The Non-Romanticised Landscape

[Norma Desmond]

<p>M, I'm sure there are some interesting comparisons to be made between landscapes and manscapes. I'd like to tackle a different angle, if you don't mind, which is the photographer-audience relationship, which I don't see as passive. I hope that my photographs will affect and have influence upon viewers. So I can appreciate an understanding of those viewers (at least a loose one) but some of that is so that I have more information on various effects I may have on them. Beauty, and especially superficial beauty (attractiveness), pertains to more than just landscapes and manscapes. It pertains to people and portraits as well. Dan brought up "attractiveness" and I was honest in my answer to him. I try also to be honest in my portraits. And I hope to change notions of attractiveness or at least provoke thought about it with some of the photographing I do. (I have certainly provoked myself at times.) I care about my subjects and viewers to the extent that I want to introduce them to each other, beyond superficial notions of beauty or attractiveness. Photographers can be responsive and proactive in terms of viewers. They can show, tell, teach, influence, react, move, and elicit responses. They have some control but it's obviously not complete. The myopia of an audience can be a great challenge for the photographer who is committed to expanding horizons, whether it be regarding people, places, things, or something else.</p>

<p>By the way, this is where I think well-chosen words and accompanying essays can help a lot. There's nothing wrong with explaining to an audience what there is to be seen, opening them up to actually learning how to see, especially an audience which is lacking in those skills.</p>

<p>Here in San Francisco, we have a great symphony orchestra conductor, Michael Tilson Thomas. Unusual for conductors, he will often face the audience at the beginning of a piece and talk a little about it. Audiences love it and learn from it. It has never detracted from the music itself once the music starts. He's a real gem, Tilson Thomas is.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Fred G.,<br>

Please feel free to tackle anything without regard to my account. The whole discussion has been fine for me. And, your attempts to change attractiveness relate to my experiment anyway. It could be just as true for portraiture as land/man-scapes. I do 90% street photography. In this way I meet a lot of people on the street - some are "street people" and some are not. As opposed to anonymous photography in the street, I like to stop people, talk to them, and then photograph them. My basis surely isn't attractiveness. I try to get an honest portrait that reflects what I have learned about the person.</p>

<p>Having in the past lived in SF, and having season tickets for years to the SF Opera, I have been to a few MTT concerts, and benefited from those introductions he does. Might have been 1999 or so, I was so pleased when the first thing he said was "Please turn off your cell-phones, pagers and gadgets - there are so many delicious quiet passages I don't want you to miss them."</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p><a href="http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/andy-goldsworthys-rivers-tides/">Rivers & Tides</a></p>

 

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>My apologies to anyone I confused.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I understood what you meant. No apology necessary.</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>My apologies to anyone I confused.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I understood what you meant. No apology necessary.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>The talks to the audience before concerts is great and perhaps would be usefully adopted more often in presenting art and photographic exhibitions (a variant of the presentations at opening shows). Kent Nagamo, formerly conductor in California and successor to Charles Dutoit, does it often as head of the OSM (Montreal Symphony - his recent tribute to Japan, complemented by presentatiions from Quebec writers and poets was a bit different, but along the same lines, as their texts complemented Shubert's Unfinished Symphony), as well as Yoav Talmi for the OSQ (Quebec Symphony) who often spends a half hour to an hour before a concert to speak about the music to be played.</p>

<p>I attended a concert tonight by the "Violons du Roi", the now venerable Quebec City chamber orchestra (the one that was booked with their choir and soloists to give Mozart's Requiem in New York City just a few days after 9-11 (With the approval of New Yorkers, the concert did happen and was a very moving and cathartic event). The conductor tonight introduced Metamorphoses of Ricard Strauss, written a month before the German capitulation in 1945. The discussion of the music and the difficulty it presents to an orchestra for close ensemble coordination were a good preparation. Prior to that, one of the pieces played was the Adagietto from Mahler's 5th, which is about as good an example of romanticism in art as I think there is.</p>

<p>S. m. is quite right that there are many facets to describe the axis nature - urban, and I enjoyed reading some of them.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I you permit, let me take up the photographer-viewer relationship and couple it with the threesome: "<em>sensation</em>", "<em>perception</em>" and "<em>understanding</em>" (which is doomed to be improved, if considered useful). </p>

