man & nature # 240 ~ I'm just asking

Sunday evening ~ South of Plattsburg • click to embiggenBecause I often get myself all worked up, photography-wise, over the camera club propensity / fetish for making pretty pictures, it has been assumed in some quarters that I am not a fan of beauty, photography-wise. That because I do not, Spinal Tap-wise, turn the Hue & Saturation slider up to 11, that because I do not "chase the light", that because I have never owned/used a GND filter, that because most of my referents are found in / depict the "mundane" or "everyday" world, that I am therefore not a fan of beauty or that I, in fact, reject the notion of beauty in any form.

That assumption is utterly, totally, and completely without merit.

It has also been suggested that my fulminating, re: the pretty picture crowd and their pretty pictures, is nothing more than my creation of a bogeyman / straw man - something to rail against in order to work out some personal problems / demons. Because ... really ... after all, what's the harm in making pictures that bear no resemblance to the real? It's just a form of self-expression / art, is it not?

Well .... I'll grant you the "form of self-expression / art" part (at in the less formal sense re: art) but I will not in anyway accept the notion that making pretty pictures that bear no resemblance to the real - sentimental, romanticized, fanciful "interpretations of the natural world (especially the of grand scenic icons) - is not harmful to the cause of preservation / conservation / appreciation of our natural world.

I find it interesting that most would not accept the retouched Playboy centerfold version of women as representative of real women. Many would even go as far as to say that that fanciful interpretation of women is, in fact and without a doubt, harmful to the reality of real women. That many people are hard pressed if not totally incapable of differentiating the fantasy from the reality - women who want to achieve the "ideal" and men who expect it of "their" women.

The retouched visual version of women - to include how they are depicted in advertising and popular media culture - contributes mightily to the objectification of women - a "thing" to be treated as a tool for one's own purposes, a "thing" that is treated as if lacking in agency or self-determination, a "thing" that is treated as if there is no need to show concern for the 'object's' feelings and experiences.

That said, can someone explain to me how the objectification of the natural world in pictures - representing nature as a fanciful abstraction that is independent of its actual attributes and characteristics - is not as harmful to the understanding and acceptance of the natural world on its own terms as is the visual objectification of women is to the understanding and acceptance of women on their own terms (so to speak)?

Now I am certain that a fair number of pretty picture makers would respond by saying that they are just having fun and that they know the difference between their "interpretations" and the "real thing". Fine. Good for them. But here's the thing - maybe they should just keep their "interpretations" in an archival acid-free storage box under their bed because most of the people they might otherwise show them to are going to accept them as some kind of version or another of the real.

Most of the people they might show the "interpretations" to are going to be hard pressed if not totally incapable of differentiating the fantasy from the reality. And, here's the real problem - the "interpretations" are going to set up an impossibly unrealistic standard / expectation of what is worth preserving, conserving, and appreciating re: the natural world.

These fanciful "interpretations" also serve to provide an emotional / intellectual rationale wherein it doesn't matter if we pave over 90% of the rest of the world because we can always take a vacation and go to insert a National Park name here and see "nature".

That opinion stated, I've taken a hard look around and have not been able to find any bogeymen / straw men. So, I still have to ask - can someone explain to me how the objectification of the natural world in pictures - representing nature as a fanciful abstraction that is independent of its actual attributes and characteristics - is not as harmful to the understanding and acceptance of the natural world on its own terms as is the visual objectification of women is to the understanding and acceptance of women on their own terms (so to speak)?

man & nature # 235-39 ~ sky

Sunrise over Scotland • click to embiggen
Chased by the light ~ Paris to Florence • click to embiggen

Hear the mighty engines roar
See the silver wings on high
She's away and westward bound
Far above the clouds she flies ~ Early Morning Rain

What with the mighty engine's roar and all, who the hell can sleep on an airplane?

That said, I have nothing but praise for Air France - civilized flying at its best. The wife warned/advised me to stock up on treats for in-flight consumption "because it's a long flight and you'll get hungry".

Wrong.

