ku # 488 ~ a fresh intimation of Form

Autumn scene • click to embiggenOnce again from Robert Adams; "If the goal of art is Beauty and if we assume the the goal is sometimes reached, even if always imperfectly, how do we judge art?"

IMO, Adams is talking about Art, not art - that is, Fine Art (which engages the mind), not decorative art (which dis-engages the mind). He goes on to state -

"Basically, I think (we judge art) by whether it reveals to us important Form that we ourselves have experienced but to which we have not paid adequate attention. Successful art rediscovers Beauty for us."

Once again, I'm with Adams on this. I am drawn to photography that is in some sense 'a new way of seeing'. I don't mean a new 'technique' (although that's OK). What I mean is a new way of looking at something I have already seen but 'to which I have not paid adequate attention'. Pictures that cause me to 'think again', so to speak.

Adams says something similar - "One standard then, for the evaluation of art is the degree to which it gives us a fresh intimation of Form ... it must in some significant respect be unlike what has preceded it ... if the dead end of romantic vision is incoherence, the failure of classicism, which is the outlook I am defending, is the cliche, the ten thousandth camera-club imitation of a picture by Ansel Adams." (FYI - classicism; Aesthetic attitudes and principles manifested in art ... characterized by emphasis on form, simplicity, proportion, and restraint.)

As most here already know, I'm totally with Adams on this one - the last thing the world needs is another 'camera-club imitation of a picture by Ansel Adams'.

ku # 487 ~ Form and Light

A field in the (autumn) gloaming • click to embiggenIn his essay Beauty in Photography (in the book of the same name), the photographer and writer (about photography), Robert Adams, states that "... the proper goal of art is, as I now believe, Beauty and the Beauty that concerns me is that of Form. Beauty is, in my view, a synonym for the coherence and structure underlying life .... "

I definitely agree on both counts - I mention that just in case you haven't noticed my reference to beauty at the top of your browser window.

Adams goes on to ask/state; "Why is Form beautiful? Because I think it helps us meet our worst fear, the suspicion that life may be chaos and that therefore our suffering is without meaning." Now that's some pretty 'heavy' and 'heady' stuff, but, as the adage states, 'Beauty is more than skin deep.'

It is said that poets write for a single reason - to give witness to splendor. As Adams points out, splendor is a useful word for photographers 'because it implies light - light of overwhelming intensity.'

OK. I'm with him so far. So, if art's point is Beauty in the guise of Form, and Form is a peek at 'light of overwhelming intensity' in the guise of splendor, Adams concludes that, "The Form towards which art points is of an incontrovertible brilliance, but is also far too intense to examine directly. We are compelled to understand Form by its fragmentary reflection in the daily objects around us ..."

So, in keeping with yesterday's notion of 'one long quiet howl', I guess I'm just going to keep howling at the light.

urban ku # 125 ~ an Adirondack curiosity

now that's a 'house' boat.

urban ku # 124 ~ one long quiet howl

A fire in the backyard fireplace • click to embiggen"American civilization grows more hieroglyphic every day. The cartoons of Darling, the advertisement in the back of magazines and on the billboards and in the street-cars, the acres of photographs in the Sunday newspapers, make us into a hieroglyphic civilization far closer to Eygpt than to England. So said (in 1922) Vachel Lindsay, the poet, writer, and film critic who argued that modern American culture needed a new form of visual literacy - one can only imagine what he might say now.

Lindsay believed that, 'like the great ancient civilizations of Eygpt, modern American culture was to be understood and articulated not through written language but by ferreting out meaning from the seemingly chaotic system of visual signs generated daily on a massive scale. In a brave new/old world, where language was ceding power to image, photography served as an important vehicle through which Americans defined and interrogated their relationship to their rapidly changing world'. ~ from The Art of the American Snapshot

This particular passage carries great meaning and insight for me. Recently, I have mentioned the word 'obsession' as it applies to making Art because I think that word has some meaning for me (but I am not alone) and my Art. I have articulated some other reasons and motivations (see my Artist Statement) behind my drive to make, but I continue on a quest to learn more about my Art and myself and reading about the medium of photography is part of my self psychoanalytical regime.

