pinhole # 1 ~ it has arrived

My dashboard creatures • click to embiggenMy new hole arrived arrived today.

I'm really excited because it's not often that one can acquire a device that turns a relatively expensive high image quality camera into a Lomo/Diana/Holga-like device, albeit with much more picture making control - shutter speeds, IS, WB, accurate framing (no parallax issues), etc. - than the typical krappy kamera.

Oh joy.

ku # 908 ~ photographers (that means you) should write more

Shoreline below The Flume ~ West Branch of the Au Sable River / Wilmington, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenIt's Tuesday and here I am in Albany once again. This time I am here with the wife while she attends yet another conference.

My initial plan was to spend the day on a golf course but the weather seems to have other ideas. Plan B, which is to spend a lot of time walking the downtown streets of Albany with the intent of making pictures would seem to be the order of the day. In fact, Plan B was edging out Plan A even before the weather intervened.

In any event, before I head out I thought I would leave you with this link for your consideration. The linked piece is another followup to the ongoing derivative / cliche / what's-next discussion - not that it's been much of a discussion so far.

Speaking of discussions, aka: leaving comments, perhaps reading this article might be of some help and/or encouragement.

In any event, I would be very curious about any opinions regarding my pictures relative to the derivative / cliche / what's-next idea. IYO, does any of my work fall into the predictable FA&D genres or any of the Oeuvres Aspiring Photographers Should Ignore categories?

ku # 907 ~ you can have this, you can have that - but you should have have both

Spring tangle ~ The Flats / Wilmington, NY in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenA short time back, in the entry civilized ku # 924-25 ~ "rankly derivative" / standing on the shoulders of giants, I commented on "the idea of "originality" or lack thereof in the making of pictures." Since that time, a few topics which I feel are related have emerged on the blog-o-sphere - 1 by Martin Parr regarding Photographic Clichés and 1 by Jörg M. Colberg regarding the question What should be the role of the photographer in modern society? (a question being asked on the blog WHAT'S NEXT? A SEARCH INTO THE FUTURE OF PHOTOGRAPHY).

Parr's basic assertion, after listing 13 "basic genres" that dominate the "Fine Art and Documentary" world, is that "we [those in the Fine Art and Documentary world] are fairly predictable in what we photograph." To that observation, Parr adds, "This core subject matter and approach is also constantly shifting and changing as new photographers arrive and have impact on our accumulative photographic culture and language." - which seems like a slightly veiled art-speak attempt to exempt the work of the FA&D crowd from the label of "clichéd". Although, I think it is clear that, while Parr may not necessarily consider "predictable" referents to be clichéd referents, there are plenty of clichéd pictures made by the FA&D crowd.

What Parr seems to value as a cure for the common cliché is quite simply a "freshness of approach to the subject matter" which helps the resultant pictures obfuscate (but not necessarily eliminate) the "inspiration and lineage" thereof. He also suggests that a change of subject matter is called for as well:

I think ... that we need to consider our subject matter more carefully ... if we think of what is going on in our world, there seems to be many subjects which are avoided, because we all need that echo of familiarity to help us have the confidence to make a body of work. We want to emulate the impact that these images had on us, and this can be as restricting as it can be liberating.

On the other hand, Jörg M. Colberg doesn't seem to be overly pre-occupied by subject matter or how a picture was made. He seems to be much more concerned with what a picture conveys:

... photography is a social medium ... photographs can make other people see things differently .. [T]he role of the photographer should be ... to help or guide or make other people see things differently (regardless of the photography). Note that I’m using “to see” not necessarily literally, and I’m including emotional as well as intellectual reactions. The moment a photograph has done that to a person it has moved beyond the realm of the illustrative and decorative. That’s when it gets interesting.

To a certain extent, it seems that Parr's POV regarding what constitutes engaging pictures differs from that of Colberg - "freshness of approach" / obfuscation of "inspiration and lineage" vs. helping, guiding, or making "other people see things differently (regardless of the photography)". Whereas Parr wants to be surprised by a fresh approach, Colberg wants to be directed to see things differently regardless of the approach. Parr wants to see new subjects (aka - "subjects that are avoided") whereas Colberg just wants to see subjects - new or old - differently.

However, to my eye and sensibilities, I can appreciate either POV and the pictures that are representative of them.

I mean, who doesn't like seeing a new visual approach to things which bears little or no visual resemblance to anything else you have ever seen (especially "new" things)? I know I do. However, if the "new-approach" picture doesn't take me to a new / different place somewhere beyond the visual, well, for me, it's just a short-lived curiosity.

Conversely, if a picture is all about seeing things differently concept wise - pictures from the subject-doesn't-matter crowd with emphasis exclusively upon the intellect - but is without any redeemable visual appeal, well, for me, it's just another short-lived curiosity.

To be honest, I would rather live with the former rather than the latter - but only if I absolutely had to do so, there being no other choice. Fortunately, that is not the case. Fortunately, there are enough pictures that, as Colberg states (and Parr does not necessarily contest), get interesting by getting beyond, but not ignoring, the realm of the illustrative and the decorative.

Pictures that are, as I have stated many times in the past, both illustrative and illuminative.

ku # 905 ~ Springtime in the Adirondacks

Raging river, river rocks, Spring buds, and natural debri ~ West Branch of the Au Sable River, below Whiteface Mt. - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen

civilized ku # 942 / ku # 904 ~ Au Sable Chasm

The falls at Au Sable Chasm ~ in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen Just 13 miles down the road and river from my house, the Au Sable River (which is just 200 yards behind my house) plunges over the falls at the mouth of Au Sable Chasm. Needless to state, with the rain and snow-melt event of the past 10 days, the falls is currently quite a sight.

On a side note, Au Sable Chasm became a very popular tourist destination starting in the year 1870. It has subsequently been called "America's Oldest Natural Wonder" and "The Li'l Grand Canyon of the East" - keep in mind that the chasm was open for business 50 years before the first tourist facility was constructed at the "real" Grand Canyon.

The chasm is a visually stunning place, IMO, because it is so incredibly claustrophobic. While it is "merely" 2 miles long and 100-200 feet deep, the chasm is only only 20-50 feet wide which makes a hike to the bottom of and through the chasm a very closed-in "vertical" experience.

For such a diminutive "Natural Wonder", Au Sable Chasm really does pack quite a punch. I'd rank it as a most definite must see and a must do (the chasm tour) for any one visiting the area.

Update on Monday, May 2, 2011 at 03:50PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Paul Maxim wrote: "... Am I seeing that picture correctly? Are there 2 sets of falls, separated by some kind of island or something? ... And was the Chasm called the "Grand Canyon of the East" before the gorge at Letchworth was given that name?

my response: There are 2 set of falls separated by some kind of island or something - think of whatever it is as a li'l Goat Island. Although, the second falls, the one on the right, is often non-existent during the drier Summer months. If you want to come up for a visit - and I hope you do - to see the complete falls extravaganza, come in the Spring or anytime around a good rainfall.

BTW, I emphasize the word "li'l" cuz that's the same word used in the Au Sable Chasm descriptor - "The Li'l Grand Canyon of the East". Whether or not that word was part of the label in order to distinguish it from the Letchworth label, I can not say. Your guess on the subject would be nearly as good as mine.