As it turns out, how can one be hungry after a full steak dinner before the flight provided by Air France due to a short flight delay. Then, once on board, pre-dinner champagne with cheese and crackers, a full dinner such as Seafood terrine, spicy lemon pasta, herb chicken with potatoes and broccoli, cheese, apple tart, and chocolate covered nuts with Julienas red burgundy wine followed by cognac. And then, about an hour before landing in Paris, a light breakfast of fruit, juice, yogurt, and coffee.

All of this, within an 8 hour period, was quite good and totally complimentary. No wonder I couldn't sleep.

In any event, I offer up the above triptych as a twist on the chasing the light picturing fetish favored by so many - in this case, I was being chased by the light.

ku # 625 / man & nature # ~ America's Best Idea - sort of, but not really

Roadside Autumn splendor ~ near Ticonderoga, NY • click to embiggenMost here in the good 'ole US of America who have any interest in the landscape of America, photography-wise, probably watched all or part of the recent PBS / Ken Burns series, The National Parks: America's Best Idea. The 6-part documentary basically covers -

...the story of an idea as uniquely American as the Declaration of Independence and just as radical: that the most special places in the nation should be preserved, not for royalty or the rich, but for everyone. from - PBS.org

In the telling, the story -

...is a visual feast, featuring some of the most extensive, breathtaking images of the national parks system every captured on film. from - PBS.org

Need I even mention that Sir Ansel, his pictures and his conservation advocacy, was featured prominently in the "visual feast" of "breathtaking images"?

The media has fallen all over itself while heaping fawning praise and adulation upon the series. To be fair, there was some critical analysis of the series scattered about the media landscape but one is much more likely to be reading / hearing words like majestic, stunning, inspirational, pride, rich cinematography, scenery that is almost unspeakable in its gorgeousness, a must see, and so on.

That said, IMO, the words of Pittsburgh Penguins announcer, Mike Lange, are what come to my mind -

How much fried chicken can you eat?

Now, it should be stated that Mike uses that Langeism to denote a good thing - like when Evengi Malkin beats an opposing netminder "like a rented mule". However, I use that expression when I want to get across the idea of puking. You know, like when you eat way too much of a good thing (fried chicken?) and end up spewing lunch.

That said, I didn't watch much of America's Best Idea because, for the most part, it made me want to puke.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to rewrite history and/or eliminate / change America's National Parks. For the most part, they protect things that are very worthy of being protected. But ...

... unfortunately, for a wide variety of reasons - to include quite prominently presentations just like Burns' documentary - the idea of National Parks which are intended as "set-asides", primarily for the "grand and glorious", does an enormously harmful diservice to idea of preservation / conservation for the rest of the natural world.

To wit, if it ain't grand and glorious, pave it and put up a parking lot.

The very idea of a set-side, aka: National Park, is an idea that separates man from nature - indeed an idea that, at its core, separates man from his very nature as an integral part of nature. We are it. It is us. In a very real sense, the idea of National Parks as "special" places that are worthy of protection / preservation lays the mental and emotional groundwork / rationale that "anything goes" for the rest of the "un-special" planet.

Once again, don't get me wrong. I am certain that National Parks have captured the preservation / conservation imagination of some people and that some of those people have taken the fight for preservation / conservation to places that are on a smaller, less spectacular scale. But, I also suspect that for the majority of citizens in the good 'ole US of America, National Parks are little more than a Disneyland of sorts that one visits on vacation and then returns to their "normal" life of devouring the rest of the planet one small patch of earth at a time.

In effect, a visit to one or, for that matter, all of the National Parks might lead one to the belief that, as an American Indian park superintendent says in the film:

America is not sidewalks. America is not stores. America is not video games. America is not restaurants.

To which I would respond - what set-aside planet is he/she living on?

man & nature # 235 ~ water

Lake George ~ Bolton Landing, NY • click to embiggen

not tuscany # 1-3 ~ you do what you gotta do

The Sagamore ~ Lake George / Adirondacks, NY • click to embiggenOver the past few weeks The Landscapist has been something of a travel picture log / blog of sorts. While much of the commentary has been descriptive of my travels, I hope that the pictures have given you an example of a different way of looking at things - that there is in fact still an emphasis on the medium of photography in pictures, if not in words.

