man & nature # 63 ~ turn it on

Brown leaf, vine, and chain link fence • click to embiggenIt rarely fails to rear its ugly head - whenever I get involved with a photo topic "discussion" on an online forum, especially a forum having to do with nature photography, the "topic" slowly but surely devolves into written assaults upon my character, my pictures, my ancestry, and anything else those who feel that I am "putting down their pictures in order to promote / defend mine" can dream up.

That particular bash-Hobson special interest group is comprised almost exclusively of "photographers" whose pictures and picture-making modus operandi fall into the camera-club "pretty picture" scheme of things. With out a doubt, they correctly surmise from both my pictures and my opinions on the medium of photography that I am not a fan of either their pictures or their ideas about what constitutes a good picture.

Many of these "photographers" tend to take my critiques of their type of pictures as a personal insult / assault upon their character, intelligence, and artistic sensibilities - and understandably so, I might add. When one engages in making art, it can be assumed that, whatever form and content that the activity results in, it springs from the heart, soul, and mind of the maker - it is a very personal undertaking and means of expression. It comes as no surprise to me that an unfavorable assessment of such a personal endeavor tends to cut to the quick.

But, without trying to sound dismissive or cavalier about such feelings, c'est la vie. IMO, the single most frightening thing about making art is the fear of rejection. If, as an artist, one searches deep into one's inner self and then attempts to express that self-ness to the world - laying it all on the line, so to speak - well, that's a scary thing because one can never be certain that the reaction to that expression will be a favorable one.

In fact, one thing that is certain is that the reaction, if favorable, will not be universally favorable. If one doesn't have the ability to "take the heat", maybe one should not venture into the kitchen. Want more cliches? How about the one about success that is born of many failures. Or the one about strong steel coming from the fires of the crucible.

That said, it's also completely understandable why so many "photographers" cling to the relative safety and conformity of technique and the rules. If you never stick your head up above the crowd, you'll never have to worry about getting hammered on the skull.

That said, I also understand that many, if not most, of these "photographers" have no desire whatsoever of making the leap from making Decorative Art - soothing art that has the objective of turning the mind off and directing it away from the more problematic side of what it means to be human - to that of making Fine Art - art that is intended to turn the mind on and address full-on what it means to be human.

And guess what? This may come as surprise to some, but, let me state this loud and clear - that's alright by me. I've said this before and I'll say it again - Decorative Art serves a very legitimate human need. Everyone needs to tune out and turn on at times.

However .... I will not deny nor apologize for believing that making Fine Art, or attempting to make something that at least tickles the fringes thereof, is something of a "higher calling". Without question, virtually every advance in the human condition has been the result of the mind being turned on and fully engaged. The same can be said of picture making.

It is to those who think likewise and/or are trying to break out of the Decorative Art mode of things photographic that I direct my opinions on both the medium of photography and on occasion, the photography of others.

My only wish is that, if you disagree with my opinions on the medium of photography and the possibilites thereof, or, if you don't connect with my pictures, please tell me why you think that way based on your opinions on the medium of photography and its possibilities. Not on your opinion of who and/or what I am.

Get it?

man & nature # 62 ~ he "gets it"

Two raindrops • click to embiggenA few days ago, on my ku # 537 entry, a lengthy comment was left by Craig Tanner, the driving force behind The Radiant Vista. TRV is (was?) a photography site that (was?) "is a creative community of inspiration, passion, and grace. wherein the community could "pursue our dreams and explore our endless potential."

As many here on The Lanscapist know, I am not a fan of the manner in which Craig critiques (critiqued?) his member's photos - in the form of podcasts on the Daily Critique feature of TRV - with the idea that he is helping / inspiring members to grow and realize their potential. His critiques focus (focused?) on technique and "rules", so much so that I and others felt that he tended to "suck the life out of" the pictures he critiqued. It also seemed to me that his emphasis in critiquing photos was to help "photographers" make more and better pretty pictures.

CAVEAT: the aforementioned is merely my opinion. I have no intention of denigrating Craig's methods, intentions, or aesthetic taste - he does (did?) what he does (did?) with passion and it serves (served?) his audience very well.

