civilized ku # 1191 ~ an addendum to "all that there is"

Tonsorial Parlor ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggenI previously quoted Einstein and his thoughts, re: his "attempt to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is", in an effort to help explain my attraction to picturing anything and everything (all that there is). Considering the following quote, apparently Stieglitz and Adams-the-greater are of a similar mind ...

Stieglitz would never say that certain objects of the world were more or less beautiful than others-telegraph poles, for instance, compared with oak trees. He would accept them for what they are, and use the most appropriate objects to express his thoughts and convey his vision. ~ Ansel Adams

IMO, this (w)holistic MO to what to picture is a very wholesome, rewarding and fun manner in which to approach one's picture making endeavors. I mean, think about it ... everything is fair picture making game, making the whole world your picture making oyster.

No waiting to get to a specific location, no waiting for the "right" light, no whining about lack of opportunity for a "great" shot, and, much to one's chagrin, no excuses for not making good pictures. Because, everywhere is your location, everything is your referent, the "light" is just the light, and good pictures are everywhere for the making.

When you get down to brass tacks, it's really all about being in the moment - any moment, any where - and allowing your eyes to be, as Henry Wessel stated, "far ahead of your thoughts ... not looking for something ... you are open, receptive ... at some point you are in front of something that you cannot ignore."

I can attest to that approach inasmuch as I find myself "in front of something that I cannot ignore" all the time simply because I have no thoughts of what to picture or not to picture cluttering up my mind or my eyes. As Bob Dylan croons, it's all good.

In any event, and all of that said, it' really is liberating to think like Edward Weston when he stated:

Anything that excites me, for any reason, I will photograph...

the Kid returns, 2 kids, that is

He's got Michael Jordon's tongue ~ Saranac Lake, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenIt was with great fanfare and great success (2 goals, 2 assists) that Sid the Kid - arguably the best hockey player on the planet - made his return to the ice last night after an 11 month hiatus spent recovering from the aftereffects of a concussion. Needless to say, the North American press/media had a field day.

On a much smaller scale, this past weekend marked Hugo the Kid's - he's a real kid - return (start of a new season) to competition. He made his presence known with a 2-game 9-10 (who's counting) goal performance. He also displayed some sterling defensive play, putting Lake Placid's star player squarely on his ass when he ventured into Hugo's crease. The fact that there is no checking in Mite hockey didn't deter Hugo one bit from demonstrating who's boss. After all, Hugo and the other kid will be seeing a lot each other over the next 8-10 years, so why wait for checking to be legal to send a message regarding what's what and who's who.

After the games, while complimenting Hugo on his efforts, I repeatedly pointed out to him that it was his mission in life to: 1) make sure that other kid hates to read because he involuntarily shudders every time he sees the letter "H", and 2) that the other kid fails math because he refuses to deal with any equation which contains the number "15", and 3) to be absolutely certain that, in the car ride home after every game against Hugo, the other kid's mother asks him, "What died in here?", because the stink of Hugo's hockey gear is draped all over her kid like a cheap suit.

civilized ku # 1190 ~ the art of selection / choosing

Rainy late afternoon ~ Jay, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenOnce again, in the continuing conversation - it's not an argument - with Paul Maxim, Paul wrote:

You see the world differently. While I marvel at the forces of nature that created what you call "iconic soaring cathedrals", you're probably more interested in the scrub vegetation that surrounds them ... Walk through Bryce Canyon and tell me that you don't find some of the order and symmetry that you see in there remarkable. Then tell me that you're not curious about the forces that created them.

Truth be told, and as stated in civilized ku # 1189, I tend to marvel at "all that there is", to include the "forces" of nature as well as many of the works of man. I am, if nothing else, an equal opportunity marvel-er. And, in the interest of complete disclosure, I am enamored of many an "iconic soaring cathedral". However, when it comes to seeing, unlike Paul, I find very little banality in the natural (my ku) and man-made (my civilized ku) worlds (with the exception, of course, of banal clichéd pictures of those worlds).

As result of my seeing bent, I find much to marvel at and to picture in "all that there is". But, that said, where Paul and I really differ is in what we choose as the objects of our picture making desires, which, vive la différence wise, is as it should be.

Most certainly, my choice of what to picture is, first and foremost, a result of following my inner voice. That is to state, I make pictures of those things which interest me - an interest which I can't fully explain but, rather, seems to be driven by a seemingly preternatural predilection for the chaotic / complex. However, I would be remiss in not stating that I have also made a conscious choice not to make pictures which look like a million other pictures, nor to make pictures which are made in photo-pilgrimage locations. I have no desire or inclination to be part of the herd* and fortunately for me, I don't have to work very hard at avoiding the herd, I just seem to naturally end up apart from it.

Nothing in the preceding paragraph should be understood to mean that Paul does not follow his inner voice when it comes to what he choose to picture, where he goes to picture it, or how he chooses to picture it. In fact, I would be stunned to learn that he doesn't hear and follow his very own personal inner voice. The fact that he has an inner voice which differs from my inner voice is, once again, as it should be.

And, when it comes down to my pictures / his pictures, some will prefer his way of seeing/doing things while others will prefer mine. Hell, some might like both. But, in any event, It's up to the viewer to make a pick. No one should influenced by the fact that Einstein would prefer my pictures.

