ku # 559 ~ get real

Natural things that emerge from under the snow • click to embiggenMost often when photogs make pictures of patterns in the natural world - usually in the form of a "close up" - those pictures are described as abstracts or some other phrase that includes a variation on the word "abstract".

This labeling practice has always struck me as rather odd because, other than as reference to the medium of painting - specifically, Abstract Painting - there is nothing "abstract" about the pictures at all. After all, unless some extreme technique has been employed in a picture's making, it is, first and foremost, on its 2-dimensional surface a picture of a real, not an abstract, thing.

This labeling notion was on my mind relative to yesterday's picture while I was both making it and processing it. The same notion rose again to the fore this AM when I came across an online article titled, Seeing Like a Painter. The piece was not published for painters but rather it was written by a photographer for the photography audience. The photog in question is often called "one of the world's foremost nature and wildlife photographers" (or words to that effect) and is currently offering workshops ($4,000 a person) that attempt to "effect a transformation in the way photographers see, to revolutionize their approach to shooting".

In order to achieve that "transformation", advice such as this is offered:

When the positive and negatives spaces become co-equal in your imagination as you compose the shot, you have seized control as an artist and are not merely grabbing images but creating them. You are thinking in terms of form and line, not of things ... once you begin to study the compositions of the masters, you will see opportunities in the real world, where blurred antelopes become brushstrokes, a foggy ridge becomes a Sumi painting, or leaves blowing in a snowstorm are a Seurat come to life.

Oh, boy. Scratch my back with a hacksaw. Just what the medium of photography needs - another "master" leading people astray - if you want to be a good photographer, study painting.

Doesn't this "master" know that, since its inception, the medium of photography has struggled to be considered as Art primarily because it was considered to be inferior to that other 2-dimensional medium called "painting" - in a nutshell, because it was considered as an anybody-can-do-it, you-push-the-button-we-do-the-rest entertainment for the masses? Or as this "guru" states, "merely grabbing images".

Doesn't this "master" know that, in its early years, the medium tried to gain admittance to the World of Art by applying a wide range of "artistic" effects (AKA, painterly effects) to photographs? And that that movement basically prevented the medium from gaining its own medium-specific identity which only came about when photogs started emphasizing the medium's unique relationship to and with the world of the real (real "things")?

Apparently not. As is evidenced by the notion that real things should become "brushstrokes" and that real things should also become "a Sumi painting" or a "Seurat". Not to mention the idea that you should think about "line and form" and not the about the "thing" you are picturing.

Now, if I were to conduct a workshop titled How To Kill Your Native Creativity By Building Nearly Impenetrable Walls Between You and Your Subject, I would also add to that what-to-think-about advice the idea of thinking about anything and everything technique and gear oriented. You know, heap on as any things as possible that might divert your attention from the object/subject of your eye's and camera's gaze - put as much stuff as possible between you and the "thing".

Yep. Sure thing. That's the ticket to "seizing control as an artist" in the medium of photography.

When I think about the medium of photography and its many possibilities, I tend to think along these lines:

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

For me, there are 2 operative notions in that statement; 1) the idea of "snapshots", that is to say, pictures that are or appear to be casually created and composed. A characteristic that gives "easy access" to viewing a picture as opposed to having to get past the initial impression of technical virtuosity, and, 2) the idea of "forcing people to see them" - I am all for the idea of "forcing" (via the notion of "easy access") people to see the "significance ... in a great many things that no one had ever seen", but if you want someone to see the significance of something that is real, I don't see how turning a photograph into something resembling a painting helps in any fashion.

No, when it comes to dancing with the partner you brought to the dance, I enjoy dancing with the unique-amongst-the-visual-arts characteristic that the medium of photography brings to the Arts Dance - its inherent and inimitable relationship to/with the real.

ku # 558 ~ interesting melting ice patterns

Melting ice on river rocks ~ Saranac River • click to embiggen

A photograph draws its beauty from the truth with which it is marked. For this very reason I refuse all the tricks of the trade and professional virtuosity which could make me betray my canon. As soon as I find a subject which interests me, I leave it to the lens to record truthfully. - Andre Kertesz

man & nature # 108 ~ it's not spinning anymore

Pinwheel • click to embiggenI really like this passage by Russell Banks from his book, Continental Drift:

Systems and sets, subsystems and subsets, patterns and aggregates of water, earth, fire and air - naming and mapping them, learning the intricate interdependence of the forces that move and convert them into one another, this process gradually provides us with a vision of the planet as an organic cell, a mindless, spherical creature whose only purpose is to be born as rapidly as it dies and whose general principle informing that purpose, as if it were a moral imperative, is to keep moving. Revolve around points and rotate on axes, whirl and twirl and loop in circles, ellipses, spirals and long curves that soar across the universe and disappear at last at the farthest horizons of our human imagination only to reappear here behind us in the daily life of our body, in our food, shit and piss, our newborn babies and falling-down dead - just keep on moving, keep breeding and pissing and shitting, keep on eating the planet we live on, keep on moving, alone and in families and tribes, in nations and even in whole species; it's the only argument we have against entropy. And it's not truly an argument, it's a vision. It's a denial in the form of an assertion, a rebuttal in the form of an anecdote, which means that it is not a recounting, it's an accounting, not a representation, a presentation.