So, what's with all the (----?) stuff? Well, imagine my surprise when I visited TRV and discovered that all of the Daily Critique podcasts were gone. Not the pictures or comments, just all of Craig's critique podcasts. Hmmmm....

The reason for my visit to TRV was because I was suspicious that something was up when I noticed that the email address Craig left on his comment was not for TRV. It was for The Mindful Eye - a "coming soon" site devoted to "Education and Inspiration for the Mind and Spirit of the Photographer.

Upon further investigation I have discovered that TRV will disappear into the digital ether tomorrow - Friday, October 24. It appears that Craig and a couple other regular contributors to TRV have decided to concentrate on what they do best on 3 different sites:

The Radiant Vista features you have come to know and love are migrating to different sites that are being launched on October 24 by Craig Tanner, Mark Johnson, and Matt Gibson. After October 24, when you land on the home page of Radiant Vista, you will find a thank-you note to everyone for all of your support, along with links directing you to these exciting new sites.

Some of you may want to check this out.

All of that said, in his comment on ku # 537 Craig basically compared me and my Landscapist shenanigans to a cranky, loud, and obnoxious street preacher whom he encountered rather frequently whenever he was in Savannah, Ga. Someone in who's presence he dreaded to be.

But, to make Craig's long comment short, Craig eventually went on to actually meet the guy and to get to know him a bit whereupon he discovered that:

.... most of the assumptions I had made about this man were simply wrong. They were mostly things I had made up in my head that said a lot more about me than they did about Charles. I was amazed to find out that I had never even actually correctly heard the words he repeats when he walks and preaches.

Craig went on to mention that he visits The Landscapist "every once in a while" and although "[A]t this point in time we have different approaches ... it does my soul some good to come here every once in a while and be challenged to look at the world in a different way."

To which I can only respond with a warm and heartfelt "thank you". Craig, despite our different approaches, you "get it".

man & nature # 61 ~ love sick for wow - that's not amoré

Clinging vine on chain link fence • click to embiggenI always enjoy checking my stats, especially the Recent Came From category which tells me where a visitor came from if they came via a posted link on another site. Knowing where visitors came from and reading what others are writing regarding The Landscapist, my photography, my thoughts and ideas, and, on occasion, regarding what they think about me is both entertaining and informative. It is also gratifying to know that The Landscapist has followers from all over the planet.

It also pleases me in no small way that most of the Recent Came From links are from sites/blogs on which there is a fair amount of thoughtful commentary and interesting pictures. This doesn't come as much of a surprise in as much as my commentary and my pictures are, if nothing else, intended to provoke thinking.

That said, it's on to ISSUE NO. 2 - impact. Recently, while checking out a Recent Came From link, I came across this comment about my pictures:

... messy creation : no stronger impact and no immediate emotion.

The comment reflects a rather common reaction to my pictures (as well as to most of those pictures (by others) that would be considered to be Fine Art photography). This reaction is most common amongst the rank and file of the "serious" hobbyist photography world. Rarely do I hear it from the non-photographers who view my work. Rarely do I hear from that same group when they are viewing many of the Fine Art photography books that sit on surfaces all around my house.

What I hear most often from those who are not "photographers" is something along the lines of - "I would never have thought of taking a picture of that", and, "I'm not sure I get it but it's interesting".

IMO, in this case what distinguishes the non-photographers from the "photographers" is the fact that the non-photographers just simply look at pictures with absolutely no expectations other than to see what is depicted. They are not looking for any of the usual photography world rank and file suspects, so what it comes down to for them is whether or not what is depicted has any interest for them (or not). There is no photographic "pane of glass" between them and the subject.

Now I am not suggesting that non-photographers are not "wowed" at the "immediate and strong" impact of dramatic, color-saturated, camera-club fare of standard iconic referents, but what I am suggesting is that they seem to intuitively understand the premise that a picture maker who hasn't follow the sacred photographic proscriptions has nevertheless presented them with an image of something that he/she (the picture maker) deems worthy of their (the picture viewers) attention.

I can actually see them "working" at trying to "get it". They really do seem to be trying to, as W. Eugene Smith stated, "get inside and know the subject".

