understandable why we disagree to such a great extent regarding landscape pictures - we disagree to a great extent on the matter of life and living. To fully understand that notion, consider this additional quote from the same source:

I chose nature photography as a way of capturing and sharing the beauty, power, and fragility of wild places and the life that inhabits them, so that those who have become mired in the man-made chaos may open their eyes to the real world.

What a bunch of unadulterated sentimental, romanticized, escapist crap - just like the pictures that pour from cameras in the hands of those who subscribe to such bunk. The only thing positive one can say about such photographers is that, since your best photography springs from expressing your inner self, they are certainly doing their personal best.

The idea that the human race is "wasting the precious gift of thought and inspiration" by concerning themselves with "politics, economics, religious squabbles" and that those so-called "squabbles" constitute "man-made chaos" really is a notion that is thoroughly out of touch with the "real world".

Sure, humankind is fully capable of mucking things up in the domains of politics, economics, religion, and the environment but I have breaking news for those who think that the natural world is the only world - real life is part politics (AKA, governance), economics (AKA, making a living), religion (AKA, spirituality), and the environment (AKA, sustainability).

Ignoring any or all of these ideas, does indeed result in man-made chaos. Reducing the idea of impassioned (and hopefully informed) discourse regarding them to the level of "squabbles" is a ridiculous notion. I mean, hey, just read The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification for a prime example of the benefits to humankind that can result from "squabbling".

If you read it, guess what you will discover? You'll realize that, despite the popular sentimental and romantic notions of the founding fathers as a group of "pure", noble, altruistic, and ready for saint-like canonization individuals, there was plenty of petty and rancorous bickering amongst them. But, because they agreed to "squabble" and deal with the real world, they came up with something good that deals with politics, economics and religion. Unfortunately, they didn't deal with the environment, but, in their real world, the environment was something to be "conquered, tamed and used" solely for the benefit of humankind.

Fortunately, because, as the former NY Times art critic, Robert Hughes, opined - America is a collective act of the imagination whose making never ends...", the governance that the FF put in place as a result of their squabbling is attempting to do something about that (with much attendant squabbling).

Simply put, "squabbling" is how things get done in the real world. For certain, "squabbling" can descent to the base level of rancorous and petty bickering, but rancorous and petty bickering is the problem, not "squabbling". And, "squabbling" works best when "reality' is addressed square in the face. Ignoring reality and wallowing in sentimentally accomplishing nothing - it may be entertaining, but nothing more than a diversion. In fact it's nothing more than a "means of wasting the precious gift of thought and inspiration" with which we are all endowed.

That is why I have always considered the singular and slavish devotion to the pretty-picture division of landscape photography to also be nothing more than a "means of wasting the precious gift of thought and inspiration" with which we are all endowed.

IMO, making pretty pictures as a means to effect sound thinking regarding sustainability is akin to penning catchy popular ditties about the joys of firefighting as a means of effecting the dousing of the flames that are burning down the house.

FYI, take none of this as an indication that I think entertainment and a bit of escapism is not a valuable commodity in the cause of easing some of the stress and strain of what it means to be human, because part of what it means to be human is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

urban ku # 190 ~ a mini rant & a question

Main Street - Lake Placid • click to embiggenJust because it was so damn pleasant last evening, the wife and I went out for a light dinner and a bit of walk on Main Street and I must say, it was delightful. The weather, the food, the views, and the wife's company were all together near perfect.

There was, however, one fly in the ointment.

As is my wont, I was adorned with 2 cameras. The only difference being that now, those 2 cameras are of the "pro" model variety - each with a battery grip attached. Which means that I can no longer float like a butterfly and sting like a bee since I have 2 anvils draped from my neck and/or shoulders. Other than a small amount of physical discomfort, the most annoying side effect of toting these behemoths around is the propensity for complete strangers to feel that they must comment on them - "Whoa! Those are some cameras you got there!", is the most oft heard exclamation.

This would not be a totally bad thing if it helped me to pick up chicks, but, alas, it's almost always men who comment. I'm still waiting for the sound of a Mae West type voice asking, "Hey big boy, is that spare batteries you're carrying, or are you just glad to see me?"

That said, what all this set me to thinking about was another of my gripes about digital dslrs, especially "pro" dslrs.

