urban ku # 111 ~ pointless

Frontier substation and morning fog • click to embiggenRecently, I am on a bit of a quote jag. I don't know why but I am going with the flow so here's another one that seems to address Aaron's comments about fleeting vs lingering -

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. - Susan Sontag

This statement goes right along with my thoughts that the mental/emotional state and capabilities of the observer of a picture is an important element in the ability of a picture to 'connect' with and have meaning for that observer. When I view pictures - including my own - I always bring the attitude of there must be a reason why the photographer made this picture - especially when the picture in question seems, at first glance, to be 'pointless'. That is because it has been my experience that those pictures, which at first glance appear to be 'pointless', are, most often, amongst the more intellectually and emotionally complex and involving of pictures.

It is especially true that many of the pictures that seem 'pointless' have as their referents the mundane, the commonplace, the everyday. This is very troubling, comprehension-wise, to those who are addicted to 'flash and dash' in pictures. If the 'surface' of a picture can't slap them upside the head within a nano-second of their first glance, it just ain't worth their effort to delve any deeper, or so it seems.

In any event, let me lay on another quote, this one about the 'commonplace', that sums up very neatly a large bit about why I picture what I do -

Do not be caught by the sensational in nature, as a coarse red-faced sunset, a garrulous waterfall, or a fifteen thousand foot mountain... avoid prettiness - the word looks much like pettiness - and there is but little difference between them. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Update on Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 03:23PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Paul Maxim wrote ; "... Emerson always spoke of his reverence for nature in all its manifestations ... Nothing in nature was too small or too big ... "

My Response: .... which is exactly why he advised against being 'caught by the sensational in nature' which is, indeed, only one small facet of it all.

Featured Comment: Paul also wrote ; "... (Emerson's) use of the words "pretty" and "petty" in the same sentence had nothing to do with how he felt about the landscape. Rather, it probably reflected his view of how some people reacted to the landscape."

My Response: I believe that you're correct in your assumption - he was referring, not to how he related to nature, but to how photographers relate to nature.

Featured Comment: Yet again, Paul also wrote ; "... Where you are mistaken, in my humble opinion, is that you seem to be equating 'pretty' with 'beautiful' ... Why is portraying traditional "Beauty" in a photograph less worthy than portraying more "everyday" scenes?"

My Response: Not at all. Indeed, that 'confusion' is the crux of the matter. I have opined about the (vast) difference many times here on The Landscapist. You should take note that when I write 'crap' (or some other pejorative) it is almost aways in the company of 'pretty', NOT 'beautiful'. And I would agree with Emerson and you that 'pretty' is shallow/superficial and, by extension, those who wallow in, salivate only in response to 'prettiness' and slavishly make 'pretty' pictures (to the total exclusion of all else) display shallowness of spirit and character.

My point about 'beauty' and 'the mundane' is that they are not separate and distinct categories. That, in fact, there is great 'beauty' in the 'commonplace' and 'everyday'. That, in fact, most nature/landscape photographers only see 'beauty' in the 'sensational in nature, as a coarse red-faced sunset, a garrulous waterfall, or a fifteen thousand foot mountain...'. That, in fact, by their shear number and voluminous elevation of only the sensational in nature, they have conditioned the public to appreciate only the sensational which they set aside in 'parks' and then go about congratulating themselves that they are 'conservationists' and 'nature lovers'.

Or, as 'ole Ralphie W.E. opined, again about photographers; "Many photographers think they are photographing nature when they are only caricaturing her."

Featured Comment: Sebastian wrote ; "... How long do you spend looking at each pointless picture before it becomes truly pointless?"

My Response: A good question to which I have no answer. And, I suspect that the answer would be different for each observer.

urban ku # 109 ~ 'painting' with light

Road signs and newspaper box • click to embiggenWe have a newcomer, Michelle C. Parent, over in the Guest Photographer Forum as well as a new Cinemascape and very good commentary from Aaron re: fleeting v. lingering (obvious v.ambiguous) content in pictures. You should check out both.

Aaron pretty much sums the topic up in manner that I agree with, but, let me throw two quotes, one from Edward Weston, one from Susan Sontag, into the pot for good measure:

People who wouldn't think of taking a sieve to the well to draw water fail to see the folly in taking a camera to make a painting. - Edward Weston

While a painting, even one that meets photographic standards of resemblance, is never more than the stating of an interpretation, a photograph is never less than the registering of an emanation (light waves reflected by objects)-- a material vestigate of its subject in a way that no painting can be... Having a photograph of Shakespeare would be like having a nail from the True Cross. - Susan Sontag

Both quotes are about medium specificity, something that few photographers seems to grasp as they go about trying to make paintings.

Perhaps the reason for this is simple - they have started to believe the disingenuous adage that photographers 'paint' with light. That's pure BS (unless, of course. they are 'night' photographers waving a flashlight around in the dark). Only god/nature paints with light, photographers just record the result and most aren't content to leave well enough alone.