An autumn view • click to embiggenI was visiting one of the online nature photography forums the other day (what's a day without exaggerated sunshine?) and I came across some pictures made in the Adirondacks.

The picture locations were very close to home. In fact, several pictures were of a location that I regularly pass by on my local travels. Now, understand that the online nature photography forums are in their annual full-blown over-the-top fall color extravaganza mode, but, even considering that, the pictures I encountered were so over the top as to be nearly unrecognizable color-wise - that is, relative to this year's rather subdued color display.

Even understanding that hue/saturation to-the-max is their primary 'thing' - as they say, "it's my 'artistic interpretation' ... ". Interestingly enough, there had been a discussion on the same site, just prior to the fall frenzy, regarding the over-saturation of many of the landscape picture posts and how those pictures inevitably drew the most attention and comments (all favorable). The conclusion seemed to that that was the way to get attention and, why not? - it's all about 'art' not documentation, right?

OK, but what really bugs me is the fact that the pictures are tacitly presented as 'real'. In this particular case, several comments were made about "how beautiful the color is this year ...", and, "we don't have color like that where we are ...". And this from one close-by commenter, "... the color is spectacular ... I'll have to get up there soon ...". The 'tacitly presented as real' part comes in with the response to these comments - no admission or discussion about the fact that the color is just 'artistic expression' and not 'real'.

It seems as though they just just to want to have it both ways.

Is any of this harmful? Is it just harmless fun? Or, is it, as I believe, eco-porn that does a disservice to conservation and environmental awareness?

Aaron's Cinemascapes continue to garner attention from around the world. Today, he got a nice mention on theonlinephotographer and, in a bizarre twist, on 3girlsinparis.com - Le blog d'une nana (The blog of a chick), who is very concerned with fashion and shopping.

Pumpkin and leaves on the front step

mea maxima culpa - Oh, the ignominious irony of it all. Perhaps, in some form of karma, it's all coming back to haunt me -

As I was reading from The Art of the American Snapshot, I came across this; "In addition to camera manuals, Kodak published guides such as Picture Making and Picture Taking (c.1900), The Modern Way to Picture Making (c. 1905), How to Make Good Pictures (from 1912), and Kodakery: A Journal for Amateur photographers (from 1913). Each of these publications provided examples of 'good' photographs, which emphasized images of innocent, carefree, and pretty children as well as leisure pursuits, attractive landscapes, and portraits ... Kodakery included two-page spreads in each issue that showed photographs of these preferred subjects ..."

The well-meaning intent of all of this 'advice' was to "aid the ambitious beginner, and enable him to avoid the most common mistakes incident to the first stages of this interesting study". The actual unintended result of all these rote prescriptions was "'good' photographs [which] are, not surprisingly, stiff, bland, and boring. Not only do they possess none of the humor of the 'bad' photographs, but they have none of their immediacy or authenticity."

So, it appears that right from the very beginning of photography by the masses - and continuing right to this day, photographers were advised to stick to the 'rules' in order to make 'good' photographs.

Most here know what I think about the 'rules' - one-size fits all, cookie-cutter patterns for those who can't think on their own, but, I have a confession to make - for quite a number of years, I thought nothing of accepting assignments from Kodak to make conforming-to-the-rules pictures for their various How to Make Good Pictures guides.

To repeat, Oh, the ignominious irony of it all. To all of those who have been ensnared in the rules of photography and are having a tough time escaping, I'm very sorry. You have my sincere regrets and apology. I was young(er) then and didn't know what I was doing. Maybe my efforts here on The Landscapist will make up in some small way all the damage I may have inflicted.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Hugo, the cat that swallowed the canary • Click to embiggenLast week, I posted this entry about snapshots. Judging by the response - none - it went over like the proverbial lead balloon. Well, I'm not gonna give up that easily ...

Coincidently enough, after I posted that entry, I was across the lake in Burlington, Vt. and I stopped into a bookstore where I found a beautiful book, The Art of the American Snapshot ~ 1888-1978. The book is the catalog from an exhibit of the same name that is currently on view (10/07-12/31) at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC.