The universe moves, and everything in it moves, and by transferring its parts, it and everything in it down to the smallest cell are transformed and continue. Water, earth, fire and air. To continue, just to go on, with entropy lurking out there, takes an old-fashioned Biblical kind of heroism. ... [W]e are the planet, fully as much as its water, earth fire and air are the planet, and if the survives, it will only be through heroism. Not occasional heroism, a remarkable instance of it here and there, but constant heroism, systematic heroism, heroism as governing principle.

If I were into plagiarism, I'd use that as the backbone of my Artist Statement.

FYI, Russell Banks is the beneficiary of growing up in the Adirondacks and he can still be found roaming around these here parts.

man & nature # 107 ~ actually man's best friend & nature

Formerly frozen dog crap • click to embiggenAs long as we're considering dogs of one kind or another (see the following entry), this Things That Emerge From Under the Snow picture seemed rather appropriate.

Update on Friday, March 13, 2009 at 10:45AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Jack Nelson asked: "Are you starting a "Little Murders" series?"

my response: Unlike the character of Alfred Chamberlain from Little Murders, I would not have to roam the streets and parks of NYC to find piles of dog crap. When the snow melts, one of the "Rites of Spring" that we have is to rake up the 10 zillions piles of "unprocessed (read conserved) dog shit" (as labeled by Mike Odonoghue that have been deposited in our back over the Winter by our 2 best friends.

But, the answer to your question is, "No."

civilized ku # 165 ~ hot dogging it

Hot dog and condiments • click to embiggenA recent article in PDN (Photo District News) featured an article (it's online but I can't link to it because PDN is a pay subscription site) titled, RAW FOOD PHOTOGRAPHY, which was based on this "news":

The stark lighting and graphic compositions in the redesigned Bon Appétit have won the magazine new fans but may alienate traditional readers.

Since food photography was a staple of my commercial photography life, I was interested in reading the article regarding the newest happening thing in the food picture biz.

It turns out that some in that world has eschewed the soft warm approach to making food pictures and have adopted an hot, hard, "edgy" look that is more typical of trendy fashion pictures. Magazine and agency art directors have shattered the mold even further by hiring non-food-specialist photographers whose pictures (of whatever) have an "edgy" look and asking them to bring that look to food pictures.

Both the style of picturing and the hiring of non-food-specialist photogs are radical changes in the food photo biz. In my heyday, a food client or art director wouldn't even look at your book (aka, portfolio) unless you were a food specialist, and, the soft look was absolutely de regueur. Taking it a step further, many clients/ADs wouldn't look at your book unless it was product specific - don't even think of showing pictures of red apples to a client/AD whose product is green apples.

The idea of specialization is still the prevalent paradigm in the higher reaches of the commercial/editorial photo markets and each specialization arena has its own picturing conventions and standards. The reason for this is quite simple - the time-honored idea of CYA (cover your ass). There is not an agency AD alive and employed who is willing to risk it all by hiring anyone less than an again-and-again proven specialist to create pictures for a client who is making a multi-million dollar media buy.

And magazine ADs, who are often willing to take controlled risks - like the new edgy food pix, don't have the time to deal with picturing screw ups - they have an absolute press deadline to meet. They still have to go with shooters whom they know can deliver the goods.

It's a business model that is, no matter the look of the pictures, a fairly conservative one. As a result, changes in picturing conventions and standards comes rather slowly. That's why I am always on the lookout for the next happening thing. I like change.

man & nature # 106 ~ meaning heaped upon meaning

No Littering and ice breakup • click to embiggenIt should come as no surprise that I am producing Things That Emerge From Under the Snow - the book. What the hell, I might even sign up for SoFoBoMo. Either way, the cover picture for the book is the one in today's entry - a picture that I took 2 weeks ago. It just seems entirely appropriate.

That said, I am disappointed in the lack of response to yesterday's question regarding the idea of seeing the Things That Emerge From Under the Snow pictures for what they really are. I was hoping for a discussion based upon your perceptions of what the pictures "really are about". It seemed to me that many of you would see them in variety of ways.

Steve Durbin took a crack at it and can't say that I disagree with his idea that for a number of reasons:

...a claim that these are primarily "nature pictures" won't find many adherents.

