What IS it about nature photography?

hey guys, here's a serious question that i'll probably overstate because i overstate everything (including that) but here goes: i have this judgment that there are WAYYY too many people out there taking the same photos over and over and over again, convincing themselves that they're "artists" but fundamentally missing the whole point of art. in short, a huge part of America's photographic scene is in a serious rut.

<p>

sure, shots of aspens and canyon country at sunrise are pretty, but that is ALL they are, and if this were any other art medium (painting, jazz, literature) the people who think that kind of work is "art" would be laughed right out of the game because what they do is so transparently formulaic, un-creative and derivative. All they're really doing is showing that they can competently and precisely copy the work of others. Where is the art in that?

<p>

Painters learn to copy the work of others as an exercise in technique, but in much of photography, copying the work of others seems to be the final goal. It's absurd! Imagine if there were thousands of writers out there who aspired to write books that read exactly like Kurt Vonnegut's novels, or thousands of jazz musicians whose sole goal was to sound exactly like Paul Desmond, or thousands of painters whose work looked EXACTLY like Andrew Wyeth's, so you couldn't even tell whose was what. it's hard to imagine such a scenario in the other art forms, and yet, i believe that's exactly what's going on in photography. You could borrow ten photos from each of a thousand nature photographers, and mix them all up, and you'd have NO IDEA which photographer took which picture because they're all exactly the same.

<p>

what will it take to get the photography community THINKING, working on new, difficult, challenging projects that involve introspection and sophistication, risk, experimentation and failure? there's a wild-ass beautiful universe out there, right in our own cities and backyards, and yet most photographers think they have to go to these few "special" pristine natural places at just the right time to take an artistic photograph. it's the saddest and most ironic thing to see the same old crap year after year being called "art"-- the same hackneyed photos taken at sunrise from the same worn-in tripod holes from the same places in the same national parks, all without an ounce of any of the ingredients that artists from other media would say are the foundations of meaningful art.

<p>

where is the satisfaction in doing that kind of work? why is the photographic community so stuck in this furrow? i think the current situation is worse than the pictorialist movement at the turn of last century, which in retrospect we all look at with a smirk because everyone was doing the same tacky-looking work and no one realized how bad it all was. a hundred years later, here we are repeating history, just with better technology.

<p>

please respond sincerely with whatever thoughts you have to offer, so long as they're well-considered (one-liners from the shooting gallery will not help anyone).

<p>

~chris jordan (Seattle)

<p>

www.chrisjordanphoto.com

Chris:

Several points:

The landscapes I create are mine. The light, the time of year, the

decision when to press the cable release, the particular scene, and

the impulse to set up are my personal decisions.

<p>

I also have a wonderful reason to place myself in areas I consider

beautiful(with all the definitions that can be ascribed to the word)

<p>

Whats wrong with pretty?

<p>

Barry.

You must frequent different galleries than I do or look at the work

of different photographers. Either that or you read a new article or

got a new book for Christmas.

Yes, there is a lot of copying. This is true in any art discipline.

Most of what passes for 'art' is lacking in many ways with few really

creative individuals doing excellent work... as it has always been.

It won't change.

Chris:

<p>

Here are my 2 cents.

<p>

In any artistic medium artists operate at different levels. When

learning a musical instrument, the first pieces are hardly fine art,

but they are to the student. And the simplest melody or photograph,

when well executed, can be appreciated.

<p>

I think we all suffer from failure to appreciate fully that with

which they are most familiar. So the beauty in our backyard goes un-

photographed, while the national park we visit on a trip is new,

exciting, and gets photographed, often, as you imply, from the same

vantage point as every other tourist.

Dan, what really got me to thinking about this was the recent threads

where people ask "where should i go in New York to take photos?"

Jeez, I wanted to grab them and shake them and say "in your own

freaking house!!!!!"

<p>

I suppose you're right that it won't change; i just have the sense

that it COULD. Other artistic media, such as jazz (which i am

familiar with because i am a jazz pianist), operate at a higher level

of excellence than photography, I think because there is a general

creative drive and energy in the jazz community that seems to be

lacking in much of photography. I don't know why though; or maybe i'm

just wrong.

<p>

~cj

I do exactly the kind of photography you describe. For me the

satisfaction is in being in a variety of beautiful places, totally

surrounded by the sights, smells and sounds of nature, and to

create a pretty image which reminds me, and possibly arouses in the

viewer, some of the emotions that the place gave me. It is to

capture as much as possible of this visual excitement. Incidentally,

if the same photograph has been made a million of times (see my

Delicate Arch image), it is somewhat satifying for me to believe that

my image might be among one of the hundreds better ones, for factors

such as composition, perspective, timing, light, and the mere

information density of the 5x7 format. Why is the community stuck

in this furrow ? I suppose a lot of photographers are out there to

please

themselves (and apparently the viewers as well), rather than to

create "art", whatever it is.