Without any photographic expectations pane of glass between them and the picture, they seem to get what Garry Winogrand's intentions were when he made pictures:

For me the true business of photography is to capture a bit of reality (whatever that is) on film ... if, later, the reality means something to someone else, so much the better.

In attempting to find something meaningful in a picture that doesn't have an immediate and strong impact, they seem to intuit that the picture maker had something to say and that, if they think about it, some kind of understanding will result. They seem to intuit that a picture can be more than just a form of entertainment, more than just a bit of delicious eye candy that, one moment, you eat and, the next moment, you excrete and flush down the toilet.

These "thinking" viewers also seem to understand another of Winogrand's ideas about photography:

No one moment is most important. Any moment can be something, and, Anything and all things are photographable

In other words, impact of the lasting variety can be found in the most surprising places and that, to a thinking, curious, and seeking person, impact doesn't have to come screaming at you with the immediacy of onrushing locomotive. That, as long as you are not afraid of the "dark" (aka, the unkown), impact can creep up upon you like a ghost in the night to surprise and delight you in ways that you never expected or imagined.

To my way of thinking, the impact of discovering something new, especially so when I have to "work" at getting it, is so much more rewarding that the impact of seeing something, no matter how dramatically it is presented, that I already know.

IMO, for a picture to have impact, I don't believe that it has to hit you eye like a big pizza pie or make you drool just like a pasta fazool. At first sight, bells don't have to ring ting-a-ling-a-ling, ting-a-ling-a-ling and your heart doesn't have to play tippy-tippy-tay, tippy-tippy-tay like a gay tarantella.

No. Not at all. Those are not signs of amoré, those are the signs of infatuation.

When it comes to making pictures with lasting impact (something more akin to true amoré), I like Morley Baer's advice:

Quit trying to find beautiful objects to photograph. Find the ordinary objects so you can transform it by photographing it.

By doing so, one is much more likely to transform the way the viewers of your pictures see the world around them and maybe even transform the way they think about it.

Update on Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 10:07AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Tommy Williams wrote: "I want to look at photos that I have to think about but I don't know enough about photography (or at least that's what it seems to me) to be able to distinguish the photos that are worth thinking about from those that are just poor photographs, or, perhaps more correctly, to be able to determine whether my inability to find a deeper meaning and intention is due to a lack of my own knowledge and understanding or because the photographer had no intention or ability to make a photograph with deeper meaning."

my response: I wrote about this back in June on my ku # 522 ~ it's matter of educated opinion entry. You may want to check it out.

man & nature # 60 ~ the whole picture and nothing but the whole picture

A potpourri of foliage and an approaching storm • click to embiggenIt occurs to me that with my "photographers suck" rant I may have sounded a bit too much like the McCain / Palin ticket's personal character assassination machine.

That was not my intent - as I noted, I actually liked the 2 anonymous "photographers" whom I mentioned in yesterday's entry. So, in order to look more presidential, I will address the issues as practiced by "photographers" rather the "photographers" themselves .....

Therefore, ISSUE NO. 1 - sharpeness. It seems that in the rank and file of the photography world there is a near universal fetish for sharpness. Sharpness has become the litmus test for determining which cameras and which pictures are "excellent". The proof is in the pudding - have you ever read a camera test / review that did not have multiple 100% crop enlarged segments of a test picture? (FYI, and BTW, I hold the jerks who have been doing this for the past zillion years to be personally responsible [oops, there I go getting all Rove-ian again] for the practice of viewing prints at nose length)

The idea that what a tiny segment of a picture looks like when isolated and enlarged has anything to do with what a picture has to say is absurd. Pictures, while they may be composed of numerous visual "parts", are meant to viewed as all-of-a-piece. IMO, when viewing a picture, if one gets all wrapped up in a one (or a few) isolated elements of that picture, one is most likely to miss the intended point / message / meaning of that picture.

As has been said, the genius / beauty is in the details and I agree with that notion but .... in a photograph, the beauty and the genius is found in the sum total, the convergence, the amalgamation of the details.