I used to think that my trusty Nikon F3 with motor drive attached was a big thing. Not so, when compared to a pro dslr. And, my Nikon FM with motor drive looks like some kind of mini-cam by comparison. What's up with that? Aren't we living in the wondrous age of miniaturization?

Let's consider my Olympus cameras. Olympus makes some of the smallest dlsrs on the planet. In fact, they claim that their new 420 is the smallest and the about to be introduced full feature-ladened 520 is not much bigger. So, it's readily apparent (and not just from Olympus) that good things can come in small packages. I mean, the 520 has all the goodies one could ever want - a flawless dust removal feature, in-camera IS, live view, a nice size LCD, programmable everything, etc., etc.

So why is it, when Olympus (and others) makes a pro dslr, it becomes the incredible hulk?

Sure, it's weather sealed and built to demolition derby survivable standards. And (I think this is a big part of the problem) it has a computer brain in it - if the Nikon F3 in its day had the same computer power, it would have required an 18-wheeler to move it around - that can do everything but butter toast.

Sure, but here's the rub - as a photo pro, I don't need or want a computer brain in my camera that can do everything but butter toast. I'm a pro. I can work miracles with a light sensitive surface (film or sensor) and manual shutter, aperture, and focus controls. That it. That's all I need. In fact, that's all I want so that I don't have to muck around through a veritable rat's nest of features and options.

It seems to me that, not unlike every other electronic device on the market (don't get me started on cell phones), camera manufacturer's design departments are run by their marketing department. Everything must be loaded up with every conceivable option (and gimmick) on the planet just to impress the rubes and, I suspect, just because it can be done..

I also suspect that there are a fair number of pros and advanced amateurs out there who would be very willing to pay a fair amount more for hell of a lot less - a rugged, semi-compact, 'stripped-down' camera that has the best feature of all, the capability to just do it.

How about you? Would you prefer a simple, compact, pro quality dslr?

Now you'll have to excuse me. I have to go drive around in my car and communicate with a satellite that is orbiting the earth just so I can find the exact GPS coordinates of place to get a manicure.

Update on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 at 09:54AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Anil Rao wrote: "Why on earth were you hanging two cameras around your neck during that outing? Wouldn't just one be enough?"

My response: One camera would, indeed, be enough but; a) I was deep in the comparo mode - Oly E-3 v Pentax K20D, and, 2) how else would the wife recognize me if we were to be separated?

man & nature # 14a ~ what I saw last evening

A truly weird vision • click to embiggenTo be more accurate, the entry title should read - what I saw last evening but was unable to picture.

But ..... in fact, this representation is almost exactly what I saw. It couldn't be any more true if I had actually pictured it. The reality of it seemed quite unreal. Strange. Surreal. Other-worldly.

And, credit where credit due - my thanks to the wife. If I had not gone to the kitchen, where I was greeted by this spectacle from the kitchen window, to answer her phone call, I would have never witnessed a thing. Weirdly enough, as I said "hello" and my mind was boggling at the sight before me, the wife said, "I'm driving home and looking at the most intense rainbow I have ever seen." To which, after I immediately adopted my of course I'm an ever-vigilant and prepared photographer guy persona, I coolly and calmly replied, "Yep. I see it too."

After which I scrambled my ass off getting gear and making it to the 2nd floor porch.

man & nature # 14 ~ what a ride

After the storm • click to embiggenOver the past few days I have used the phrase "hot and humid" in a couple entry titles because, well, it's been very hot and humid - part of the stifling heat wave that has enveloped the east coast of the US of A.

Well, it all came to a screeching, crashing, thunderous halt yesterday - literally. A cold front entered the region around noon bringing severe thunderstorms with nearly continuous lightning, torrential downpours, golf ball sized hail, and 80 mph winds. The front came in 2 -3 waves, lasting until around 8PM last evening. Downed trees and electric wires, power and communication outages all over the place - many still continuing this AM.

After it was all over and I was enjoying a very refreshingly cool breeze in the gloaming, nature reared its head with a dazzling display of light and color. So, at precisely 8:33:16 PM & 8:36:46 PM (EXIF data), I pictured these two scenes.

My only disappointment was the fact that I was not able to capture the occasional streak lightning that was going on as a backdrop to the rainbow (right between the rainbow arch) - something I had never seen before.

FYI, the color in these pictures is straight from the camera (via RAW) and very accurate, although, I do admit to moving the H&S slider 10 points to the desaturate end of things.