Of course, the case for seeing these pictures as nature pictures could certainly be bolstered by an Artist Statement that addresses the mixed nature of the pictures. And, in an effort to direct the viewer's attention to the nature picture qualities of the work, it is certainly my intent to do so in the book. At the very least, my intent is to encourage the viewer to entertain ideas - added meaning - beyond what most strikingly meets the eye which, without question, are the colorful human-discarded things.

Hugo takes a break from finding TTEFUTS • click to embiggenBut, if I really wanted to throw another meaning into the mix, I could legitimately title the book, A Late Winter Walk With My Grandson - complete with a picture of him on the cover.

Point in fact, I will never be able to disassociate these pictures from the memory of the wonderful time we spent together discovering Things That Emerge From Under the Snow. My intent is to hint at this added meaning by dedicating the book to him and our walk together.

And therein is a big part of this entry - a return to my notion that pictures + words are more often than not much more powerful than just pictures alone.

This notion is anathema to the a-picture-must-stand-alone crowd. A crowd, regarding which I feel compelled to mention, that is much given to the idea of accompanying their pictures with some of the most tortured titles (aka, words) imaginable. One could do a book with all of the loopy and cliched titles but, suffice it to say, ther rarely, if ever, let a picture go untitled (tortured or not).

However, they really seem to draw a deep line in the sand when it comes to the Artist Statement. The 2 most mentioned rationales for this are; 1) a picture that needs words is a failure, and 2) I want to let the viewer figure it out.

Rationale #1 is entirely understandable and I would not disagree very strenuously ... however, there is a vast difference between a picture that needs words and one which has its potential for expanded meaning enhanced with the use of words. That is not to say that an Artist Statement should tell the viewer what to think - rationale #2 - but a good Artist Statement gives the ideas of context and author's intent (which often must be inferred from the author's stated philosophies about picturing, the subject, and, at times, life in general) a valued place in the sun.

Personally, I have never read an Artist Statement that detracts from the meaning - or possible meaning(s) - of a body of work.

That said, if I really wanted to throw a meaning monkey wrench into mix regarding the Things That Emerge From Under the Snow pictures, I could title the book, A Late Winter Walk With My Grandson And The Wife Leaves Us On Our Own Because It Wasn't "Spinning Her Buttons".

man & nature # 105 ~ kinda makes you wonder just a bit

Blue underwear • click to embiggen

man & nature # 104 ~ surprise, surprise

Pink ribbon and butts on dirty snow • click to embiggenOne of the things that have been numbered amongst photography's "assets" is the element of surprise / discovery. The ability of pictures to teach / reveal to the viewer and the maker something that they did not already know.

I have been on both sides of that coin many times. A case in point is this mini-body of work that is conceived and presented under the working title of Things That Emerge From Under the Snow.

While processing the images, it occurred to me - much more so than when I was out picturing - that not everything pictured had, in fact, emerged from under the snow. Some things were actually sitting on the snow and quite obviously had been recently "placed" there. There are even a couple pictures with no human-discarded things in evidence at all.

This was causing me a bit of working title apprehension until I realized, upon viewing the work in its entirety, that I had not been picturing what appears,
Emerging things • click to embiggen at first glance, to be the referent in these pictures - bits and pieces of human-discarded things (otherwise known as litter). Nope, not at all.

Without realizing it at the time, what I had been really picturing was bits and pieces of the natural world, all of which had emerged from under the snow. What I had done was to create a rather interesting series of nature pictures with bits and pieces of man's influence upon the natural world, quite literally, thrown into the picturing mix.

This realization sort of blew my mind. Again I emphasize, upon viewing the work in its entirety, it occurred to that if I were to remove the human-discarded things from the pictures, what I would be left with is a really interesting (IMO) series of nature pictures. Pictures that are true to my somewhat standard MO of picturing the world in all of its complex, chaotic, and messy glory.

However, I can't remove the human-discarded things from the pictures and, in fact, I have no desire to do so. That's because, again IMO, the pictures are much more complex and interesting - both visually and intellectually / emotionally, by their inclusion in the scenes. At least that's how I see it.

What all this reminds me of is this little bit of picturing wisdom:

To shoot poignant pictures we only need follow the path of our enthusiasm . I believe that this feeling is the universe's way of telling us that we are doing the right thing. The viewing public will always disagree over the intrinsic merits of a particular photograph(s), but no one can deny the enthusiasm that originally inspired us to capture and offer that image(s) to others. - Timothy Allen

Or, to put it another way - don't over think it. Just follow your muse because, if you don't get all wrapped up in that pre-visualization crap you never know exactly where it might lead.

On that note, I have a very loaded question for you - I have obviously given away the the game, but nevertheless I still wonder if any of you would have seen these pictures for what they really are?