"Less is only more when more is no good."

<p><strong>Arthur - "</strong> Buck Rogers? I certainly hope he wasn't an influence."</p>

<p> He wasn't. He was a symptom of the times, as well as a caveat about human nature trumping technological change.</p>

<p><strong>Arthur - "</strong> The first ten years of the present century have not seen changes like those of the Expressionists, Fauvists, Der Blaue Reiter, Cubists and others, a new artistic enlightenment that Clive and many of us might hope for. We are always in a dynamic flux of change and the benchmark years of change are not easy to predict. The change may be much later."</p>

<p> How could we, and more to the point, why would we have changes like those nowadays? I think the coming changes are here already, but largely undetected. Neophilia on such a grand (modernist) scale is unlikely to be seen again for a long time, and in retrospect, imo, it was absurdist folly after two World Wars, even more so now. Arthur, you have a lot more faith in general, and specifically in Moore's Law than I do. Technology is now clearly outpacing the genotype, but the latter defines the limits to which the former will be used (one of the lessons of Buck Rogers).</p>

<p>China and Australia are showing the future of the web, as its wild-west period draws to a close under austere government regulation with -- Google's assistance and predatory corporate practices flooding the web. The last remnants of the hacker ethic are under siege and running out of water.</p>

<p>______________________________________________</p>

<p> <strong>Fred - </strong> I'm in agreement on the revolution of sites like Flickr/Smugsmug/ Facebook, etc. as the dominant venues for showing and displaying photographs. The sun has set on the print in that regard, though not as the means of privately owning an image, though that, too, is likely to change in the very near future. Many major galleries have shifted to web-only displays and invitation-only shows. Display technology is rapidly shifting, as is color calibration. How long before we have large digital frames instead of prints on our walls? I embrace and applaud all of this. While I value my small collection of prints, and still plan on acquiring more, I find the ongoing shift exciting and welcome.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Arthur for the insight, somehow I could never have imagined you displaying your images this way. It gave me the idea that "reasonableness" maybe easily be the criteria or ideal we are looking for. I may have called it a "kind of democracy" previously out of fear that other words may imply "compromise" which for some reason I've always thought had negative connotations.</p>

<p>The character and space of the old coach house is allowed to co-exist with your work and arguably both are uncompromised, but none of us can really make that assumption without visiting the space.</p>

<p>My own building is a recycled Arts and Crafts style butter factory complete with Guggenheim sloping floor <a href="http://www.cowwarr.com">www.cowwarr.com</a> which my Modernist sensibilites found a little confronting as the strong architectural features gave any contemporary artwork a fair run for its money but what it has taught me is that human beings have a fabulous capacity to switch contexes at will.</p>

<p>This all leads to the idea that as the modernists naively outdid each other in their "less" is more quest, less of less progressively leads to nothing. Inheritant in the process is an inspired use of compromise, reasonable choices, so its never really less or more but the balance somewhere in-between. Now if ever there was artististic dilemma to cope with this is it, as we have to be able to change our view of compromise from meaning cop-out to right, best etc.</p>

<p>The enthusiasm for modernism in the 60's was over the top - I remember a (London) Times article asking us to value and embrace the looks of a Cadillac (more if ever there was more), over the aesthetics of a Rolls Royce (not exactly less). The key to the argument was that the Cadillac was at least based on a modern form of transport - an aircraft, whilst the RR was an interpretation of the Parthenon on wheels and therefore a rediculous anachronism. </p>

<p>The public and contemporary art is always an interesting question, the art-world always uses a slightly naughty perversion of the truth, which uses the case of Impressionism and the length of time that it took for it to be generally accepted, say 30 - 50 years and then extrapolates that all avant-guard, cutting edge contemporary art will take the same length of time before its generally accepted. This should be mean that abstract art is as popular as Impressionism was 50 years ago and Jackson Pollock is accepted as much or more than Van Gogh. It just hasn't and wont happen that way, the public have drawn a distinction between Art (Real Art - Proper Art etc) and Modern Art. (modern and post)</p>

<p>An impressive artspace, Clive. Your sculptures are given ample space, unhindered, thereby allowed to exist on their own. Very intriguing sculpture art, with the facial details (expressions, or your particular design of noses, eyes and and eye sockets) compelling the viewer to look further, to question. The stone headpieces, somewhat reminiscent of ancient Egyptian costumes, give another meaning to the faces and imbue them with a kind of power that I am yet to fully understand.</p>

<p>I do not usually crowd the old couch house space with so many photographs together. They are much better isolated from each other, with good spaces between them. René Taillefer, one of the sculptors who exhibits his smaller wall or floor mounted abstract wood sculptures, has worked with us to exhibit sculptures and photographs in fairly open but interacting groupings, as there is some dialogue between the two forms. As for the couch house, like your restored butter factory space, we are trying to get the Quebec government to classify it, if only to preserve a fragile wooden building of the period. It would be a pleasure to show the building to visitors, as there are some rather rare and interesting architectural elements within the building.</p>

