tuscany # 66-69 ~ the seat of power

Pius II's gardens ~ Pienza, Tuscany • click to embiggen
Val d'Orcia from Pius II's garden ~ Pienza, Italy • click to embiggenPope Pius II - Enea Silvio Piccolomini - was an interesting guy due in large part to the fact that he was a humanist. That and the fact that during the first 42 years of his life he was more than a bit of a rake (a no-marriage father of 2 children - pre-cleric - by 2 different women, 1 in Scotland, 1 in Strasburg) as well as an author (The Tale of Two Lovers - the bestselling book of the 15th century), poet (poet laureate - court of Emperor Frederick III, Vienna) - erotic poems his specialty, playwright (Chrysis - an "obscene" comedy), traveler, and something of a political opportunist. And speaking of opportunist, he became a priest at age 42 because ... imagine this ... he reckoned that there were more opportunities open to him as a cleric.

All of the man's follies and foibles are well known because Pius II wrote an uncommonly honest, forthright, and detailed (lengthy) autobiography, Commentaries, which is the only autobiography ever written by a reigning Pope.

Interesting, but what captures my imagination the most about Pius II is his arguably egomaniacal razing of the village of his birthplace, Corsignano, and the rebuilding of it with the first application of humanist urban planning concepts - concepts that were adopted in other Italian towns and cities and eventually spread to other European centers. And of course, after the rebuilding, Pius II renamed the village Pienza or "Pope's Village".

The humanist urban planning revolved around the notion of an ideal Renaissance village. The central piazza (plaza) is defined by 4 buildings: Palazzo Piccolomini, the Pope's (summer) residence; the Duomo (Cathedral); Palazzo Borgia, the palace to house the bishops who would travel to Pienza to attend the pope; and, Palazzo Comunale, the town hall.

All of that said and relative to the above pictures, Pienza is perfectly situated on a hilltop with an amazing and panoramic view of Val d'Orcia to the south. Knowing full well how to gild a lily, Pius II had his piazza placed on the edge of the hillside with with 3 stories of balconies facing south overlooking both his gardens and the Val d'Orcia. No matter which way one may choose to look, the view is nothing short of absolutely stunning.

The wife and I took a tour of Palazzo Piccolomini where, unfortunately for me, no picture making was allowed inside the residence. When we were in Pius II's bedroom, I so wanted to picture the elaborate and ornate throne-like chair that sat in the corner of the room because, with its hinged seat, it was, indeed, the Pope's "throne".

BTW, it's worth a mention that, as I was picturing the view of Val d'Orcia and the gardens, the heavens set forth some glorious light with which I was able to picture. I consider those moments of grace as a papal blessing for all of my clean living.

Val d'Orcia from a balcony ~ Palazzo Piccolomini - Pienza, Italy • click to embiggen

The keen viewer of the above pano may be able to pick out elements of at least 2, if not all 3 of the above telephoto-lens views of Val d'Orcia.

tuscany # 64-65 ~ Cupressus sempervirens

Just down the road and around the corner ~ near Bagnoro, Tuscany • click to embiggenFYI, that's the same lone Mediterranean Cypress (also known as Italian, Tuscan, or Graveyard Cypress, or Pencil Pine) in both pictures.

tuscany # 63 ~ Tuscan morning fog

Tuscan morning fog ~ in the hills above Bagnoro • click to embiggen

tuscany # 59-62 ~ living in a make-believe world, pt. 2

Details ~ Duomo - Pienza, Tuscany • click to embiggen
Madonna(s) with Child ~ Duomo - Pienza, Tuscany • click to embiggenIt would fair to state that in every era artists dealt in cliches of one kind or another. One of the favorite Renaissance era cliched themes was Madonna with Child - if there's one of these paintings in Italy, there's, say, a zillion of them hanging all over the place.

The ones pictured here are in the Duomo in Pienze. They are 3 of the 4 - each by a different prominent Renaissance master from the Sienese School - commissioned by Pope Pius II for his newly constructed Duomo in his newly constructed village in Pienze (named by himself for himself - Pio's town, AKA - pope's town).

The Sienese School of painting (13th-15th century) rivaled that of Florence for a period of time. Its trademark look was toward decorative beauty primarily depicting miraculous events with dreamlike coloration. In a way they were the color-saturated, hue & saturation to-the-max, no-relation-to-the-real, cliched-iconic-image-practitioners of their day. Their paintings were certainly fanciful.

So, who knows - maybe someday in the future all of those color-saturated, hue & saturation to-the-max, no-relation-to-the-real, cliched-iconic-image pictures (photography-wise, Landscape Division) of today will be hanging in our National Cathedrals, AKA (according to Ken Burns) National Parks, where they will be revered as treasures from the past.

man & nature # 241 / tuscany # 58 ~ the light

Adirondack light • click to embiggen
Tuscan light • click to embiggenWhen my brother asked if we would be interested in going to Tuscany with him and his wife, my very first thought was ... oh yeh, making pictures under Tuscan light.

I suppose that it's possible that there might be a picture maker, Landscape Division, out there who hasn't heard of / seen pictures of Tuscan light but I'm not one of them. I owned (it was destroyed in the flood) only one of them - Tuscany: Inside the Light by Joel Meyerowitz - but virtually every one of the Tuscany picture books I have seen make reference to "the light".

FYI, I would not recommend the Meyerowitz book only because the reproduction is second rate - I have seen some of the original prints and they look very little like what they look like in the book. That said, the reproductions in the book do "resemble" the originals that I saw in as much as in both cases the visual results fall into the category of what would be called "delicate and subtle". In that sense, they differ remarkably from the typical Tuscan pictures which are almost always on the color saturated / garish side of things, picture-wise.