Chris:

<p>

Simple answer... people like such images.

<p>

I am looking at retirement communities for my mother, and yesterday

visited an art center at one community where a painting class was

held. Of approximately 30 paintings in the room, about 25 were

scenics of forest paths, lakes, mountains, etc. Not a one was of an

urban street or city scape. And people can paint anything they like.

<p>

For me, I enjoy being in such places, and the photography is the

hobby that gets me there. But people who view and buy my works like

what I capture. People see their own backyards, vacant lots,

buildings, sidewalks, etc everyday. They have to look at that stuff

but they don't have to like it. Ask 100 city dwellers if they would

rather live in Jackson Hole and see what they say.

<p>

I think, experiment and take risks in my job everyday. I shoot

scenics for a hobby, but I think, experiment and take risks there as

well. For me, my LF photography is defined by the shots I don't take.

Many times I will work with a scene for an hour or more, and finally

decide there is nothing new or worthwhile there. So don't assume that

every scenic was some thoughtless snap of the shutter just because

you don't like it.

<p>

I am happy for you to stay in the city and experiment, and leave the

wilderness to the rest of us.

Same photo can NOT be taken over and over again, unless you are using

an auto 35mm shooting out of the window of your tour bus. First and

foremost, photography as an art is a very intense creative process

and experience. It's a form of personal expression. If somebody

happens to like my photo, that's fine. I care less if somebody say

that my photos are just like others' photos. I know that's not true.

Nature is infinite, thus the way to express it.

On the other hand:

<p>

Let's say I take a blue dog teddy bear to all of my locations, and

place it in every shot (ie. blue dog in "The Wave"). Then I make up a

"profound statement" about it.

<p>

Now, I definitely have a "signature style". If anyone else does the

same thing, it is very obvious copying.

<p>

Is it art? Is it just a gimmick?

<p>

It is difficult to develop a unique, recognizable landscape style, and

not make it a gimmick.

<p>

Maybe I should just insist that the prints be hung upside-down.

<p>

This all leads me to another question: is there any landscape

photographer whose work is immediately recognizable, based on style,

content, location, etc? (If there is, then we can all start copying

her/him ;-)

<i>convincing themselves that they're "artists" but fundamentally

missing the whole point of art.</i><p>

You're off to a bad start. There is no point of art. There are as

many points of art as there are artists. I should stop here

because the rest of your question rests on this one issue, but,

like you, I like to overstate things.<P>

<i>are pretty, but that is ALL they are</i><p>

To you (and many others, I admit) perhaps. But I love seeing a

well captured landscape--that's my business. Many are more

that pretty to me. This is because I like being in a beautiful

landscape. I love hiking to distant locations to find something

beautiful, but I never think that I am the first one down the path.

That doesn't stop me from going, however. <p>

<i>Imagine if there were thousands of writers out there who

aspired to write books that read exactly like Kurt Vonnegut's

novels</i><p>

There are<p>

<i> or thousands of jazz musicians whose sole goal was to

sound exactly like Paul Desmond</i><p>

There are. Vonnegut, Desmond, and Wyeth are called geniuses

for a reason. You can't expect that from everyone. There will

always be those who forge ahead and those that follow.

Sometimes those that follow end up outperforming the inovators.

J.S. Bach was considered old fashioned in his day. Fugues were

out, but he kept on writing them and transcended the entire

genre. It doesn't happen every day, but it happens<p>

<i>You could borrow ten photos from each of a thousand nature

photographers, and mix them all up, and you'd have NO IDEA

which photographer took which picture because they're all

exactly the same</i>

Speaking of Bach, how would you do if we played the same

game with trio-sonatas written by baroque composers. Could

you tell ten apart? (most serious musicians couldn't) Does this

mean they are exactly the same? No. They are different but it is

subtle. Does it make them bad art? No. They've lasted centuries

and people still listen to them. If you listen enough you will be

able to tell Handel from Bach, but you will still have trouble with

ten different composers. The same is true in photography--even

nature photography. David Meunch's work looks like David

Muench's work. You can usually pick it out of a line up.<p>

<i>What will it take to get the photography community THINKING,

working on new, difficult, challenging projects that involve

introspection and sophistication, risk, experimentation and

failure?</i>

A community does not do ANY of this. Individuals do. They are

out there doing it as you read. If you look hard enough you will

find inovators in every field. If you don't see good photographers

doing the kind of work you value either you are not looking hard

enough, or you have a unique vision in which case you should

stop complaining and show us.<p>

This subject has been beaten to death. If you don't like the work

others are doing don't look at it and shoot the kind of work you

like.

