The Non-Romanticised Landscape

[m_stephens]

<p>Fred G.,<br /> I am in agreement with all of your first paragraph. I am a part of nature with no special priority. However, I am one of the only parts in Nature that has the opportunity to express intentions beyond survival. That was the <em>intention</em> I was referring to. Man-made objects and artifacts can have a range of intention from absurd to survival. To bring this back to my supposition, a flower is nature's object, a Cornola jug is man's. I don't want to prejudge the value of either based on mere sentiment (or conditioning), but rather by photographic means. In which case I mean form and composition and tone and so on.</p>

<p>To your other point, when I pick up an an old photo at the junk shop down the street (It would be too grandiose by half to call it an antique shop!) I can get very engrossed in it, and be utterly unaware of any meaning it once had to any person - - especially the photographer. Well sure, I could make up my own meaning, but that's meaningless, isn't it? If a photograph has meaning - and I am not saying it does - that meaning can only be in two ways. First, it could be the meaning of the photographer; second it could be a universal meaning. I of course have no particular way to guarantee that I know either one of those. I am really at that point immersed only in the photographic artifact. Which by the way, is very enjoyable.</p>

<p>On this account, I am annoyed (inside) when photographers want to put a paragraph of explanation or meaning with a photograph. If you have to attach words to a photograph, it mutates into a new art form - a story. I am very happy to walk up to a work entitled, 'Untitled 37.' I am only mildly interested in the photographer's meaning, if he had one. There might be a valid exercise in criticism to see if the artist's meaning is manifested in the photograph, but that's not my usual pursuit, because I am not engaged in criticism generally as a scholarly activity.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>M, I understand. Thanks. I, too, tend to be much more interested in photographing urban and man-made environments.</p>

<p>I don't experience photographs simply by what you're suggesting are "photographic means" (e.g., form, composition, tone). There is something much more significant about photographs and photographing, for me, than such elements. When looking at an old family photo of an unknown family, I may not wonder about the particular situation or the photographer's motives or relationship to the people, though I may and would never hesitate to do so. I might not ask what it "means" that the brother is sitting and the sister is standing or if the tree in the background symbolizes something, but I will let that tree, as a tree, speak to me. And I will let the people affect me as people, not as photographic light and shadow and shape. Their expressions will make me feel a certain way, may lead to particular thoughts and musings. Much more will be at play than photographic elements. Human elements will come forward, even regarding non-human subjects. Though I may not think critically or even specifically about all these things as I'm viewing, I am nevertheless aware that elements of time, place, and history will profoundly affect me as I look. I do tend to want stories* and I generally consider content very important to my own photos and to many of the photos I am drawn to.</p>

<p>I think many accompanying titles and statements are ridiculous and counterproductive. Especially when they try to substitute for what an inept photographer can't express in his photograph. And I think many accompanying titles and statements are significant. Whether that creates another medium is not a concern I have. All I know is that pictures that are part of a significant exploration, pictures that are documentary in nature, all kinds of pictures can be enhanced by written information, whether specific and dry, or imaginative and suggestive. Photos exist in a context. They get framed. They are seen on the walls of homes, of small galleries, of big museums, on computer screens. Some are seen side by side with others. Some stand alone. A good accompanying statement or essay is simply another means of presentation and often simply the providing of another context in which to view them. There will always be a context, so why not a written one?</p>

<p>_________________<br>

*Here, I am referring to visual stories, stories in the photographs.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I find that the flaw in the OP question, and in much of the discussion, is that the words romantic and romanticize are used in the wrong manner, that is, in a way of identifying beauty and nature and our natural compliance with that. I think that romantic or romantism is more a question of imagination, drama and emotions and not the simple enunciation of beauty.</p>

<p>There is nothing exclusive I think in nature making us imagine any more or provide any more drama and emotions than those we can find in man made suroundings and activities. Beauty is incidental to that appreciation, or at most secondary. In fact, what man has made (poetry, buildings, cities, floating vessels, art, human activity, etc.) has probably more potential to evoke the romantic aspects of imagination, idealism, drama and emotion than nature's beauty.</p>