Consider today's picture. Does anyone think for a moment that the picture, on a purely visual level, is about any one element, any one tree contained within the frame? If anyone does, let me clue you in - it's not about all of the various elements as separate things. It's about how all the different things work together to illustrate the diverse and robust nature of nature.

Does it matter one bit that the camera I chose to use to make this picture is not the equal, sharpness-wise, to that of a full-frame size sensor camera? Does it matter that every vein in the yellow leaves is not tack sharp? Or, ask yourself this question - standing where I stood when making this picture, would your eyes have seen that level of detail in the leaves (or any other element in the picture)?

Garry Winogrand opined that -

A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space.

I agree completely. A photograph is not the thing itself. It is a copy, a trace, a representation, or as Winogrand suggests, an "illusion of a literal description" of the thing depicted. So, based on that belief and when it comes to ISSUE NO. 1 - sharpness, as far as I'm concerned -

if a photograph, when viewed from a distance that allows the viewer to see the picture in its entirety, exhibits the illusion of sharpness in a manner that is sufficient to get the idea that the picture maker intended (or at least a part thereof), then it's sharp enough for me.

With the exception of scientific or forensic photography, what more do you need?

ku # 537 ~ why "photographers" suck

Standing water • click to embiggenOK, OK ... an explanation is in order regarding yesterday's unqualified proclamation that "photographers suck". Especially so since one of The Landscapist regulars suspected that my statement might have been caused by him.

Not so. In fact, my statement stems from not a single iota of disgruntlement with Landscapist visitors. Nope. Not at all.

That said, let me start with this:

What I write here is a description of what I have come to understand about photography, from photographing and from looking at photographs. A work of art is that thing whose form and content are organic to the tools and materials that made it .... Literal description or the illusion of literal description, is what the tools and materials of still photography do better than any other graphic medium. A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space. Understanding this, one can postulate the following theorem: Anything and all things are photographable. A photograph can only look like how the camera saw what was photographed. Or, how the camera saw the piece of time and space is responsible for how the photograph looks. Therefore, a photograph can look any way. Or, there's no way a photograph has to look (beyond being an illusion of a literal description). Or, there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs. I like to think of photographing as a two-way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both. ~ Garry Winogrand

I.M. not so humble O., I think that is a pretty damn good description of what I have come to understand about photography and I know that I am not alone in that understanding. It also seems that the overwhelming majority of those who use cameras - to include the zillion or so people who are snapshooters and the relative handful of artists who use photography - also understand that idea, consciously or not.

With the exclusion of professional photographers, the only group of picture makers who don't seem to get it are those would label themselves photo-hobbyists - those who I would label, "serious" amateur "photographers".

To get right to the heart of my agitation / annoyance with this group, all they really seem to care about (and talk about) when viewing a picture is all of the usual suspects - sharpness, dynamic range, composition )to include leading lines, rule of thirds, etc.), noise, what they might change in the picture, to name just a few examples of their techno/technique-obsessions. They seem to be emotionally and intellectually incapable of seeing and feeling anything at all about what the picture maker may have been trying to express with their creation.

Consider this in understanding why this may be so:

Most photographers seem to operate with a pane of glass between themselves and their subjects. They just can't get inside and know the subject. ~ W. Eugene Smith

While Smith was referring to the act of picture making, I would opine that that "pane of glass" is also between them and whatever picture they may be viewing.

A case in point regarding the "pane of glass" as it applies to picture making - a few years back, 2 very nice gentlemen "photographers" were passing through my area. We hooked up and they requested that I show them a few locations that might be good for picture making. Leaving aside the idea that I think every square inch of this region (if not the entire planet) is a good location for picture making, I dutifully headed out to a few "iconic" spots.

Much to my total amazement, upon arriving at the first location, they stood there looking for "diagonals", "leading lines", "S curves", and "compositional elements". I know this because that's exactly and exclusively what they were talking about. It was as if the scene all around them was nothing more than a stage set for making what they had been conditioned to believe were "good" pictures.

They exhibited absolutely no inclination to "get inside and know the subject". None. Nada. Zip. Because I liked these guys as people, I resisted the urge to grab all of their gear and hurl it into the small body of water on the shore of which we were standing.

