Au Sable Point on Lake Champlain • click to embiggenIMO, the worst thing you can do to develop and foster 'vision' is to strive too much for it - to think and fret about it until it turns into a bee in permanent residence your bonnet.

'Vision' can not be coerced, cajoled, bludgeoned or forced into emergence. It tends to flow out of 'natural' acts of doing and being. As an example, I am naturally inquisitive and I like to read - not for just for the sake of gaining knowledge but because I enjoy reading. And, since I am interested in photography, I read a lot about the medium of photography, it's history, it's movements, it's practitioner, it's theory, etc. (virtually nothing about technique). In addition, I do a lot of 'general' reading - theology, philosophy, social and economic theory, environmental topics as well as a heaping dose of fiction.

As an adjunct to reading, I have a sizeable collection of books and periodicals of photography. The collection is not limited to any one genre. In fact, it pretty much runs the gamut of fine-art photographic realms - portraiture, documentary, landscape, nature, experimental and so on.

Add to that, my love of film (movies), especially small (and usually quirky) indie productions, and I guess that you can say that if you are what you eat, my diet is varied and I must be tipping the scales in the upper registers.

Now, all of that makes Jack an 'educated and informed' boy, but, vision-wise, it don't mean jack without a thing called 'desire'. However, I think 'desire' is too polite a word for that trait that one needs to create anything of better than average value. A much more accurate word is, 'obsession'.

If one is not literally obsessed with the act of picturing then forget developing a 'vision' that will be of any real consequence (to anyone other than oneself) in the broader world of art. And, if that obsession is not accompanied by the ability to take a punch - to take direct and often harsh criticism (some of it self-generated), then, as the saying goes, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen (A caveat regarding 'criticism'. I don't mean criticism of the how I would have done it variety, because that is utterly useless and ultimately destructive in the cause of finding one's vision).

All of that said, good Art is the result (not the act) of expressing one's self and, most often, the greatest obstacle to that act of expressing is the fear of rejection - letting something that is uniquely you all hang out in a rapaciously competitive environment and waiting for the blade to fall.

A putt for birdie on the 390 yard 7th at Adirondack CG • click to embiggenThis was an odd week of Grand Jury duty - 1 full day and 2 days of 1 hour sessions. Yesterday's late afternoon 1 hour session was the last bit of a messy/ugly child sexual molestation case. I hit the street at 4:30PM with the intent of meeting the wife and her mother for a glass of wine, but the day was glorious and, as I walked to the car, I got the urge to walk down a fairway. Fortunately, whether I venture near or far, my golf stuff is always in the car for just such a golf emergency. So, I managed to get in 9 holes before daylight departed the scene, which, around these parts at this time of year, happens at 6:15PM.

When I arrived home, I was surprised to see all the comments on yesterday's entry. Gordon McGregor was quite involved and along the way, he asked some good questions, including this one; "It's also somewhat amusing that everyone continues to talk about the easy to talk about technique and design parts and still little discussion of vision (or how to have them). Mushrooms ? Painful introspection ? Following subconscious urges ? ... It's pretty easy to talk about how you don't do things or what you reject. But what do you do ? How do you do it ?

Sean McCormick had a good answer; "I don't think you can teach that. I think it's something that comes to a person through doing. Sorta like falling in love. One day it's not there and the next day it is. And you know when it is, but it's sure as hell not something you can learn or knowledge that can be applicably transferred to someone else."

And Aaron Hobson also mentioned; "I think it is too personal or too complex to explain for most...I think you would have to peyote trip with me, but even then I wouldn't be making sense."

Both answers make sense to me.

Ghosts, goblins and fresh vegetables and plants. • click to embiggenI received an email a few days ago from Gordon McGregor, who, if I remember correctly, used to call himself a stranger in a strange land, because (again, if I remember correctly) he is a Scotsman living in Texas. That sounds like a sure recipe for culture shock if ever there was one.

In any event, his email was in response to my mention regarding the 'silent' visitors to The Landscapist from The Radiant Vista where it was noted during a forum discussion about Aaron's Cinemascapes, that he was my son and I am not a fan of The Radiant Vista. In his email, Gordon states that; "...I'm also a friend of Craig's, having taken a few workshops with him and also having spent a bit of time with him outside of that sort of environment. He's a talented photographer with a real passion for teaching. That passion and inspirational side of his character comes across strongly in person - I'm not entirely convinced that it comes over at all well in his daily critiques. I know his aim is to try and give back what he's been lucky enough to get on workshops, by doing this - that's the aim - perhaps it gets lost in the execution ... His podcasts do also ramble a bit and the metaphysical leanings can be hard to swallow on occasion, but past that, he is good friend to me, an inspiration to my photography and always seems to find the positive when helping his students, no matter at what level they are at ... In the Daily Critique sense of things, people are actively asking him 'how he would have done it' - they are trying to learn, looking for an opinion, or some direction ... Maybe that isn't a valid way to learn. Perhaps our own vision should appear perfectly formed. Certainly eventually we should learn to reject the suggestions of others and present work, finished, as it is, how we feel it should be. But for the people aspiring to be decorative photographers, or in a more mainstream sense, commercially viable photographers, the guidance of someone who makes his living shooting landscapes to promote environmental awareness or sensitivity, doesn't seem to be a terrible place to start."