[jtk]

<p>It's my habit to read words and partial words when they're in the image. That applies to "natural" scenes and urban scenes. Its easier to see them in similar terms when they have no words, or when they both have equally significant words. Many photographers are interested in the implications of the words they photograph, so I tend to look for those implications. They're often jokes or some sort of commentary.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>I think it's a smaller audience that will appreciate the phone pole as well as the mountain view. Too many photo observers are shallow and undeveloped in their viewpoint. (I think Matt makes a great point as well.) For me man made cityscapes are appreciated as much as natural scenic views.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>I'll answer for myself "why commonly admired beauty in landscapes becomes 'pittoresque' cliché beauty when painted on a canvas - or shot as photos."<br>

Because it's easy. And it's been done.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Would your recommendation be to avoid eating tasty food and sleeping with attractive people because "it's easy and it's been done"? Should we restrict ourselves from leaving the house when the weather is pleasant in favor of times when being outdoors is decidedly uncomfortable?</p>

<p>That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.</p>

<p>Which objective is more challenging? To cook a flavorful meal that has never been created previously? Or to combine ingredients to create a unique but foul-tasting concoction?</p>

<p>If one's sole objective is to create something unique, stick a few household items into a pile of dog dirt and shoot away. The image will be new and somewhat challenging to the senses and the intellect. But one can create something that is unique and at the same time uniquely beautiful. The rub is that it will take more work than the enhanced dog crap photo. The photographer will have to go out into the world and explore until they find an interpretation of a beautiful place that has yet to be photographed (of photographed in that particular way).</p>

<p>We don't have to avoid beauty because "it's been done." As an alternative, we can discover and compose the vast reserves of beauty that lie waiting to be discovered.</p>

 

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't experience photographs simply by what you're suggesting are "photographic means" (e.g., form, composition, tone). <br>

I am nevertheless aware that elements of time, place, and history will profoundly affect me as I look.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think we would all agree on this and follow <strong>Fred</strong> in his well written text on what affects him when looking at photos. I would however, from own experience and interest, argue that also "form, composition and tone" have their unique "stories" to tell. After all, in citylandscapes such forms, compositions and tones are manmade and tell extensive stories of those that have conceived the space and those that have lived, or live, and marked the space. As photographer we frame and compose such scenes to catch the significant about the place. Sometimes people would be present in such shots but often, the physical space tells the story all by itself. <br>

I agree very much with <strong>John</strong> on the importance of "words or partial words" in photos. Personally I would often see such words and their "meaning" as I read poems in Chinese/Japanese ancient paintings. Words and pictures come together. A very simple and even simplistic example, you can find <a href="../photo/12904596&size=lg">here</a>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If one's sole objective is to create something unique</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Dan</strong>, as far as I see it, not all of us just reproduce pleasant views in photography, you included. We all, each in our way, shoot "our way" of seeing something - this being pretty or ugly or, as mostly, in between. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Dan, it's funny you should ask.</p>

<p>First off, I wasn't making a recommendation. I was talking about what works for me and why. Notice that the first words of mine you quoted were <em>"I'll answer for myself."</em></p>

<p>As for "attractive people," I think I know what you mean by that. Abercrombie and Fitch type looks? (That's just one example.) Been there, done that. They are often not nearly as fun in bed as some less "attractive people" I've been with. What can I tell you?</p>

<p>Food, on the other hand, I have pretty generic tastes. Gave up salty stuff a while back and got my blood pressure back to normal. The main challenge I have with food is actually experiencing the taste, especially of a lot of vegetables, without added salt and fat. Make a lot of no-salt soups which others wouldn't like very much but I've learned to appreciate the actual green taste of a lot of veggies without ornamentation. Another food challenge is that I can really get into heavily spicy stuff which can almost act like a drug. It's not necessarily "pleasant" to eat but it's an experience.</p>