<p>My personal problem is one of concentrating my work into themes and developing themes that have more than a passing interest for me. It may be common to others who also have come later to art and by non specialised education. One aspect of detail that we perhaps haven't discussed is the detail of a particular chosen theme that the photographer or other artist may choose as a sort of approach, to coax out of himself a series of related works. In such cases the simplicity of the choice may have a value that possibly would be lesser had he had chosen a more complex theme.</p>

<p>I understand Fred's point about the importance of embracing the new technology of electronic images. Two dimensional and three dimensional art media have been around for many thousand years and will likely continue, albeit in co-existence with the new monitor images. </p>

<p><strong>Arthur:</strong><br>

<em>My personal problem is one of concentrating my work into themes and developing themes that have more than a passing interest for me. It may be common to others who also have come later to art and by non specialised education. One aspect of detail that we perhaps haven't discussed is the detail of a particular chosen theme that the photographer or other artist may choose as a sort of approach, to coax out of himself a series of related works. In such cases the simplicity of the choice may have a value that possibly would be lesser had he had chosen a more complex theme.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

As you may have noticed on the Cowwarr Art Space site we have artists in residence, our most recent being photgrapher Janina Green </p>

<p><a href="

<p>who not only had a show with us but was also completing a project in our district, we had opportunites to discuss "photography" she works like many other photographers on theme based projects which puzzles me a little but when she said, "Since anyone can take a handsome photograph, subject and context is everything, and so the idea of "project" rears its ugly head," things fell better into place for me.</p>

<p>This is the complete opposite to the way I've always worked - described most simply, I stumbled on an argument that said the main problem with all of the movements in modern art was that they each concentrated on just one aspect of "reality" that intrigued them, so in effect the only way to grasp reality was to put them all together - not practical!</p>

<p>The flash occured when I mumbled, to myself, "the problem with reality is that you can't see it all at once, so reality is like an iceberg with just the tip of it visable" (less is more if ever there was). My first works were simply practical demonstrations of the idea. Basically everything I've ever done has been around that first idea, I'm always on the look out for things that trigger more possiblities. Hence my involvement with your first version of the topic - the expansive version of your gravestone-woman on a bench picture struck me as a very good "iceberg" work. Subsequent postings have just reinforced that.</p>

<p>I'd argue that having a very general idea or philosophy is far more useful than a bolt down hard fully formed point of view. Quite simply because it allows for constant discovery.</p>

<p>I had to go to a 50th birthday party last night and thought that I should take a camera, but I decided against it mainly because I knew that I wouldn't really wind up taking good useful party momento pictures but get seduced by the ghosts of Frank, Friedlander and Weegee + my own ideas of art.</p>

<p>The point being that I don't think people have to think too hard about themes etc as we all seem to have our own underlying philosophy, values, taste, aesthetics and regardless of what we point the camera at we find a way to put our view forward, whether it be supermarket car park or bug. It often pays not to think too much.</p>

<p>All the best Clive</p>

<p><strong>Clive: </strong></p>

<p><em>"I'd argue that having a very general idea or philosophy is far more useful than a bolt down hard fully formed point of view. Quite simply because it allows for constant discovery."</em></p>

<p>I very much like that, insofar only as the idea/philosophy is not overly general or non-focussed, which could risk undertaking a non-beneficial line of search, not recognizing a discovery, or (worse), its significance, or diverging from an approach, aesthetic or communication that feels right for us.</p>

<p>Architecture is a very different field than photography - glib but it seems to be missed by some. You cannot begin to architect or reproduce the vitality and fractal nature of wilderness. A saying architects have that I am fond of: 'god is in the details'...which sums up how I feel about photography; unless you (really and rarely) need a simple expression of a strong central idea. Most times single theme images are just boring and pretentious, like so much B&W, Michael Kenna's work for example. Maybe this is heresy to say so as he is very successful.</p>

<p>FLW reportedly had a photo of the Potala on the wall of his office. Plenty of 'more' in that particular building, which contains 1000 rooms (the Chinese will not permit you to visit many of them) and has not a single nail in its construction; it is made of rammed earth, copper and wood for the most part. Tibetan gompas have this magic layout to them, rooms of all kinds appear to tumble willy-nilly in all directions down the hill - until one views the complexes from a suitable viewing distance, when they exhibit an amazing harmony of asymmetry, as each element supports all others, even if, as in the case of the Potala, they are constructed over the passage of centuries. Quite the antithesis of Judeo-Christian buildings of religious worship, which are so formal and ostentatious.</p>

<p>Can't agree that 'more' is mere clutter or busyness, as depicted in several images above this point. The whole art of images which present high levels of detail is the pleasure they afford the eye, to wander around the frame and gain insights into the visual relationships, shapes, texture and colours on offer. A lot of spare (let's call them that for kindness) images so beloved of p.net's POW editors and so many contributors as well, lack *interest* and do not get anywhere near a pass to the question: could I happily look at this photograph for several years if it hung on my wall?</p>