<p>Some of us, if not all, work in an almost exclusive "artist-work" confrontation (if you accept such a terminology for a moment) struggling to realize an artistic ambition, by photography. We know almost by "<em>sensation</em>" when we see the result, the photo, if we are there, or almost there - or, as mostly, if we failed yet another time. Sometimes we have to go back to the photo many times before admitting the failure and moving on to further attempts, learning from mistakes and dead-ends. Sometimes, but painfully rarely, we recognize, reluctantly, a possible success, but being unable to understand how it happened and seemly unable to reproduce it.</p>

<p>Some of us, if not all, work also for/with the viewers, in self-interest, to learn by feedbacks, or with the ambition to please - which is self-interest too, in most cases. The viewers "sensation" (immediate liking, disliking almost by sensorial or intuitive means) can be essential for the process, as viewers move on or zap to next photo, if the sensation is not somewhat positive for staying on for at least an instant. Some types of photos do rarely survive this initial confrontation with the viewer others seem to be born winners (satisfying the "raters" on PN type of situation). We can all learn something from such almost physical reactions, but our real interest must be the <em>perception</em> of viewers. This is where the viewers cultural,artistic, educational, professional background comes in, linking "sensation" to certain elements of the photo that, if communicated, can make us learn as photographers. If the viewer is also able to formulated his "<em>understanding</em>" of what is going on in a photo, we are up for serious contributions to our photographical project. In my experience, "scholared opinions" are those where the three come together. </p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>Anders, that is a fair way of putting it, and as you say, it may also be extended or modified by some other aspects that relate to the viewer's behaviour and experience. Whatever the elements or methodology of the viewer appreciation, and I think your three are very relevant, I think it all comes down to whether the image can successfully communicate to the viewer. The communication is of a visual nature, based upon what the viewer perceives and understands by the two dimensional forms before him, but it can also be non-visual, triggering something in the mind of the viewer that represents a romantic (dramatic, idealistic, imaginative, emotional, etc.) reaction or some other reaction.</p>

<p> </p>

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p>I think it all comes down to whether the image can successfully communicate to the viewer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Notwithstanding, as I mentioned, that many work within a totally private sphere, alone, and with no ambition to communicate with anybody else than with him/her-self. History of art is filled with blokes like that. In many cases even among very communicative and commercial oriented artist, they have often had more or less prolonged periods where their "artistry" was a communication with themselves only. <br>

Being on PN among uploaded photos, might indicate that we are not to be found among such types, however - at least not all the time.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>I was out shooting twice now since starting this thread. I am discovering my own conditioned bias on this subject. While purposely staying close to home and searching out the objective man-scape, my eyes want to discard with great prejudice common and mundane elements as if they weren't there. My eye is attempting to apply a massive discount to poles and signs and wires and nails and detritus. It made me slow down by half at least to continually refocus my attentions on the scene over and over to actually see it objectively.</p>

<p>On a few occasions then, I would laugh out loud at suddenly seeing the photograph that was there, but previously unseen. Then I could raise the camera and begin framing a photograph. And I found a few satisfying scenes. Not great, but satisfactory enough to push the experiment forward in increments. I concluded that over many years (much with just casual photography) I had trained my eye severely to root out mundane distraction in the frame - automatically and reflexively with no thought. To move my feet and find the angle of purest subject even when it makes the overall form worse, as long as the offending distractions were out of the frame. That process is idealism, or romanticism at work. Sacrificing the whole for a purer, more idealized part.</p>

<p>It's much harder work for me than seeing <em>natural</em> subject matter. My mind is constantly arguing against what is in the frame. I have to trust the viewfinder and discount the mental noise and constant self-judgement. But especially the judgement, "Why would anyone find this interesting?" Of course I have to make the actual photograph first, before knowing if anyone will find it interesting. After talking myself out of half a dozen photographs, I finally was able to trust the camera lens.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>M. Stephens and Anders, you are both referring directly or indirectly to what is the most important thing in my mind, to interpret the world as you (one) see(s) it personally. The photo simply has to pass your own criteria. If anyone else likes or is moved by it, so much the better. Sort of lie a musician playing a Bach piano piece for his own enjoyment, even though others may be attracted to it. This may not work as an approach for many commercial photographers, but is the realm of activity permissible for the artist or the fine art photographer or the amateur photographer. It's really a great freedom.</p>