<p>You really hit the spot with your question about weather. And it relates back to M's OP about natural beauty. We've had a really rainy, windy, and cold March here. About double the rainfall as usual and unseasonably cold weather. Along with my low salt, I've been trying to get exercise by taking long walks up and down the San Francisco hills, sometimes up to 7 miles a day, which pretty much gets me from one end of the city to the other. I've actually started to be OK with doing it even on the nastiest of days. I put on my rain gear, put my hood over my head, get on my waterproof shoes, and go for it. I enjoy doing it on nice days, don't get me wrong. But there is something kind of cool and challenging about walking uphill while wet, and against the wind. I really do experience the elements . . . nature! Not the sunsetty landscapy beachy kind of nature. The kind of nature that hits you right in the face.</p>

<p>Thanks for asking. They all seem to be amazingly pertinent questions for me right now. Almost as if you know me.</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>Most landscape painters and photographers don't do that. They rely on the ease of counting on the fact that most people already see beauty in landscapes, so they don't usually add a personal or unique vision . . . They accept the beauty given them rather than ask things of that beauty and that landscape . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I were to re-word Fred's statement slightly, I would tend to agree. <em>"Most [casual] photographers don't do that. They rely on the ease of counting on the fact that most people already see beauty in landscapes, so they don't usually add a personal or unique vision . . . "</em></p>

<p>The "sunset." It's an easy target. It happens once every 24 hours (twice, if you count the sunrise). It typically has generous gradients of "pretty" colors, often colors with hugely intensified chrominance values. There's also a built-in point of interest: the sun. It's an "easy" shot. Many (though, I doubt few here), seem to prefer to put both the sun, and the horizon, dead-center. More learned shooters may even add a neutral-density grad . . . to make the colors and the gradients even "prettier." Before digital post-production became common, perhaps even a "tobacco" filter.</p>

<p>I like a cool shot of a decrepit urban parking lot as much as the next latté-drinker. And a properly exposed sunset, with its contrast ratio adeptly tamed, with an included point of interest (not the sun), also often garners my attention. Certainly, both types of "landscapes" can easily fall victim to cliché. Personally, I'm trying to put the two together. The "contrast" trick. Put the "pretty" with the "ugly." Tonight, I went to shoot some "pretty." Still working on the "ugly."</p>

[studio460]

<p>I said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, I'm trying to put the two together. The "contrast" trick. Put the "pretty" with the "ugly."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I know. Also cliché.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Tonight, I went to shoot some "pretty." Still working on the "ugly."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wait. I might've had that backwards. I think I shot "ugly." Later, I'm going to combine it with "pretty." Actually, now that I think about it, it was merely a "prettified" urban landscape. But the night before, I shot an urban landscape that was "ugly." Wait. Ugly is the wrong word. It was merely industrial, utilitarian, and made mostly of concrete. I know that I certainly tend to be more attracted to urban landscapes. Especially, modern ones (although I also tend to like that "kitsch-ey" landscape-ey stuff too--I don't shoot any of it myself, but I've enjoyed others' work in this vein). But, of course, I'm looking for more than just a pleasing composition which merely frames some modern architecture under a "pretty" sky. What is that "more?" Is it merely placing a subject in some compositionally ideal spot within the scene, in the midst of performing either a natural or unnatural action? Ideally, wearing that "red sweater," or holding that "yellow umbrella?"</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Luis, M.,<br>

Sorry to reply late to your responses; I'm in a different timezone :-)</p>

<p>Luis, Agreed with your notion that we get desensitised to our direct surroundings. I think we're on the same page there: part of the reason why we stop perceiving it, is because we're too used to it. Finding the beauty of your own backyard seems to be much harder.<br>

I think I am lucky that I changed surrounding from grey rainy northern Europe (which has a beauty of its own), to sunny south. I can immensely enjoy my surroundings, but I'm still sensitive to them. Though, I think I was sensitive also to the grey north (the light there, however, is not a photographer's dream).<br>