From the book sleeve; "The impact of the humble American snapshot has been anything but humble. Any American who takes a snapshot contributes to the compelling and influential genre. Since 1888, when George Eastman introduced the Kodak camera, the snapshot has not only changed everyday American life and memory, it has also changed the history of fine art photography. The distinctive subject matter and visual vocabulary of the American snapshot - its poses, facial expressions, viewpoints, framing, and themes - influenced modernist photographers as they explored spontaneity, objectivity, and new topics and perspectives ... The publication shows that among the countless snapshots taken by American amateurs, some works, through intention or accident, continue to resonate long after their intimate context and original meaning have been lost."

The book is divided into time 4 periods, each with a narrative written by different authors. The text never veers into obtuseiness and it provides an interesting cultural perspective on the pictures from each era. Taken all together, this is very good stuff.

IMO,the pictures themselves make an interesting addition to our discussion here about 'vision' - it is very possible - in fact, IMO, quite probable - to make pictures that 'illustrate and illuminate' when you avoid thinking too much about 'making pictures' (especially the technique of making pictures). Simply pick a near-and-dear subject and, as the saying goes, "Just do it."

As the American artist and teacher Robert Henri stated; "There is no end to the study of technique ..." but "... technique can only be used properly by those who have definite purpose in what they do, and it is only they who invent technique. Otherwise it is the work of parrots."

FYI, and, IMO, this is a must-have book. It is available at a substantial discount - $32.92 ,instead of the cover price of $55 - at Overstock.com - if you go to Overstock.com by clicking here, The Landscapist gets a small piece of the action. When you get to Overstock, click on books, then art, then photography and then just type the book title into the search box.

and, PS I am going to the exhibit. I'll let you know the date just in case anyone would like to hook up.

and, oh yeh ... can you do it? - that is, shoot a snapshot? Or does the thought of doing so scare the crap out of you? Can you even shoot a snapshot with a 'fancy' camera? IMO, if you can't shoot a snapshot, you make good pictures either.

I have created a new gallery labeled the Fall Weekend Gallery which presents the results from this past weekend's picturing activities. I have created the gallery for several purposes.

1. To illustrate the point that if you are obsessed with picturing, you can make pictures everywhere you go. In a sense, it's not what to picture, it's what not to picture. And I don't mean just random point and shoot, I mean pictures worth making - interesting pictures that both illustrate and illuminate.

2. I would genuinely like your opinion(s) on the previous statement re: pictures worth making - interesting pictures that both illustrate and illuminate. Do you think so?

3. To support my claim that (in Paul Maxim words) "... I don't think I'd want to be labeled "obsessive" or "compulsive". Such a photographer would likely just keep taking the same images over and over again. If you've seen one, you've seen them all."

Now, I can't claim to know for certain if many photographers, who make anything of better than average value in the world of Art, are "literally obsessed with the act of picturing', but I do believe that most of them exhibit personality traits that meet at least a minimum definition of 'obsessed'. Furthermore, that the results of that mindset are, indeed, in a very real sense, the 'same images over and over again'.

In the Art world, 'the same images over and over again' is commonly referred to as a body of work that is the result of pursuing, in depth, one's 'vision'. The Art world is not interested in a collection of images that exhibit different styles and techniques - the typical hobbyist 'portfolio'.

This true across the entire field of Art. Calder and Rodin each, in their own individual 'style'/vision, made the 'same' sculpture over and over again. Picasso, Monet and Seurat each, in their own individual 'style'/vision, made the same painting over and over again. In photography, the same can be said of Adams (both Ansel and Robert), Frank, Kenna, Meyerowitz, Evans, et al. In the end, it's why you tell an Evans from an Adams and why both are (to the experienced eye) immediately identifiable upon impact. Some Artists work through different 'periods', but each is distinguished by a particular 'style'/vision.

Many think that my ku pictures (and their variants) have an identifiable style/vision. If this true, I believe that is a result of several 'over and over again' elements -

1. the pictures are united by a common subject - the everyday world in my Adirondack 'neighborhood'.