Michael: As to whether there is a landscape photographer whose work

is immediately recognizable, the answer is yes. Adams, Weston, Brett

Weston, John Sexton, Clyde Butcher, and others. As photographers, we

all see things in a different way. Everyone on this forum could go to

the same site, shoot from the same place, and the pictures will look

different. That is the individual artist, not duplicating because we

are all different mentally.

<p>

Regards,

Hi Chris -

<p>

I'm a fairly conservative, literal-minded guy, and my pictures

reflect this. I'm not likely to do a two-year study of "Sidewalks of

Amerika" or photograph severed Barbie doll heads floating in pickle

brine. For me, art is something I do to relax, and just maybe

produce something that pleases me. I don't know that I want to be

dangerous or edgy or ground-breaking.

<p>

Provacative question, though. Be prepared for lots of warm, roasty

flames!

Not everyone can be a master. It would be a sad world if only

Rubensteion and Horowitz and other legends could play Mozart and

Beethovan. Most people who play the piano do it for their own

enjoyment; they are not professional musicians. The same is true of

photographers. I laugh at those who seek out the (virtual) tripod

holes of St. Ansel in Yosemite, but I've done it and it gives me

great pleasure to compare my vision with his.

Chris:

<p>

When I read your post, I went to your website and viewed your

images. (Good idea to increase those site hits!) After all, with a

blanket condemnation such as yours, I figured that you must certainly

be on the cutting edge of art photography.

<p>

Yet upon viewing your images, (which by the way are very good), I

have to ask you this: Are you the first person to photograph moss

covered trees in the old growth forests of the Pacific N.W.? No?

Then why do YOU take photographs of pretty nature scenes that have

been photographed before. Do your images scream "This photo was

taken by Chris Jordan"? Is this art or another hackneyed

interpretation of nature?

<p>

I suspect that you photograph these scenes because they appeal to

you. Why we photograph what we do is a very personal, and at times,

unexplainable decision -- something inside of us just "clicks." (No

pun intended). We make photographs because there is something that

lies before our eyes that appeals to us and sparks a creative

interst, not because it meets some self serving interpretation of art

ala Susan Sontag. If similar subjects have been photographed before,

so what? If a person draws inspiration from a subject that helps

them to grow in a way perhaps known only to them, who are we to say

that their efforts lack meaning?

"Introspection", "Sophistication" "Risk" "Wild-Ass". Another attempt

to define "Art" and photography with words. Such attempts, while

interesting, will always fail (less than total agreement), as Art and

Photography speak without words in a language all of their own. Kevin

"You could borrow ten photos from each of a thousand nature photographers,

and mix them all up, and you'd have NO IDEA which photographer took which

picture because they're all exactly the same. "

<p>

From 90 percent, yes. But in addition to those already mentioned, Charles

Cramer, Jack Dykinga, Jeff Grandy, Kerik Kouklis, William Neill, Richard

Newman, Rich Seiling...

<p>

I have recordings of "All Blues" in my collection from Miles Davis, Stanley

Clarke, Freddie Hubbard, and Larry Coryell. Each is based on the same theme

Davis wrote 40 years ago, but each has a unique sound and I enjoy listening to

them all. Same with "A Night in Tunisia." Listen to Dizzy Gillispie's original and

compare it with the versions Art Blakey and Randy Weston recorded. They're

each uniquely beautiful.

<p>

As with music, photographic variations on themes carry their own unique

beauty. Frankly, your diatribe says more about you than it does about the

people you are judging.

Hi Chris & All,

<p>

Let me fan the flames, and after 13 days we still have plenty here

in Sydney to share around.

<p>

I have visited your site, Chris, several times in recent months

because I really admire your vision, your choice of subject, your

acceptance of and fascination with your immediate environment.

I find in your photographs inner connections that you must also

bring to your music. Obviously the camera is simply another

instrument to give expression to your thoughts and emotions.

<p>

In response to this no doubt a clamouring chorus will arise

acclaiming the camera as simply an instrument of expression

for them also. On that point they are probably right.

Unfortanately, for the rest of us, the difference with regards many

of the chorus is that they sadly have an inner connection to a

vacuous abyss. They have nothing to say. Nothing of their own at

least. Not that that presents any obstacle to the continuation of

their soporific output .

<p>

By definition, ensuant to its title, this site attracts devotees with a

fascination with the hardware of photography. In fact, very

particular hardware. Pride of possession and the veneration of

the covetted drive much of the dialogue. Photography as a facile

folly and diversion to escape the pressure and humdrum of the

daily round of the over-affluent.