<p>The distracting elements of urban manscapes can sometimes be a problem, but we can often filter out the distraction if the image communicates something to us. The linked image has a quite evident pole in the near centre but I think it is not that important overall. If it wasn't a copy of a silver print of an infrared film image I would probably try to remove it in post processing, but I think the mood of the dansers is conveyed even with it being there. But I may be quite subjective in that feeling.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/11472744</p>

<p>A somewhat related story; our small village (900 people) had telephone and hydro (electric) poles running down its main street, which were removed about a year or two ago. Before the removal and burying of the cables, most did not complain too much about their distracting presence. After the removal, the difference was quite amazing. I think we learn to accomodate distractions and often realize the real importance of their presence only once they are no longer there. Perhaps this applies to the apparent complexity and apparent distractions in many manscapes?</p>

[john_a5]

<p>I don't think most artists work with the viewer in mind--not that some don't--but most are, I believe, pursuing a personal vision. That isn't to say that they don't want to communicate something, it is just that you have to communicate it to yourself first and then hope it translates. So regardless of whether they intend to show it, which most do, it isn't about the viewer at the creation stage. There are certainly some obvious exceptions and many find a way to exploit the market, but I don't think that is rampant among artists.</p>

<p>I can honestly say that I don't consider the viewer when I am making images or working on a series. I do consider/wonder if anyone will respond to the work or not when I am reviewing it. But I still make it and work to please myself--which is not an easy undertaking as I am harder on myself than anyone else. The Main Street series I referred to above was one where I wasn't expecting anyone to necessarily respond to it, it was something I needed to do for myself, fortunately, it has seemed to resonate with others--which certainly I appreciate.</p>

<p>All of this isn't to say that there aren't sometimes "distractions". Having been in galleries, sometimes the owner will want you to do more of this or that because it sells well. Famously, I believe Jasper Johns gallery has said that they wished he did more of his flag series or his bullseye work. Commercially, I have felt pressure to create work that could be in my portfolio or I might sell as stock or whatever. Sometimes these things come out of what I do, but I have never been good at working that way, I want my time to be for my work--if the work then serves one of these external needs, so be it. As I said, they can be distractions or pressures felt when doing my own thing.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"I don't think most artists work with the viewer in mind--not that some don't--but most are, I believe, pursuing a personal vision."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Am I reading you as suggesting that someone who works with a viewer in mind is not pursuing a personal vision? Can't one attempt to communicate a personal vision? Is a personal vision an isolated one? Can one communicate and bear in mind that there will be a viewer without selling himself out? Does one have to buy into the ultimate romantic hype of the unsociable, lonely artist? </p>

<p>Count me out. I am both a social and historical (among other things) being. I try not to be so wrapped up in self that I have to shut myself off from others in order to photograph and create something of significance. I can explore a very personal and independent vision while being mindful that photographs are a public language every bit as much as writing is. One may not photograph <em>for</em> others. Meaning one does not have to <em>compromise</em> their vision for others, for likability, for acceptance. But it doesn't undermine a personal vision to consider how one uses the language at one's disposal to reach beyond one's very limited "self." </p>

<p>An actor who doesn't ask whether his voice will be loud enough to be heard, whether his gesture is too obvious or too subtle depending on the size of the theater he's in, isn't very much of an actor in my estimation. And the actor who does that IN NO WAY compromises his personal vision. Is he acting for himself or for his audience? I don't think many of the finest actors frame the question that way, as a dichotomy. They approach their acting more holistically. It's a question more likely asked by someone with a much too self-important ego.</p>

<p>A photographer is not just a photographer. A photographer is a viewer as well. </p>

<p>Empathy.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Arthur, here's Kent Nagano (note spelling :-) on Frank Zappa. Nagano isn't a creature of the 19th Century :-)</p>

<p><a href="http://zappa-interview-videos.blogspot.com/2009/03/1994-kent-nagano-on-how-he-met-frank.html">http://zappa-interview-videos.blogspot.com/2009/03/1994-kent-nagano-on-how-he-met-frank.html</a><br>