On the second part, we disagree, I think. I must note, there are different reactions in a way. The beautiful sunset is just "oooh, aaah, pretty, nice"; but they do not stay with me <em>as photos</em>. I see their merit only as memory-trigger. Other photos stay with me and trigger responses all the same, but more thoughtful, conscious and more profound. The difference between the content of the photo, and the photo itself, probably.</p>

<p>M, I much agree with your response to my post, though the 'hard-wired' part in my view is very small; in my view really most of our behaviour is conditioned.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Conditioning is bound to produce narrowing of the culture, however.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and no. If it was really like that, we would never have seen different schools in arts. People do break out of their cages, also as part of survival. I'd say the conditioning creates a 'shared' foundation, but we're still going to build on that and extend.</p>

<p>The rest of the discussion is interesting, but I'll have to read it again to re-join.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Reading this statement of M's</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"To bring this back to my supposition, a flower is nature's object, a Cornola jug is man's. I don't want to prejudge the value of either based on mere sentiment (or conditioning), but rather by photographic means. In which case I mean form and composition and tone and so on."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>made me think of the photograph of Weston's <a href="http://thatboard.tumblr.com/post/3115767194/edward-weston">toilet</a> and wonder if that is what M is suggesting. But Weston's toilet was "romanticized" and I got more of a sense that we were trying to differentiate between, to use other words, a lush, organic image (sand dunes in the OP) versus maybe a more objective, stark view of man-made objects (other OP image).</p>

<p>These words I quote above and the images posted in the OP seem to be a bit at odds possibly--at least in how I read them at the opening given the examples. The dunes seem more subjectively made whereas the street scene is more objectively done. Compare <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://theworldsbestever.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/EDWARD-BURTYNSKY-tire-pile-500x386.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.theworldsbestever.com/category/picture-of-the-day/page/10/&usg=__6LF-2l1F5oW-3sa5bO0JM6QMvUM=&h=386&w=500&sz=72&hl=en&start=157&sig2=GbgI1kIGKGZ4d3zT4Y_n1g&zoom=1&tbnid=VVkiOsVMS2z4QM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=168&ei=RwufTfv3LYautwfyrOH6Ag&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dedward%2Bburtynsky%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DEnr%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1740%26bih%3D1032%26tbm%3Disch0%2C2320&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=416&vpy=661&dur=1336&hovh=197&hovw=256&tx=156&ty=109&oei=IAufTfvaDYuy0QGawMyIBQ&page=4&ndsp=55&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:157&biw=1740&bih=1032">Burtynsky's work(pop-up image of tires)</a> which has been very much romanticized IMO to this of <a href="http://www.artnet.com/artwork/424943228/dead-palms-partially-uprooted-ontario-california.html">Robert Adams</a><code> which is much more of an "objective/detached" view. I see these two images as depicting similar aesthetics to the original images posted in the OP--but flopped--romanticized man made versus objectified landscape.</code></p>

<p>In any case, there were other things I was going to comment on and then realized that I am, at this point, a bit confused as to what we are discussing. I see the Weston or the Burtynsky as much more closely tied, and approachable, to landscape images like the Dune posted in the OP than I see Robert Adams actual landscape.</p>

<ul>

</ul>

[aplumpton]

<p>In reading the responses I find it very interesting that this topic has come down to a well known discussion of pretty picture versus ugly picture and mostly divorced from the meaning of romantic or romanticised of the OP which implies that the scene, and the human perception and photographic re-creation of it, have more to do with imagination, idealism, drama and emotions. I don't think that the oohs and aahs of a sunset are necessarily revealing of anything romantic than the coldstares that might accompany an image of an old world war 2 concrete bunker are an indication of the opposite.</p>

<p>Pretty versus ugly may be fine at the Walmart picture counter, but do you think they are the most relevant in a philosophical discussion of the romantic in photography?</p>

<p>To put the argument in perspective: There is no less romantic in a Goya scene of a firing squad massacre of rebels in Spain than in a Gainsborough painting of a bucolic landscape in rural England. The Goya scene is a gripping, romantic one. If this discussion was on a much simpler topic as "is there as much beauty in nature as in manmade surroundings" I might appreciate some of the reasons that have been well proposed on that subject. (I have just read John A's last post and am glad that the nature of the value romantic is finding some place in the discussion).</p>