Well, there is no doubt in my mind that I am using photography 'as an important vehicle' through which I 'define and interrogate my relationship to the rapidly changing world'. And, indeed, I am trying to 'ferret out meaning from the seemingly chaotic system of visual signs generated daily on a massive scale' - a scale that Lindsay could never have imagined.

Those 'visual signs' constitute a new manipulated and manipulating visual language that has been co-opted by the merchants of wealth and power in the service of only their own wanton wants and desires. I believe that, ultimately, it is the siren-song of death ...

... which is another reason why I am trying to construct a visual language that is honest, realistic, human and articulate - an alternative to the prevailing language of preference, that of truthiness - the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true.

at times I need a class in anger management

My angry cat out in backyard • click to embiggenIf you have been following The Landscapist or my comments on other forums over the years, you probably know that photo equipment freaks and their inevitable rantings about 'the best' stuff bores me to tears. On occasion, it makes me mad.

One such occasion has (collectively) been happening over the past few days - dating from late Tuesday evening, in fact. That was the evening of the invitation-only launch of the new Olympus E-3 dslr, the pro 'flagship' of the Oly 'E'-line of dslrs. Since I am an Oly man (digital-wise), I have more than a passing interest in the new model for its 'pro' features, most importantly its ability to sync with studio flash equipment. That is something that is important to me in my professional life, photography-wise.

In any event, I (not unlike a lot of others) have been searching around for any solid info I can find. This has landed me on a number of forums which have turned out to be mostly dead ends, primarily because, instead of having any useful info, they are mainly exchanges along the lines of; "Olys ... 4/3rds format ... are crap ... etc." - this most often from Canon freaks with a few Nikon guys here and there (none of whom seem to have actually used an Oly).

These swell statements are met mostly with pithy retorts along the lines of; "Oh yeah! Well, you Canon guys are nothing but a bunch of crap-eating freaks .... etc." It goes without saying that all of the pro/con rants are about equipment and absolutely nothing about pictures. And, please note that I have used the word 'guys' because, unless there are some testosterone-laden chicks hiding behind forum user names, it all seems like some gigantic penile pissing party.

It's enough to drive you mad (both angry and insane).

If I could, I'd sic my angry cat on the whole lot of them.

urban ku # 123 ~ what is true is most often beautiful

An autumn view • click to embiggenI was visiting one of the online nature photography forums the other day (what's a day without exaggerated sunshine?) and I came across some pictures made in the Adirondacks.

The picture locations were very close to home. In fact, several pictures were of a location that I regularly pass by on my local travels. Now, understand that the online nature photography forums are in their annual full-blown over-the-top fall color extravaganza mode, but, even considering that, the pictures I encountered were so over the top as to be nearly unrecognizable color-wise - that is, relative to this year's rather subdued color display.

Even understanding that hue/saturation to-the-max is their primary 'thing' - as they say, "it's my 'artistic interpretation' ... ". Interestingly enough, there had been a discussion on the same site, just prior to the fall frenzy, regarding the over-saturation of many of the landscape picture posts and how those pictures inevitably drew the most attention and comments (all favorable). The conclusion seemed to that that was the way to get attention and, why not? - it's all about 'art' not documentation, right?

OK, but what really bugs me is the fact that the pictures are tacitly presented as 'real'. In this particular case, several comments were made about "how beautiful the color is this year ...", and, "we don't have color like that where we are ...". And this from one close-by commenter, "... the color is spectacular ... I'll have to get up there soon ...". The 'tacitly presented as real' part comes in with the response to these comments - no admission or discussion about the fact that the color is just 'artistic expression' and not 'real'.