Secret Canadian National Anthem: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crwu7zIJ7Oo&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crwu7zIJ7Oo&feature=related</a></p>

<p>Nagano studied at my school and we frequented the same coffee house, Tassajara Bakery in San Francisco. I only spoke with him once, for 15 seconds, to high five a home town celebrity (he'd just come to the San Francisco Symphony). Nagano was a typical Northern Californian in many ways (previous orchestra was Berkeley Symphony). The Tassajara Bakery was operated by the Tassajara Zen Mountain Center, which also not incidentally involved quite a few Minor White students and their students. More Northern California continuum: The Mountain Center sprang from San Francisco's Zen Center, which was founded by Shunru Suzuki Roshi, missionary from Japan. I never knew the Roshi, but he conducted the marriage of two Minor White student friends and the last time I glimpsed him he was attending a Quicksilver Messenger Service rock concert at San Francisco's California Hall, lights by Bill Hamm. He came with a dozen or so Buddhist nuns, all wore robes. The concert benefitted yang and yin, as one would expect: Zen Center and the defense of Sonny Barger, criminal and head of Hells Angels.</p>

<p>So, you see, Nagano has roots, though he missed Quicksilver Messenger Service, live. :-) <a href="

[Norma Desmond]

<p>[Addition] Communication is like a tool. Like focusing your lens and setting your shutter speed. Once you learn the language, it doesn't get in your way.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p><strong>M</strong>.:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To move my feet and find the angle of purest subject even when it makes the overall form worse, as long as the offending distractions were out of the frame. That process is idealism, or romanticism at work. Sacrificing the whole for a purer, more idealized part.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This a very good wording on what I would think we all do when framing a shot (or in post-framing). This was discussed, I think, extensively in the "Distraction" thread ,some weeks ago in this forum.<br>

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

<blockquote>

<p>The distracting elements of urban manscapes can sometimes be a problem</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Urban manscapes can surely also be the centre of attention, and other distracting elements can be filtered out like <a href="../photo/12081872">here</a> or <a href="../photo/12105896&size=lg">here</a>. I like your example of telephone poles (or other poles) and agree that they are often central to the urban landscape, like <a href="../photo/12092241">here</a>. (My photos are linked for examples and not meant to be a exeptionally great pleasure to the eye or the mind!).</p>

<p><strong>John</strong>, I agree with you, that "<em>most are... pursuing a personal vision</em>", although the frequent reference to "viewers", in most discussions in this forum could let us believe otherwise. Maybe because philosophy is treated like "psychology of the viewer" in many debates.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

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

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>

</blockquote>

<p><em>I realize that, Fred. I was using your post as a springboard for the expression of a more general comment.</em><br>

<em><br /></em></p>

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>What can I tell <em>YOU</em>, Fred? You must shop more than I do. ;-) I don't know Abercrombie and Fitch from Filene's Basement. What to AF-ers look like? When I said 'attractive', I meant what is attractive to us individually, not the covers of GQ or Cosmo.</p>

<p>So, to rephrase, should we avoid the person who takes our breath away from across the room and ask some slob out for coffee because attractiveness is stale and overdone?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting, and good luck on the blood pressure!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>Great points about really connecting with the ambient conditions. I can appreciate your comments as a runner, as a lover of your beautiful city with its changeable weather, and as a camera jockey.</p>

<p>I remember clearly the moment some years ago when I decided to make the most out of the light that's in front of me at any given time, rather than longing for a clear blue sky. The breakthrough came when someone I knew online asked to see some of my photos. I picked out what I felt were a dozen or so of my best shots and uploaded them to one of the free sites. When I looked at the series in total, I was shocked. Every photo was taken as sunset or sunrise and featured saturated colors. Each image was fine when viewed by itself, but as a set they were horribly boring. I decided in that moment that good light isn't necessary ORANGE light, and I began searching for the beauty - <em>I realize that some here detest that word</em> - that mother nature show us in ALL of her moods, not just the clear and cheery ones. No one has ever commented, "Hey, I like the variety of light that you use." But from my own viewpoint, I find my portfolio to be more interesting today than it was back when I was a dedicated sunset chaser. I still love sunset orange, but I love all of the other colors and lights and weather conditions just as profoundly.</p>

 