First and foremost, I would like to thank Gordon for his earnest and sincere response. He was the only visitor from The Radiant Vista to break the silence and I applaud him for that as well.

Leaving aside my thoughts re: The Radiant Vista and Craig Tanner's sincerity (which I do not doubt), I would like to address Gordon's point about "people are actively asking him 'how he would have done it'", and how that "doesn't seem to be a terrible place to start."

IMO, I think 'that place' is, indeed, a terrible place to start. It has been my experience that most people who start out that way, end up that way - once a follower, aways a follower. To a practitioner in the medium of photography, there are 2 important realms - one quite tangible - technique - and the other, very intangible - the vision thing. Of the 2 realms, technique is of lesser importance and it can be taught quite successfully. The vision thing is far and away the more important thing and, while it can not be taught, it can be fostered and encouraged.

The vision thing is very personal and it must come from within. At its root, it is the result of being your own person, or, put another way, the result of fostering your own individuality. Now, to my way of thinking, fostering your own individuality can not be accomplished by following the crowd - even if the crowd is being lead by a sincere and passionate leader. No matter how you slice it, you still have a ring in your nose and we all know how hard it is to get those things out once they're in there.

Here's the absolute bottom line that most 'teachers' refuse to teach -

a.) Technique/technical-wise, the medium of photography is not rocket science. In fact, it is quite simple. It can be easily learned and 'mastered' by just about anyone - and if it takes you more than 6 months to do it even without a 'teacher', I would recommend pursuing another hobby or profession.

B.) Vision-wise (the 'scarey thing'), it simply can't be taught because, quite frankly, it has nothing to do with photography. Vision is 'simply' (yeh, sure, sure) an outward expression of the inner you. It is 'simply' the ever-evolving manifestation of what you believe and how you live and think. As the sportswriter Red Smith is said to have claimed, "writing (or in our case, photography) is 'easy'. All you do is sit down with a typewriter (or in our case, pick up a camera) and open a vein."

So, my question to you is - how do you 'teach' that?

Bright red leaves and flag • click to embiggenPictures can be put to many uses and made with many intents. IMO, one of the most powerful forms of photographic expression is also the one that involves the least amount of thought and technique to create - the 'family' snapshot. I also think that it is amazing that I find the snapshots of families that I don't know very involving and captivating.

Spend some time with the Basil family (thanks to Joe Reifer) and also browse the pictures over at bighappyfunhouse - found photos. free pie. and let me know what you think.

Rain in the gloaming with street light • click to embiggenIt has been said that Henri Cartier-Bresson said that it doesn't matter if something was in focus ... as long you got the image - something with which I agree for the most part.

This notion about 'focus' is the reason why pictures made with Holgas, fixed-focus Polaroids, Kodak Instamatics, lores digitals, and other so-called 'krappy kameras' tend to work for me. The thing that I like is that the pictures made with these cameras, because of their lack of detail and specificity, become very fertile grounds for rumination and the imagination. 'Meaning' for the observer can be even more personal than it is with straight pictures.

All of which was summed up neatly by a quote from Oliver Culmann of the French photographer's collective Tendance Floue; "The image has a life of its own. Just because you take the image, it doesn't mean it belongs to you. How it is received, how it is distributed - all that stuff - means the image is an object that develops a life apart from you."

... which, IMO, does not in any way negate the notion that a photographer can make pictures with a 'suggested - inferred - implied' meaning or meanings that many observers will 'get' and, for the 'thinking types' amongst them, expand upon.

Remains of the day before • click to embiggenI can't even begin to explain why, when I was retting-up the kitchen this AM and I opened the garbage for the 3rd or 4th time, my immediate and only thought was, 'where's the camera?'.

But it was, so here it is.

I suspect that it has something to do with being easily amused. Or, just maybe, it is somehow related to yesterday's picture. I don't know exactly other than, as they say on the popular photo forums, "I like the color(s).

Can anyone recommend a good analyst?