civilized ku # 689 ~ Autumn color

Signs of autumn ~ Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenFall color is arriving quite late this year. It is just starting to make an appearance.

civilized ku # 678-88 ~ acres of chrome

Spare tire ~ Rolls Royce - Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Cadillac & Buick ~ Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Cadillac & Lincoln ~ Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Rolls Royce x 2 ~ Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Plymouth pickup / Packard Super 8 ~ Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Cadillac x 2 ~ Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen

civilized ku # 677 ~ on a quest

Lots of pumpkins Peru, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenI spent a little time yesterday afternoon visiting farm stands in a desperate and ultimately fruitless search for concord grapes.

urban renewal # 1 / ku # 781 ~ art? photography? both? neither?

Without the APA ~ Whiteface and The Flume - somewhere in my head, in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen
Stormy sky ~ Lake Placid Resort GC - Lake Placid, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenI am about to do something that I rarely do* - enter a picture in a juried event.

Actually, 2 different juried events. 1 that is conducted by an Arts organization, the other conducted by a Photography organization. And, therein lies my dilemma. Let me explain ...

As noted and discussed in previous Landscapist entries, there are picture-makers who are artists and then there are artists who use photography. The distinction between the two can be rather complex. However, 1 particular difference is most often apparent - picture-makers who are artists tend to picture what they see, most likely with a very focused vision in a very specific genre, whereas artists who use photography tend to make pictures wherein the concept that drives the picture-making is the most important thing.

FYI, in the post-Szarkowski era, concept driven pictures are very much in favor with the Arts community / movers and shakers.

This distinction is not to say that the twain never meet although the concept MO most often mixes with the picture-makers who are artists crowd rather than the picture-what-you-see MO does with the artists who use photography crowd. That's because, in practice, concept driven picture-makers tend to "construct" their pictures with either staged picturing subjects or post-picturing manipulations of one kind or another, sometimes both. Neither technique lends itself to the notion of picturing what you see.

All of that said, it's back to my dilemma ... considering my 2 "picks" (see above) for the juried events, IMO, there little doubt that Without the APA is much more concept driven than Stormy sky is. Therefore, it seems obvious that that picture is much more suited to the juried event that is being conducted by the Arts organization. As mentioned, the Arts crowd really likes concept-driven work (of any art genre).

But, here's the real dilemma ... I also believe Without the APA to be the better choice for the juried event being conducted by the Photography organization.

Why so? Well, as I was purusing my collection of pictures - almost 3,000 pictures - for likely candidates for submission to the events, I was struck by the fact that, while many of my picture-what-I-see pictures are good (maybe great?) pictures, they make their strongest impression as part of a body of work rather than as stand-alone, AKA- "greatest hit", pictures.

Since I was entering in the Single Image category (in the Photography organization event), IMO, the Without the APA picture is the best picture for that juried event as well as the Arts organization event (which only accepts 1 piece per artist) .

That's because, in addition to it's concept-driven character, it is also a very good picture. It is, in a word, "interesting". As discussed in civilized ku # 669, the picture contains many of the qualities that make a picture "interesting" - What makes a photograph interesting? I’ll count the ways: It can be our first look at something. It can be entertaining. It can evoke deep emotions. It can be amusing or thrilling or intriguing. It can be proof of something. It can jog memories or raise questions. It can be beautiful. It can convey authority. Most often, it informs. And, it can surprise. ~ John Loengard

So, Without the APA it is for both juried events.

*I am not a fan of juried events / competitions. In part, that is because, even though quite obviously some pictures / bodies of work are better than others (some much better than others), I really don't think of picture-making as a form of competition. And, in additional to that notion and considering my experience as a judge for many juried events/contests (some of both national and international scope), such events really are crap-shoots that are entirely dependent upon the personal biases of any given judge. Hopefully, those biases are informed biases based on knowledge of the medium and its history but ....

civilized ku # 675 ~ constructing and living in a fantasy world

Godzilla vs the army • click to embiggenOn yesterday's entry, Anil Rao stated:

Your explanation of what works for you sounds perfectly reasonable to me. What baffles me, however, is your reluctance to accept what might work for you may not work for someone else and vice-versa.

I have absolutely no issue with those whom your categorize as "light chasers." They are doing what they think is right for their photography, just like you do what you think is right for your photography.