<p>It is interesting that the drama and emotion and the evoking of imagination in some urban street shots or human events have not been invoked at all in this discussion in defense of the romantic in the manmade sector. Again, it's the probable consequence of a concentration on simple beauty versus ugly, rather than the meaning of romantic or romanticized. The photos of Burtynsky in a marble quarry (Vermont, Portugal, I forget) depicting the smallness of man (the workers) in a magnificent manmade structure not intentionally made with any architectural aim comprising beauty (the visual effect of huge symmetrical and alabaster-like cut quarry walls) prey as much on the imagination and sense of visual drama in the mind of the viewer as any natural phenomenon.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>If a person gets a camera tomorrow, it's likely the first things out of that camera will be the hoary list of what we are calling clichés. Now we have introduced relativity, and that's one of the reasons natural landscape (romantic or not) becomes the standard. I have never known anyone with a new camera that didn't try to shoot the beachy sunset. They may very well know it is a cliché, but it is a challenge and prize to them in spite of that knowledge. Bagging your first buck and all that.</p>

<p>By now, there is a long list of clichés. One can either work through them directly, or attempt to bypass them all. Now it depends on the purpose of the artist. Making expressions for self-consumption? Or making them for the approval and satisfaction of others? For sure, if you are making a photograph for an exhibition of some sort, you learn to avoid the clichés right off. If making them for your self, you are the only judge of cliché.</p>

<p>How many people with cameras then work through the pile of clichés, experience boredom or exhaustion, and began hunting the unique? No doubt a small fraction. Does appreciation heap rewards on the well executed cliché, or the less competent but more unique and rare? Which was made by an artist, and which by a craftsman? It is said that every Frank Lloyd Wright house ever built leaks when it rains.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p><em>"Does appreciation heap rewards on the well executed cliché, or the less competent but more unique and rare?"</em></p>

<p>I think you are somewhat diverted from your original OP question of romantic imagery, m.s., but if it is the simple question of pretty versus ugly, "à la Walmart photo counter", then the great majority of people will of course choose the clichéd image.</p>

<p>If it is a question of art and the trained eye (mind) of a viewer, then the unique prevails. Craftsmanship is but a part of the path of its realisation, but not the creation itself.</p>

<p>How about getting back to discussing romantic imagery and whether you think that non natural subjects allow that, rather than preoccupying oneself with clichés?</p>

<p>I, as one interested viewer, certainly have seen much drama, imagination, idealism and emotion in images based upon the manmade world. Nature's connection to us may have given us some of the tools to appreciate that, but is hardly exclusive as subject matter for romantic expression.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>To me, cliche has more to do with being predictable than the subject itself, although certain subjects, like sunsets, have certainly become such intense cliche fodder that finding something original would certainly be more than just taxing.</p>

<p>"Does appreciation heap rewards on the well executed cliché, or the less competent but more unique and rare?"</p>

<p>I think competence plays a big part regardless, however, to your question, who is the audience? I think the group of people commenting here is going to likely react differently than the masses on photo sharing sites to well thought out original work. I think it was Fred who got taken to task for generalizing about such things(not going to go look as it doesn't matter) but if you just look outside the philosophy forum you would realize it isn't generalization. Certainly, there are people among the masses that "see" beyond the rudimentary, but give the masses pretty colors or shiny things and you are a great photographer!</p>

<p>(writing while Arthur posted--but yea, what he said!)</p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Another way of seeing it, instead of romanticised vs non-romanticised, is traditional vs non-traditional. This is largely dependent on context and when the non-traditional is preferred or even expected, than that becomes traditional. Which is why I would love to have or see an exhibition with nothing but sunsets in it, and they may even be pretty. It wouldn't seem so, but it would mean being ahead of the curve, if it's done intentional. It's about language, and about what you want to say, rather than only show.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Art and craft seem inextricably linked. Art can be used as an excuse for lack of craft. I don't like that. It cheapens art. There's a lot more artistry in a fair amount of craft than in much of what people refer to as art. If art is anything someone wants to call art, I vote for craft. A creative vision doesn't require a dismissal or overriding of what can appear to be the drudgeries of craft (practice, hard work, experimentation, learning). Art may be the relationship one develops with practice, hard work, experimentation, and learning, a relationship that then brings one beyond them. One can't transcend craft without attending to it, just like one can't transcend the particular or the personal without living it first.</p>