*important caveat: the "herd" statement should not be construes as a put-down re: my way vs. Paul's way of doing things, my pictures vs. Paul's pictures, or my personage vs. Paul's personage. The statement is meant merely as a value-free statement of what is, re: my way of doing things, my pictures, my personage. end of caveat

ku # 1134 ~ wherein Einstein rumimates on the limits of clichéd picture making

Milkweed ~ near Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand. ~ Albert Einstein

IMO, it takes little or no imagination to make pictures of stuff everyone has already made pictures of and already knows about. Conversely, it takes a fair amount of imagination to see the wonder/beauty in stuff that everyone sees but to which very few are paying attention.

civilized ku # 1189 ~ let me hip you to reality .. all ya gotta do is open your mind along with your eyes

dried leaves / cobweb ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenIn the continuing conversation with Paul Maxim, Paul wrote:

... we may not agree on the value of "Twig Photography" ... personally, I don't get it. Aside from the old messages of natural cycles and life and death and decay, what am I supposed to see here? What insight into "naturalness" or humanity's interaction with it is supposed to jump out at me?

Before Paul penned / typed this comment, I had planned to use this quote in this entry. It seems even more relevant to the conversation than it did early this AM ...

Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated. The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavors in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is. ~ Albert Einstein

That posted, and in direct answer to Paul's question, re: "Aside from the old messages of natural cycles and life and death and decay, what am I supposed to see here?", let me state unequivocally that I can not tell Paul "what to see". I can express, artist statement wise, what I see in or what causes me to make twig pictures (and I will do so), however, in doing so that may or may not have any effect whatsoever upon Paul's ability (or desire) to see and/or appreciate anything at all in twig pictures.

IMO, seeing beyond the obvious - both pictured and implied - to be found on the 2D surface of a picture is not necessarily a teachable ability. Simply stated, if one is not preternaturally inclined to wonder and marvel at "all that there is" and to have a "sense of the mysterious" as an inexorable and all-pervasive personal trait, then there is probably little chance of adding such traits to one's personal characteristics. And, in lacking such characteristics, one is most apt, when it comes to the arts, to get stuck on the most obvious surface of things.

Now I know, on the surface of things - re: the above stated premise, it may sound like what I am saying is, "I'm smarter / better than you", but that's not at all what I mean. It's more of a statement rooted in right brain / left brain matters (get it, Jimmi?). More like, to each his/her own, not only according to one's sensibilities, but also to one's innate abilities. Like how Mary Dennis gets "heightened delight" and goes "all synapses firing away" when it comes to "tangled nature messes" and like how Paul Maxim simply "doesn't get it", and I, for one, doubt he ever will - old horse / new tricks and all that.

But seriously, why do I doubt it? I put great stock in Paul's admission to not be "real fond of Jackson Pollock" as a twig-picture-I-get-it barometer. That's because there are similarities to be found in Pollock's paintings and my twig pictures and, to my eye and sensibilities, most prominent among them is the idea of high intensity visual energy.

comparison submitted by The Cinemascapist, who wrote: "even some of the lines follow each other across the images..."

I see, literally and figuratively, this idea of visual energy as being totally independent of the pictured referent as seen in any of my twig pictures. I see it as a dance on the 2D surface of the print, a life force, and a representation of the connectedness of "all that there is".

That is why I reject the old tired cycle-of-life death / rebirth cliché that some may see in my twig pictures (hey, if you think in clichés, chances are good you'll see in clichés as well). Rather, I take great delight in the pictures' representation of the natural and vigorous creativity made manifest in the bursting-out-all-over chaos, randomness, and sometimes seemingly mysterious ways of the natural world.

I also see in twig pictures a liberation from the presumed expectations and assumptions of what is considered to be beautiful in the natural world. I am preternaturally inclined to see beauty in "all that there is" in the natural world (with emphasis on the word "all"), not just in the iconic soaring cathedrals of the natural world - the things everybody already knows about. In a sense, I really believe that the genius is in the details, so to speak.

Now, all of that said, IMO, it still comes down to different strokes for different folks. Some will "get it" without having to be told, others will never "get it" no matter how much they're told...

... C'est la vie and vive la différence.

For another (entertaining) take on the subject, listen to what the Rock Man has to say.

ku # 1133 ~ nature's natural order

Flood swept birch ~ near Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen

ku # 1132 ~ delicate intricacy

Fuzzy weed ~ near Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen

ku # 1125-31 ~ all those damn twigs

Leaning birch ~ Near Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Twigs and vines ~ Near Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Twigs and vines # 2 ~ Near Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Twigs and vines # 3 ~ Near Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Twigs and vines # 4 ~ Near Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Twigs and vines # 5 ~ Near Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Twigs and vines # 6 ~ Near Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenFeatured Comment: Re: civilized ku # 1186 / ku # 1120-24, wherein I expressed my fondness for Twig season, Paul Maxim wrote:

More to the point, who wants to look at all those damn twigs? In any season......

my response: I assume, amongst the on-average 200 unique visits a day (excluding weekends) to this blog, there are some who like to look at "all those damn twigs" or pictures thereof.

How about it? Let's hear it. Any twig affectionados in the crowd?