The pictures posted here are of this past weekend which was spent at a rather upscale resort, The Sagamore, on Lake George here in the Adirondacks. The place is not really my cup of tea but the wife had a conference there so I tagged along for some great golf and what turned out to be my discovery that autumn color had arrived.

FYI, the place was crawling with downstate, re: NYC, lawyers.

tuscany # 52-56 ~ an Italian treat

Dante & Company ~ Viliano, Tuscany • click to embiggen
Fried rabbit, a happy camper, & ricotta custard • click to embiggenAbout 1/2 way through our time in Tuscany, I remarked to the wife that the one thing we had yet to do was to met an Italian. We had come in contact with quite a number of Italians - all friendly, courteous, and kind - while going about our daily business but what I meant was to met someone with whom we could have a conversation.

That situation came to a happy conclusion the very next day in the tiny village of Viliano. The wife and I were rambling around in hot pursuit - I was in hot pursuit, the wife was doing more of a slow burn - of the picture postcard Tuscany when we came upon the hilltop village of Viliano which was just a hair bigger than blink-and-you'll-miss-it size. Smaller still was the gated entrance to Piccola Trattoria Guastini which I noticed when driving by only because, playing near the gate, there was a little long blonde haired kid who caught my eye. He wasn't the spitting image of my grandson, Hugo, but he was close enough to catch my attention.

So we stopped and descended the stairs to the terraced restaurant that overlooked a vast stretch of southern Siena/Tuscany. It was open and in we went.

To make a long story short, we met an Italian or, more accurately, several Italians - little Dante and his mom (seated in the above picture) and dad (seated with wine). Emanuela (dad), the owner of Piccola Trattoria Guastini, spoke very passable English - Dante could only count to 10 in English - and he turned out to be a very friendly, gracious, and informative host. We had an interesting conversion - in fact, we had 2 conversations with him because the food was so good that we returned the next day with my brother and his wife in tow to do it all over again.

As luck would have it, I had a picture of Hugo on one of the memory cards I was using. Dante and his dad and mom got quite a kick from the visual similarity between Hugo and Dante. We got quite a kick from the similarity of Dante's and Hugo's energy levels. Meeting the Scortichini family and enjoying their warm and genuine hospitality was a real treat.

And, oh yeh, the food was magnificent - I had the fried rabbit and a ricotta/honey/cinnamon custardy with pistachios thing for dessert that was an absolutely delicious Italian treat.

(firenze) Tuscany # 48-51 ~ what were they thinking?

Approaching Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore, Firenze, Tuscany • click to embiggen
Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore, Firenze, Tuscany • click to embiggenThe Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore is the Duomo (cathedral) in Firenze. It is, in a word, insane, or, in a phrase, insanely incomprehensible.

I mean, I've been there, touched it, walked around it, pictured it, stared at it, thought about it but I still can't wrap my head around it. I keep getting hung up on the fact that this massive thing was conceived a little over 700 years ago. What were they thinking? Or, maybe a better question is - what were they smoking?

The sheer scale of the place is fantastic (5 football fields - US football, real football, not that silly soccer thing - long) but throw in the structure's facade(s) detail and the sculpture / statuary and the frescoes and the paintings and the windows and the woodwork and the nearly 3-story bronze doors and it makes one wonder about the sheer chutzpah (I know, wrong religion) that it took to full this thing off.

The structure alone took from 1296 until 1636 to complete and at that point the facade was still unfinished. The facade was not completed until 1887 after undergoing a number of false starts which included a complete dismantling of the facade-in-progress in 1587 (by order of the Grand Duke Francesco I de' Medici). The facade remained bare until the 19th century.

tuscany # 46-47 ~ here today ...

Roadside votive chapel ~ near Bagnoro, Tuscany • click to embiggenRoadside votive chapels dot the Italian landscape. They contain some splendid religious art, most of which is exposed to the elements. One wonders if anyone has given any thought to some sort of preservation effort. It would be a shame to loose it.