<p>Is it appreciation that I seek? Sure, on some level. But it's dissatisfaction that can often drive me. It's the working out of a problem, the messiness of the road ahead, the unknowns I encounter that motivate me. Incompetence could as easily be looked at as possibility/potential. We are not dead yet, so incompetence may be just the glass half full. Or we just may be lousy at what we do. We'll never know unless we try, will we?</p>

<p>I've seen many viewers react to my work with a lack of appreciation (even those who claim otherwise to spare my feelings.) That may tell me my work is in the ballpark of where I want it to be. Often a strong reaction (either negative or positive) is more telling than one of appreciation. I take into account the tone of the reaction, the content of it, the unusualness of it, the strength of it, the direction of it. Again, for me, it's often about sharing.</p>

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p>Anders, could an articulate, "unscholared" Al Jazeera photographer respond interestingly, in a worthwhile way, to Monet's paintings? Is it necessary for him (or you) to wade through scholarship in order to enjoy unfamiliar works?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John if he "waded" through it, lets just forget about it with or without his experience in Al Jazeera. Ok ?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anders, "perceptually" means something to English-speaking photographers </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is no secrete to foreigners neither, but thanks anyway.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think resorting to scholarly references before sharing one's own responses, puts the cart before the horse.T</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's where we differ John and we have been there before. There is a difference between "sensation", "perception" and "understanding" - in that order, they are increasingly influenced by learning.<br>

I don't see a hierarchy to be respected and why expressions on sensations or for that sake on perception comes before understanding. For me they come together and I prefer to communicate on all aspects of the appreciating of a work of art. You can indeed have sensations when you look at works of Cézanne, but personally I would be less interested in reading about them - unless my interrest is on John and not the work in question.<br>

However, as mentioned, I do find scholared texts on works of art, whether they express personal perceptions or provide elements of understanding, more interesting to read than most formulations of "sensations" that I fall on. Describing sensations and communicate perceptions demand skills that most of us do not master to perfection. Some scholars do, however. But as mentioned this is my professional hangup, that I hope you will accept. (I'm just reading the collected writings of Barnett Newman, which is a good example of a "scholared" artist with great writing skills, although with little formal higher education, apart from some years "wading" through philosophy courses).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The "coherence" you see "over the lifetimes" of these painters is presumably "scholared." Yes?<br>

What would you say if someone "scholared" you about the disconnects and surprises in Cezanne's work?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That "someone" could be me ! Surely you are right and even more right if the question is on Picasso or Gaugain, but the subject matter was chosen by you with a somewhat extreme formulation that we should talk about the works of Cézanne and not Cézanne. I have difficulties of separating "them". Not a very needed debate, in my eyes.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Anders, I'm not sure Picasso painted for people who were "scholared." Are you sure of that? </p>

<p><em>"..I do find scholared texts on works of art, whether they express personal perceptions or provide elements of understanding, more interesting to read than most formulations of "sensations" that I fall on." </em> ...Anders.</p>

<p>I don't know what you mean by "fall on." If you find your readings more interesting than your own perceptions (you call them "sensations") that's fine with me. I find that most of your posts are brilliant, though we don't always "agree."</p>

<p>Nothing wrong with excellent scholarship, but sometimes scholarship gets in the way of experience, particularly with art. If they were competent in art would they write about it or do it?</p>

<p>My guess is that a painter from ancient China (if you'd prefer that to Al Jazeera) could appreciate most photography (speak about it) as interestingly as most photographers. </p>