2. the pictures are made with a very limited range of lenses (primarily a single 11-22mm - 22-44mm 35mm equiv.) and most pictures are made from (my) eye level. For the most part, they have the same visual POV.

3. the pictures have a 'subject centered' composition and the edges of the pictures are seldom 'clean'.

4. the pictures, as the results of items 1, 2 and 3, intentionally mimic the "snapshot' aesthetic. The pictures appear to be the result of somewhat random picturing.

5. the pictures are all the same square format. They exhibit a nearly identical tonal range and color palette and they all have the same corner vignetting. And, of course, there's that black border which is reminiscent of analog darkroom days.

6. the pictures all have the same primary 'connoted' underlying 'message' - that there is beauty to be found everywhere one looks. The "snapshot' aesthetic inference suggests that no fancy tools/techniques are required to see and capture it. It's all there if you will just 'see' it.

So there you have it. Please visit the Fall Weekend Gallery and let me know what you think.

Obsessed with Willeys? • click to embiggenRegarding my statement re: vision and obsession, Paul Maxim opined, "Someone who is such "an educated and informed boy", it seems to me, ought to be able to do a little better with the language. Obsession? Are you kidding? ... As a photographer, I don't think I'd want to be labeled "obsessive" or "compulsive". Such a photographer would likely just keep taking the same images over and over again. If you've seen one, you've seen them all."

'Obsession' does have it's negative connotations, however, I still believe that it is the most accurate discriptor that I know of for artists who are driven to create. To be obsessed - 1. adjective, having or showing excessive or compulsive concern with something; 2. v. intr., To have the mind excessively preoccupied with a single emotion or topic.

It is well known that many people in all manners of human endevours - to name a few, law enforcement, science, business, medical research and, yes, the arts - have been obsessed by, consumed by, driven to do what they do. Many, perhaps most, great advances have been made by those who 'won't let go'. Just ask all the 'victims' - spouses, children, friends, co-workers, et al - of 'obsessively' driven people. Wrecked marriages and relationships are everywhere scattered about the landscape of obsession. It's not a pretty picture.

To be sure, like everything else, there are degrees of obsession. Not all obsessions lead to personal / relationship mayhem. But, suffice it to say, obsession (to be obsessed) goes way beyond the polite notions of 'desire'and 'passion' and many great artists seem to have 'obsessive' personalities.

I liked Steve Durbin's and Sean McCormick's takes on 'obsession':

SD - Can't help but think of George Bernard Shaw: The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

SM - ... Perhaps if you were a diagnosed (albeit high-functioning) schizophrenic you'd understand how an obsession can be turned around so that it becomes the bellows that drives the flames of creativity ...

PS - stay tuned - more later today on '... Such a photographer would likely just keep taking the same images over and over again. If you've seen one, you've seen them all.' hint: ever been to a 'name' photographer photo exhibit - it's the same 'images' over and over again.

The village idiot • click to embiggenEvery small village charter has a mandate that the village have at least one designated village idiot (it has been my experience that some villages go way beyond the minimum). An interesting case in point in my village is one of a local-boy-makes-good type idiot, hereafter referred to as LBMG/I.

It seems that LBMG/I has made quite a bundle as the founder/proprietor of a company that operates in some segment of the health care industry, the net result of which is a net/gross of more money than he knows what to do with. Actually, that's not entirely true - one thing he does know about what to do with too much money is to spend it on quite a number of things that consume petrol. LBMG/I has acquired a fair number of motorized things.

One example is pictured here. Of all of the street vehicles he owns, this is the one he chooses on a Saturday morning to drive the 2 blocks between the local diner and one of his houses
Bigger is better • click to embiggen - most likely the house also pictured here - his primary bachelor residence.

However, in all fairness, it must be said that LBMG/I, in an apparent attempt to mitigate his conspicuous consumption persona, did acquire a piece of derelict property and donate it to the town for $1.00. The town razed the wreck and a group of citizens organized a fundraiser in order to construct the Village Clock (Pocket) Park visible just beyond the Hummer in the above picture. The park is also now the home of the village Xmas tree.