<p>A Jungian explanation for the 'plain photograph' phenomenon may be that viewers with that preference crave order and control to compensate the often perplexing and certainly complex business of existence. This view may also account for the predominance of 'made photographs' snatched unceremoniously from the landscape because they feature reductionist, recurring, obvious patterns - waves of sand dunes, misty blue hills, rows of trees and the like. I guess it is all good if someone likes it. At this stage, having been a critical contrarian, let me point to a photographer whose work exemplifies the the appeal of detailed photographs - Eliot Porter.</p>

<p>Philip, I don't believe you've been contrarian at all. As a matter of fact, you've articulated much about detail that I fully agree with and think I addressed above. I have said on many occasions that the singular "clean" aesthetic that dominates the POW forum week after endless week shows a limited vision that is stunning for a site like this. I really appreciate your addition to the thread. Thanks.</p>

<p>Philip,</p>

<p>Thanks for showing that other side of the coin, the naturalist/pictorial (if that is the right word) view of photographic purpose/interest. I think I have mentioned before that one of the intriguing things in the "big scene", as in nature, is the difficulty of finding straight lines within it (such as perhaps water falling in a windless environment?). Such complexity, added to the questions of texture, colour, tones, compositional balances, etc., can indeed intrigue the eye and the mind without being "more".</p>

<p>Such photography is not better or worse, but simply different. The photographer's intention at the moment of exposure is what is important</p>

<p>Totally interesting discussion, folks! I'm particularly taken with the use of Wright as a source of wisdom for photography! Hmmm... let me check here for something by Cartier-Bresson on architecture...<br>

Here's something I like from a photographer I admire - Diane Arbus: <em>"A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you the less you know."</em> Does that imply a view of what is "more"... or "less" or, in fact neither. I like Clive's comment that "all seem to have our own underlying philosophy", and, by extension, what defines "more". For my money - and film - it's all about doing what it takes to reach an essential understanding of the what the photographer wants to convey. Cartier-Bresson could show clutter - but it was never "more" - either more than he needed or more than wanted to tell the story. Steichen's view of the Flat Iron Building in the rain is not a clean, crisp architectural investigation, but what element could one safely remove?<br>

For my own tastes I want to eliminate. I want to excise all of the elements that do not contribute to "the story", many times including such "distractions" as color. Someone mentioned wanting lots of confusing elements in order to convey disharmony & chaos. In that case is he actually shooting <em>more...</em> or just enough? (Wow... minimalist clutter... there's a concept!)<br>

In the end I suppose I come down with a fairly minimalist view of photography. For me less probably is more. I don't think leaving a jarring distraction in the background adds to a photo. (And it is certainly avoidable with a little good framing!) Shoot what you want us to know, to see, to feel... anything more is unnecessary for me. Anything less is simply a poor effort. </p>

<p>Wes, Nice contribution and I really appreciate hearing the statement from Arbus. For me, it brings something to the table beyond compositional quantity. She seems to be talking about photographers' revelations, perhaps even impositions: how much (of the secret) I want to reveal, how much specificity I envision, how much ambiguity I might want to leave. I just read Julie's last entry in the Langer/White thread, talking about balance (and imbalance) between intention and accident. There's a similar tightrope the photographer walks between revealing and withholding.</p>

<p>On the matter of color, I have a particular sensitivity and am rarely pleased with the way it's talked about and would like to talk about it a lot more, because it would help me in my own approach to continue to fine tune my thoughts and feelings about it.</p>

<p>I prefer not to begin from a place of seeing it as a distraction. It's as if color, for some reason, has to prove itself in order to be acceptable in a photograph. What's different about color and shades of gray? Do we start out seeing all gray-tones as distractions, assuming that a graphic black and graphic white are the really pure elements, the non-distractions? And, in what way does color actually differ from focus, light, and composition. Why is it not a basic, the <em>removal</em> of which is actually the radical act?</p>

<p>Of course, my initial thought is that it's got nothing to do with color itself and a lot to do with the technology of photography. We started out, historically, not being able to process in color. It seems to me that goes a long way in defining our relationship to it. We got used to black and white being the starting point. I think that's dictated a lot.</p>

<p>Perhaps because I got into photography late in its short history and did not work in a darkroom where black and white was more accessible to most people who processed their own film, I am less prone to see color as an add-on or distraction. I tend to see in color and to consider color as a fundamental, a baseline, which I may strip out if I feel the need or desire, not something I hesitate to include with the assumption that it is prone to be a distraction. Even when I know a photo I'm taking will be converted to black and white, color plays a significant role in my seeing because the absorption and reflection of light and the black and white conversion are so dependent on the color that is there.</p>

<p>I am no more prone to say that black and white is less distracting than color (or "less" than color) than I am to say that a sharp focus is inherently less distracting than a soft or blurry one or that a dark and shadowy content is inherently less distracting than one with sunlight.</p>

<p>Actually, this is probably a good time for a new thread. So I'm going to transfer some of these thoughts and start one.</p>

<p>I like what Wes is hinting at it's neither More nor Less but what is needed to get the job done.</p>

<p>I've often thought that about the best description of how we arrive at the conclusion that something has "quality" is - Firstly you are attracted to it, then you run through a sort check list of the problems that the artist had to address and if all these measure up you've confirmed to yourself that your original decision stands.</p>