That, of course, would have been an impetuous and stupid thing to do. After all, they were really enjoying themselves as they worked diligently at being "serious" amateur "photographers". That being the case, who am I to mess with their hobby?

However, that being the case, I just don't want to hear it anymore. I swear, if I hear/read one more comment (regarding my photos or those of others) about sharpness, composition, noise ... I think my head is going to explode. I swear, if see one more "photographer" putting his nose on a picture (mine or those of others) to see sharpness / noise / resolution, I'm gonna go postal. I swear, if I read one more camera review wherein the reviewer states that the "quality" of the images are not the "equal" of some "class-leading" dslr, I am going to totally lose it.

Don't these chowderheads know that, since the inception of the medium, tons and tons of great pictures have been made using all manner of equipment and techniques? Pictures that absolutely transcend whatever equipment and techniques where employed in their making because they speak to us about life and living?

Don't they understand that, long after their swell techno / technique laden pictures have been consigned to the dustbin of things that simply don't matter anymore, those pictures that speak to us about things that do matter, no matter the manner or tools used in their making, are ones that will remain?

Update on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 12:05PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: the wife wrote: "IMO, your adherence of the rule of thirds in this photo is novel in this instance, using the stream to separate the photo into thirds both on a horizontal plane and a vertical plane. I would have used a velvia film, tho."

my response: isn't she just delightful in her continuing efforts to remind me of my nugalis, lest I get to wrapped up in my gravitas?

man & nature # 59 ~ photographers suck

Weeds, golf course, mountains, and moon • click to embiggenHere's a hint of things to come tomorrow -

The more I think about it, the more I realize that talking to photographers bores me to death. Watching photographers look at my pictures makes we want to whack them upside the head. I have arrived at a point where I want nothing to do with photographers.

To be precise, I am much more interested in artists who use photography.

And, apropos of nothing germane, there's this from the comedian Stephen Wright:

Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film.

Update on Monday, October 20, 2008 at 10:55AM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Steve Durbin wrote: "... I think there's a problem of language here: photographers as a group seem to have an ambivalent relationship with the term artist. Perhaps to many of them it sounds too pretentious or soft or vague or unserious ....

my response: The opposite of what you mention is also quite true - many of the pictures makers I know are very uncomfortable with the tag "photographer" for themselves. Their reluctance to be so labeled is the fear that they might be thought of in the manner of those gear/ techno / technique photographers who tend to grind out an endless stream of pretty and primarily meaningless pictures.

man & nature # 58 ~ hope springs eternal

A sign of things to come # 2 • click to embiggenWeekends on The Landscapist are normally quite quiet. I have learned that making weekend entries that call for a response of any kind is pretty much a lost cause.

Consequently, I have decided that on weekends I will post pictures that I have been meaning to post but, for one reason or another having nothing to do with their "artistic" merits, they have ended up un-posted. These pictures will be posted without any kind of involved commentary from me on the medium of photography.

What I hope might happen is that these "leftovers" might generate some comments on the pictures themselves.

man & nature # 57 ~ a ghost of meaning

Soft, muted, and thick air • click to embiggenI mentioned yesterday that today's picture, the 4th in series of on or around a golf course pictures, was most likely my favorite of the bunch. And, after looking at it longer, I definitely have come to that conclusion.

Admittedly, a significant part of the reason for why I feel this way is very personal - the picture was taken at the end of a round of golf with 3 generations of Hobsons - The Cinemascapist, my grandson, Hugo, and myself - a fact that in and of itself attaches much personal meaning to this picture.

That said, though, the afternoon was very overcast, not with dense cloud cover, but rather with a "thick", moist, and semi-opaque air. It was a very still air, a fact that contributed to an almost eerie calmness to the landscape. Everything - the light, color, sound - took on an uncommon subtle and muted quality. A kind of gentle stillness permeated everything and reached into the core of my awareness.

I don't know if this sense of stillness and "thick" air comes across to the average observer of this picture but, for me this picture will forever hold memories of a delightful afternoon with family (or, more accurately, part thereof) played out against a sublime backdrop of the serenity of the world of nature.

Isn't it interesting that I chose a landscape picture, totally devoid of family members, by which to remember this day?