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe we'll all just growing weary of the same cold winter and the same gray spring.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"But especially the judgement, 'Why would anyone find this interesting?' "</em> --M</p>

<p>Perhaps if YOU find it interesting and can translate that interest photographically, visualize it, craft what it is you find interesting, it will then become interesting for someone else as well. If you live it yourself, you may then be able to universalize it, or at least move it beyond yourself.</p>

<p>Asking <em>"is this really interesting to me and why"</em> will often involve some sense of the other. It almost can't help but do so. And why should it avoid the other?</p>

<p>We've had some quotes from Sartre in this forum recently, and he can usually be counted on to help flesh things out. He certainly believed in action and human freedom. But he was also a big proponent of the role of the other in our lives.</p>

<p>From <em>Existentialism Is A Humanism</em>:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All kinds of materialism lead one to treat every man including himself as an object. . . . Our aim is precisely to establish the human kingdom as a pattern of values in distinction from the material world. But the subjectivity which we thus postulate as the standard of truth is no narrowly individual subjectivism . . . it is not only one's own self that one discovers in the <em>cogito</em>, but those of others too. Contrary to the philosophy of Descartes, contrary to that of Kant, when we say "I think" we are attaining to ourselves in the presence of the other, and we are just as certain of the other as we are of ourselves. Thus the man who discovers himself directly in the <em>cogito</em> also discovers all the others, and discovers them as the condition of his own existence. He recognizes that he cannot be anything (in the sense in which one says one is spiritual, or that one is wicked or jealous) unless others recognize him as such. I cannot obtain any truth whatsoever about myself, except through the midiation of another. The other is indispensable to my existence, and equally so to any knowledge I can have of myself. Under these conditions, the intimate discovery of myself is at the same time the revelation of the other as a freedom which confronts mine, and which cannot think or will without doing so either for or against me. Then, at once, we find ourselves in a world which is, let us say, that of "inter-subjectivity."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now, surely some of this will strike us as quite strong and, perhaps, a bit of an exaggeration. But the idea of man as less of an individual is a significant turn of events toward a less paternalistic, less authoritarian, more holistic and environmental rather than anthropocentric view, an acknowledgment of the communal and political aspects of humans. I know there's resistance to (and I feel it as well) the line above that says, <em>"He recognizes that he cannot be <em>anything . . . unless others recognize him as such."</em> </em>But it is sometimes the challenges that meet the most resistance that lead to a deeper level of understanding. Despite trouble with a line or phrase here and there, the idea of a world of inter-subjectivity rather than individualism, I find, is one well worth considering.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Dan, sorry I was posting to M while you responded to me. Thanks for the good back and forth.</p>

<p>In avoiding Abercrombie and Fitch, for which I don't blame you!, you asked:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So, to rephrase, should we avoid the person who takes our breath away from across the room and ask some slob out for coffee because attractiveness is stale and overdone?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I honestly think that's not a bad idea. I've done it purposely and it's led to some great times.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Fred, just to respond to your response to me---Me thinks you got a bit carried away and NO, to your first question.</p>

<p>My feeling is pretty much as you said yourself "One may not photograph <em>for</em> others. Meaning one does not have to <em>compromise</em> their vision for others, for likability, for acceptance." I don't totally disagree with your sentence after this either, however, the more one takes into consideration the acceptance of others, the less attentive you can be to your own vision. That doesn't mean you lose your vision or that it is totally diluted, although we certainly can see that from time to time--especially in the POP music scene where a successful song is essentially repeated until the artists rests in oblivion.</p>

<p>I think the way I look at it is that I only know what I know, so if I make something that says what I want it to say, I am doing my best work. Being a human with similarities in cultural, social, political and spiritual framework, I have to assume or trust that I will communicate to at least some. If I try to consider how the viewer is going to respond, I don't know any more than I knew ignoring that and all I can end up doing is watering down my vision to meet some idea of what I think someone else is going to think. I gave up a long time ago worrying about what others are going to think, I am constantly surprised by that--good and bad.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.....</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I'm not sure it's getting carried away to express a very different take on something as significant as this. For instance, I DON'T only know what I know. I know a lot of what everyone else knows. And the only way I know it is because others know it. If others didn't know it, it wouldn't be knowledge. There's absolutely no way to assess knowledge except by some shared kind of agreement among a community of knowers.</p>