<p>

Twenty-first Century visual hunter-gatherers bivouac in the wild to

celebrate and indulge their primal roots capturing vistas and

tableaux which, whilst numinously charged, are devoid of plot or

intrigue and are, therefore, incapable of denouement. An

inadequate reward to the enlightened viewer - merely the comfort

and security of treading trodden ground.

<p>

Walter Glover

I realize my thoughts may come across as sounding elitist, which has

prompted a lot of defensive responses, but i truly believe that "art"

is NOT something that is reserved for the special few-- EVERYONE has a

unique "vision" inside them, and the only ingredient necessary to

release it is the willingness to show up and take the risk of knowing

the Truth (whatever that is for each person). It's so sad that so few

people are willing to go there, considering the incredibly rich

rewards. But, I'll go away now because I can see that I've offended a

lot of people. Apologies, and peace.

<p>

~cj (Seattle)

Chris, I gotta say I like what you had to say. Not being one to go

on with a lengthy post. I have tasked myself to begin in my own

backyard, literally, and attempt to find beauty. To force myself to

be aware of the poetry around me. Be it my wife and daughter on the

front porch, grape leaves on a fence out back, the way the light

falls on my daughter's swing set. It's all right there under my nose.

I am never, never bored. I bet there are legions of photogs doing

this in their own enviroment everyday. Thanks for your pos

Perhaps you have offended some people, but you also may have made

others think.

So many "Artists"..... so many important sounding words.....<BR>

So many who are "making statements"... "expessions of inner

visions"....<BR>

All so much B.S.

Of the probable thousand readers/posters here there may be an artist

or two lurking - but please gents, let's be honest with ourselves!<BR>

We are, at best, Craftsmen and Technicians of a PROCESS. We enjoy the

PROCESS of photography, and we study and strive to produce a more

technically perfect product, thereby reaffirming our proficiency of

the PROCESS.<BR>

We compare our results with those of the "masters" in an attempt to

validate that proficiency (and all the time and money invested).<BR>

An artist uses whatever tools are necessary to create the product

that reflects "the vision". Whether that be $10,000 worth of computer

gear, a camera - or crayons for that matter - or any combination of

all media available. Because the VISION, the END is the primary goal -

not the PROCESS of arriving there that we are so in love with.

Walter

<p>

How much time did you spend with your Roget's Thesaurus before you

wrote your comments?

<p>

Kevin

Thank you, Matt, for your honest and lucid words. Compared to real

masters of the processus of pictorial expression like van Eyck, van

der Weyden or da Vinci, we cannot even hope to get there and achieve

such intensity, corrupted as we are by today's culture of instant

gratification. In this connection, what a shame that naive avidity to

name oneself "artist", while "artist" is not a self-proclamed status

but a recognition given by the(competent)peers, as somebody once

nicely said.

Look there is only one Michael Jordan, but that does not mean that

there are not many other talented players. If we take Chris's

statements at face value then I guess we should all stop watching

basketball because the rest are not at the same level as Jordan.

There are many "capable" photographers that are masters of the craft,

but once in a while there comes a special "talent" that defines that

generation, as Emile said, there was Da Vinci, there was AA or

Weston. I dont think is a matter of photographing the same places, is

a matter of being in the same places and "seeing" a different thing

that defines that special talent. So unless you are one of those

special people Chris, probably your phtography is as redundant or

boring as ours...

Hasn't it occured to you that our society is really screwed up

artisticlly right now.With the extreame commerciality of all forms

of art and few giants alive or incarnate to lead the way... we end

up with mush most of the time. There is little support in the school

systems and also little or no adult societal support...really no way

for an artist to live cheap anywhere anymore and be and develop

fully and artisticly ... so we suffer.Look what you have to do just

to pay rent...not that these were not always a problem but its

really bad now....and we can clearly see the proof artistically! A

russian friend of mine commented recently that the art and music in

the US is really bland and uninspiring generally.Look at the art and

music and performance idioms of the 1920's through the 60's

here....great creative stuff....nowadays....we have de-volved.We are

asleep...and loving it.Jazz is the greatest musical form to come

along in a really long time but now where are the

Coltranes,Parkers,and other greats that other generations have

created? We dont have any.We have much talent but not any need to

use it.If times get really bad we might have a chance.We need a fire

under our ass.I dont think this society is condusive to much

creativity except in rare circumstances where the artist is

supported one way or another.An artist really has to eat sleep and

drink their art to come up with the goods...how many now can spend

12 to 15 hours a day on this? Not many these days.