<p>What's your thinking on that? </p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>m stephens original questions were very clear, well expressed. I think he associated nature with a certain kind of beauty and asked how that related that to urban scenes...</p>

<p>He provided two photos, one of them highly verbal...maybe not a good image for exploring his point because the letters raise an issue all their own.</p>

<p>"nature" has few right angles, human constructions have many. That's one difference. Some would say curves are pleasant, angles unpleasant...though down below there's a beautiful Ellis Vener photo of a very angular silken Japanese umbrella that might invalidate that idea.</p>

<p>We construct most human environments for our utility, which tends to be obvious in the look. Nature's utility is arguably to itself and may not as clearly address human needs, so not as easy to dismiss as more of the same (just another Walmart, just another rowboat). </p>

<p> </p>

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p>Anders, I'm not sure Picasso painted for people who were "scholared." Are you sure of that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Picasso painted for those that were willing to buy his production at ever increasing prices. Only his ceramics were intended for a general public. He painted mostly for himself, by the way.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> If they were competent in art would they write about it or do it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Both, if they have the skills, Cézanne and Picasso did not, but Mondrian, Newman and Rothko surely did, to mention just those. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>My guess is that a painter from ancient China (if you'd prefer that to Al Jazeera) could appreciate most photography (speak about it) as interestingly as most photographers. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It does not happen often, but there you are dead wrong. The idealistic Chinese landscapes paintings are all, when they are good, beyond reality - and they come with poems. Our photographies are not getting anywhere near such works - in my eyes. In fact the romantic landscapes could be said to have taken some steps towards the Chinese ideals. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I find that most of your posts are brilliant</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You make me laugh !</p>

[jtk]

<p>Anders, The sparks from your sometimes-internally-conflicted ideas (as above regarding Picasso) may account for your brilliance, standing out as they do against the leaden authority you evoke as foundation against which they play. :-)</p>

 

[m_stephens]

<p>Arthur Plumpton,<br>

Yes, you caught me going off track regarding cliched images,which have nothing to do with my OP. My original question was admittedly hard to phrase clearly. Let me try again.</p>

 

<ol>

<li>The two images are not exact, only approximations of my point - so use them loosely relative to my question. The first is a generic nature photograph and the second is a man-scape. </li>

<li>My hypothesis is that people are conditioned by romantic notions to see nature landscapes as having more intrinsic value than man-scapes. And, that this conditioning isn't based on merits of form and composition so much as the (knee-jerk) simplistic romantic notion that "nature" trumps "man." I regard this as an irrational bias when applied to photography. </li>

<li>So, a typical observation is that a mundanely executed nature landscape is rewarded more highly than a finely crafted (well-executed, conceived) man-scape. </li>

</ol>

<p>Now, as to audience, I may not have expressed it very clearly. Sure, the guy picking up prints at Wal-Mart (general public) wouldn't be expected to care much about photographic criteria, execution, schools of art, and all the rest. And just as surely, the legitimate photography critic would always be on the make for new expressions, movement, and technique. So, that leaves a middle territory - and that's the one I had in mind when asking the questions. The middle territory is photo-savvy to a wide range of levels. People who are taking photographs beyond the purpose of sending baby pics to grandma.</p>

<p>Even though there were a few tracks here, it was informative none the less. I can't say I was looking for a definitive answer as much as to hear the thoughts of experienced photographers. My apologies to anyone I confused.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_a5]

<p>I don't think the hypothesis holds if you sample the beautiful cityscapes that are available out there. Your original photographs are night and day as they represents different ways of presenting a subject. Present a cityscape in a similar way to a beautifully crafted, romanticized landscape and I don't know that there would be a difference in people's reactions--It is well documented that easterners are more receptive to urban and street photography versus westerners(related to the US). But a mundane natural landscape as compared to this romanticized cityscape, the latter would probably win out. However, if you are talking about the work in the cities in the style of Shore, Sternfeld, Baltz and the like, certainly, the mundane landscape is going to probably rule out over what would be considered, by many, less than mundane cityscapes for many of the reasons already enumerated here.</p>