As I have stated many times, I have no problem with anyone pursuing their own path with their picturing making. In fact, I wouldn't have it any other way. However, that notion does not preclude me (or anyone else) from critiquing / criticizing the product that results from that pursuit. Unless one keeps their pictures in a hidden place where no one can see it - No man lighteth a candle, and putteth it in a hidden place, nor under a bushel; but upon a candlestick, that they that come in, may see the light. The light of thy body is thy eye. Luke 11:33-36 - it is fair game for critique and criticism.

That said, and as I have stated many times, IMO (and that of many others), the "light chasers" of the picturing world are constructing a false idol that a non-thinking and somewhat gullible public accepts as the true state of the natural world. In a world that increasingly values perception over fact, I don't think building false idols is a very constructive thing to do. In fact, I believe it to be entirely antithetical to the very notion they all claim to be pursuing - an appreciation for the natural world and the idea of conservation of the same.

If light-chasers - who, rather than seeking out the "spirit of fact", assume the role of God's art director making His immanence unequivocal and protrusive (Sally Eauclaire, from the new color photography, Abbeville Press, 1981) - would just stick to the facts rather burdening their picturesque subject matter with ever coarser effects, I might just be a bit more tolerant of their work. However, wretched excess in matters photographic - "pumped up" and exaggerated color, contrast, sauturation - are the order of their day.

On another level, that of "following their own path", I am critical of most of their work because it is utterly lacking in original thought or approach. In fact, most of it is highly imitative of the standard ain't-nature-grand MO of making nature / landscape pictures. Rather than pursuing their individual paths, they all seem to be on exactly the same path - geographically as well as aesthetically - following in the tripod imprints of a few picture making "experts", all the while turning every location on the planet into the same generic standard-issue nature picture.

IMO, the words of August Sander were spot on the mark when he opined:

Nothing seemed to me more appropriate than to project an image of our time with absolute fidelity to nature by means of photography ... I hate nothing more than sugary photographs with tricks, poses and effects. So allow me to be honest and tell the truth about our age and its people.

civilized ku # 674 ~ Memento Mori

Kevin ~ my ex-wife's husband • click to embiggenCan you picture life and ignore picturing death?

To be perfectly clear about what I mean by "death", I don't mean "horrific" death by war, disaster, atrocity, or any other form of "horrific" death, all of which have been pictured on a fairly regular basis ever since the inception of photography - I mean just plain old everyday "ordinary" death.

BTW & FYI, the caricature in the picture above is by long-time friend and Landscapist commenter Jimmi Nuffin.

still life # 14 ~ it is what it is

Mason jar with water and flowers • click to embiggenI feel somewhat compelled to explain more fully my feeling about light. That is to say, just light, not "the light".

As I have stated many times, I don't chase the light. If a special / notable / spectacular light - AKA, "the light" - comes my way, I may (or not) make a picture in which "the light" has a prominent and/or featured role. Whether I make a picture or not is most often dependent upon being in the vicinity of an interesting subject which "the light" is illuminating.

That said, light, in and of itself, is one the key ingredients with which we all make pictures. In that sense, light is not unlike a piece of necessary equipment - like a camera, lens, tripod, etc. - that is part of the picture maker's kit. Like your gear, you don't leave home without it.

That said, light is, quite obviously, an obvious visual component in the pictures we make. Bright light, dim light, contrasty (hard) light, flat (soft) light, warm light, cool light, directional (side, front, back) light, mixed light sources - they all help determine both the look and the feel of our pictures. And, to that end, George Eastman was right on the money when he stated - Embrace light. Admire it. Love it. But above all, know light.

If one knows light, one can use it to achieve very specific results when the picture making objective demands it.

Case in point, Mason jar with water and flowers - Part of my objective in making the picture was to accurately portray the primarily muted / faded / soft colors of the decaying flowers. That quality of the subject is what initially caught my eye / attention and is what caused me to want to picture it. However, I also wanted the subject's texture to be part of the visual equation as well.

In order to achieve those results, I used a soft directional (side) light. To create the soft light I was looking for I could have used one of my lightbanks together with my studio strobe lighting equipment. Or, I could have used the artist's classic natural north light - the soft indirect light that comes through a north-facing window. The picturing results, using either light source, would be remarkably similar.

All of that said, for most of my picturing endeavors in which I am merely trying to picture what I see, the light is just light. Therefore, with my picturing objective of picturing what I see firmly planted in my head, the light that I see is always "perfect" for my picturing needs.

medicalscape # 4 ~ always looking

View from hospital window ~ Strong Memorial Hospital - Rochester, NY • click to embiggenPart of my medical experiences inasmuch as I was visiting my former father-in-law who was in the hospital for hip replacement surgery.