<p>I also differ on the point you make about considering how a viewer may respond. I'd put it slightly differently and say that I consider what a viewer may respond to, even if not specifically how they will respond. When I do that, I DO know more than I would have had I ignored that.</p>

<p>Now, I'm not saying you should think similarly. I'm glad to hear alternative views. But I am resistant to the inclination to say we're all just really saying the same thing. We're not. And I'm even more resistant to the inclination that if we vocally assert or emphasize that difference we're getting carried away.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p><em>"the more one takes into consideration the acceptance of others, the less attentive you can be to your own vision."</em></p>

<p>John A., that depends only upon how malleable or impressionable (and sometimes needy) is the artist or photographer. With about 8 years now of seasonal experience in exhibiting and selling both my own prints and the sculptures and paintings of others, my experience is quite different than that.</p>

<p>I have been glad to bring to the public's attention the work of others working in abstract and expressionistic realms of art, to name but two types of art that we have exhibited, and the artists are often requested (via our gallery or directly) to repeat the type of art of some of their work that was popular and sold very well in the early days. Almost to a person they have chosen to ignore those suggestions and develop their work as they wanted. In my own case there are a number of my black and white landscapes and urban photographs that have sold quite well and it has been suggested that I should let that period of my work influence my future directions. I maintain only some approaches that I have developed but am not interested in providing slightly different images that bear resemblance to the popular ones, and am interested instead in new approaches or subject matter. The newer work has not sold like the former, but that is secondary (I don't try, and probably couldn't, earn a living with this type of non-client-directed photography) and my desire is to explore new ways of photographic expression within my modest means. I will abandon the effort of a full time summer gallery this year in order to do just that.</p>

<p>The acceptance of others is pleasing perhaps, but more important to me in any limited interaction with viewers is the nature and content of their critique, which can sometimes be useful to question an approach. Mainly, however, I see it as a personal creative activity and not governed by acceptance or not.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Fred, I guess I am impressed that your mind can instantaneously expand and know what others know spontaneously--that those weren't things you already knew ("I only know what I know"). You read things so out of context and isolated, it is just frustrating--doesn't my comment about shared cultural etc suggest that I know we share similar knowledge? -- or are you just playing obtuse? You don't know any more by considering what someone might respond to--you already know as much as you know about that or you couldn't consider it! That is all part of who we are and when we create work that fulfills our vision, part of our vision--or maybe how we transact our vision--comes from shared knowledge and understanding of what communicates. When I work within my full awareness, as I suggested, all of these things are part of it, and me, but I don't try to figure out what someone else is going to respond to when I am making my images--as I said here and before, I trust that I will communicate because of the shared knowledge. Finally, we must agree substantially as I only find some nuances that I might not fully agree with in what you have been saying--I wish you would read more completely and try to understand what is actually being said.</p>

<p>Arthur, I am not sure that I understand what you are trying to say here. Essentially, your story about the artists and yourself seems to pretty much be what I was suggesting in these past entries. If you had taken into consideration making more of what they wanted you to do, then you would not be pursuing your own vision as you suggest--isn't that exactly what the quote from me that you posted says? In fact, if you do take into consideration the acceptance of others, influencing the work you are making, then you are in fact malleable or impressionable as you say--and again, not following your own vision but attempting to meet someone elses--unless you were already continuing to work in that same vein, which many artists do their whole career as that one thing is their vision.</p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Things seem to go away a bit from the topic of landscape. I posted a link with a doc of Andy Goldsworthy at work, <em>Rivers & Tides</em>. It's worthwhile watching, his directness with the landscape in it, and sometimes failure ( collapsing sculptures ) to direct that directness. I found it moving. Beauty is addressed in it too, and how difficult it is to get past it, to show that there's also a darker layer behind it. At some point he's using the wool of sheep and says that it's very difficult to get past the 'woolly'ness' of sheep, to show that sheep are also very strong and raw, just like the landscape, even if it might be aesthetically pleasing. The sun(set) of course is also very powerful, burning everything that comes too close in its path but at the same time it's very nurturing too. A challenge to communicate or see in one photograph.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>I am not sure this thread has been on topic ever, really?!?</p>