That delicate and subtle quality was what I was expecting in Tuscany and for the most part that's exactly what I got. However, I would not attribute those characteristics to "the light". I found Tuscan light to be pretty much just like "the light" here in the Adirondacks. Light is, as they, just light.

Is there a difference in the manner in which the light interacts with the elements that make up the Tuscan landscape as opposed to the manner in which in it interacts with the elements that make up the Adirondack landscape? Absolutely, without a doubt.

I was thinking about how I would explain this difference when I came across an interview with Joel Meyerowitz that touched on just that subject. The interview is well worth a read for a number of reasons but here's the thing about "the light":

This particular valley, called the Vald’Orcia, which is below Sienna, is composed of a kind of white clay ... its got a white base to it, it’s not black earth, or rich American earth, and so when the light rains down in this valley, and because it’s a valley there’s a particular kind of moisture always trapped in it. So, the valley itself has a kind of pearlescent quality its as if the air in the valley is illuminated from within. Because sunlight striking the ground rises up from the ground it doesn’t suck up the light because of dark earth so there is a funny kind of glow around everything ... it infused the photographs that not only I made but my students made.

In so many words, that's about how I see / saw it as well. It's not the light per se that is different, it's a combination of many other factors as well that create the visual character of the place.

The same holds true for the Adirondacks. The light is just light but, just as in Tuscany, it interacts with elements in the landscape to achieve a look that is particular to the place. The Adirondacks is not composed of white clay nor is it an "open" landscape. In most locales the earth is, if not covered by the canopy of the forest, blanketed by a thick cover of vegetation of some sort - there is very little reflected light, the light that adds the luminescent (glowing) quality to "Tuscan light".

In the Adirondacks the light tends to be characterized by a quality that is often described as "Hudson River School light" - a "type" of light that emphasizes the bold contrasts between light and dark. It also is strongly identified with dramatic skies - storms and especially sunsets. FYi, the Adirondack picture above has rather remarkable Hudson River School qualities, both color and light, that are the product of the light and the elements that day, not the result of post processing.

The above Tuscan picture really does illustrate very typical mid-day Tuscan light although it is perhaps not what most picture makers think of as typical.

They are much more familiar with the color-drenched pictures of Tuscan fields cover with sunflowers and the like. A kind of Tuscan light that has been reduced to the same color-drenched light that they literally create for every picture they make no matter the location or the actual quality and characteristics of the light to be found there.

ku # 626 ~ autumn

Out of bounds ~ 12th fairway, Sagamore Resort • click to embiggenNo, my ball not in the woods but as I was walking down the fairway towards my ball (which was in the middle of the fairway) this little scene caught my eye.

seen and noted

Bobcat ~ Mt. Van Hovenberg bobsled track • click to embiggenI did not make this picture.

A day or two ago, this bobcat was spotted at the Olympic bobsled track at Mt. Van Hovenberg (about halfway between my house and Lake Placid). He/she is one big cat - note the paws relative to the tire tracks.

tuscany # 57 ~ living in a make-believe world

Snow White and the Seven ~ in the countryside around Cortona, Tuscany • click to embiggenIn response to yesterday's entry, Anil Rao asked: "Is your disdain with the final image itself (one that bears little or no resemblance to the real world) or is it influenced by the fact that (some) aspects of the photographic process were employed in producing the image? Would you feel differently if someone were to create an equally fanciful rendition/description of nature using painting or writing as the medium of choice?

A CAVEAT - It should be noted that my fulminations, re: pretty pictures, are aimed squarely at those pictures made in/about the natural world, AKA - landscape pictures which feature (but not limited to) the natural landscape and/or its component parts.

That stated, the "final image"(s) that Anil refers to do not create feelings in me that rise to the level of "distain". My general reaction to them on a purely visual basis is, quite simply, blah. Rather, it is the deceptive message (as I and many others see it) - see yesterday's entry , man & nature # 240 ~ I'm just asking - that they convey, intentional or not, that gets me hot on under the collar.

And what gets me hot under the collar is not really all that connected to the medium of photography per se. It is photography related to be sure in as much as it is a picture that strikes the match, but the real issue for me is the bigger issue of life in a "retouched world".

Here in the good 'ole US of America, the bulk of the citizenry has become so addicted to the next big thing (as an example, photography-wise, the next "big" camera) ... an addiction aided and abetted by the constant fanning of the flames of desire by the media and its corporate advertising brethren. And, virtually all of that fanning is accomplished by the presentation of "retouched realities" - the "perfect" car, house, body, hair, vacation, spouse, kids, clothes, toaster, toothpaste, eyelashes, and on and on and on and ......

Our culture has been so saturated by "retouched realities" that most of the citizenry can no longer differentiate between shit and shine-ola - a fact of life here in the good'ole US of America that corporations and politicians in particular use much to their advantage.

So, my question becomes - why would a talented thinking person, photography-wise, want to participate in heaping any more "retouched realities" kindling on that fire?

As for Anil's question re: "equally fanciful rendition/description of nature using painting or writing", let me answer by bringing it back to the medium of photography. Everybody - and that definitely includes me - needs an "escape", a little break from the less fun aspects of daily life. For many people that escape is found in making pictures and that fact is not something that I have a problem with.

However, that said, when living in a state of escapism becomes a full-time pursuit, ultimately it becomes a rather destructive endeavor both individually and collectively - as the saying goes, too much of a good thing.

All of that said, I have a question - I am inclined to think that, as a nation, the good 'ole US of America is inclined to lead the world in many things, many of which fall under the heading of "nothing exceeds like excess". Relative to that concept, I wonder if we also lead the world in the creation of fanciful depictionss of the natural world that bear no relationship to reality?

What do you think?