It seems as though they just just to want to have it both ways.

Is any of this harmful? Is it just harmless fun? Or, is it, as I believe, eco-porn that does a disservice to conservation and environmental awareness?

Update on Saturday, October 20, 2007 at 01:11PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Sean wrote; "... I'd like to ask when exactly it was that I, as a photographer, suddenly became a steward of, and an educator about the environment?"

my response: My answer is based on the assumption that when you are acting 'as a photographer', you are acting as 'yourself' - that there is no demonic multi-personality disorder in effect. Based on that, I would state emphatically that each and every "I" on the planet 'suddenly become[s] a steward of ... the environment' at the exact moment that they come shooting down the canal. The 'educator' thing is optional but I don't believe that living 'righteously', re: the environment, is.

Update on Monday, October 22, 2007 at 11:59AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Sean wrote; "... I hope that my comments have not offended you as that was not my intent -- I'm simply enjoying the discussion."

my response: No offense. I'm simply enjoying the discussion as well.

Sean also wrote; "...We may not share the same views of righteous living re: the environment. The personal maxim that I attempt to live by is... 'Even as you desire good treatment, so render it.'

my response: Ok ... so that begs the question - what kind of 'good treatment' do you render to the environment?

FYI ~ one hot property

Aaron's Cinemascapes continue to garner attention from around the world. Today, he got a nice mention on theonlinephotographer and, in a bizarre twist, on 3girlsinparis.com - Le blog d'une nana (The blog of a chick), who is very concerned with fashion and shopping.

Update on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 08:32AM by gravitas et nugalis

CORRECTION: liw (apparently the 'nana' from Le blog d'une nana) wrote; "Actually 3girlsinparis is above all very concerned by design and art...which explain why I talked about Aaron ;)"

Thanks for the correction liw (really)

mea culpa, mea culpa, ~ the things we do for money

Pumpkin and leaves on the front step

mea maxima culpa - Oh, the ignominious irony of it all. Perhaps, in some form of karma, it's all coming back to haunt me -

As I was reading from The Art of the American Snapshot, I came across this; "In addition to camera manuals, Kodak published guides such as Picture Making and Picture Taking (c.1900), The Modern Way to Picture Making (c. 1905), How to Make Good Pictures (from 1912), and Kodakery: A Journal for Amateur photographers (from 1913). Each of these publications provided examples of 'good' photographs, which emphasized images of innocent, carefree, and pretty children as well as leisure pursuits, attractive landscapes, and portraits ... Kodakery included two-page spreads in each issue that showed photographs of these preferred subjects ..."

The well-meaning intent of all of this 'advice' was to "aid the ambitious beginner, and enable him to avoid the most common mistakes incident to the first stages of this interesting study". The actual unintended result of all these rote prescriptions was "'good' photographs [which] are, not surprisingly, stiff, bland, and boring. Not only do they possess none of the humor of the 'bad' photographs, but they have none of their immediacy or authenticity."

So, it appears that right from the very beginning of photography by the masses - and continuing right to this day, photographers were advised to stick to the 'rules' in order to make 'good' photographs.

Most here know what I think about the 'rules' - one-size fits all, cookie-cutter patterns for those who can't think on their own, but, I have a confession to make - for quite a number of years, I thought nothing of accepting assignments from Kodak to make conforming-to-the-rules pictures for their various How to Make Good Pictures guides.

To repeat, Oh, the ignominious irony of it all. To all of those who have been ensnared in the rules of photography and are having a tough time escaping, I'm very sorry. You have my sincere regrets and apology. I was young(er) then and didn't know what I was doing. Maybe my efforts here on The Landscapist will make up in some small way all the damage I may have inflicted.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Update on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 09:27AM by gravitas et nugalis

CORRECTION thm wrote: "Isn't is "mea culpa", not "mea copa"? Its latin, not spanish".

my response: mea culpa - my altarboy days but a dim memory