The Non-Romanticised Landscape

[m_stephens]

<p>Starvy Goodfellows,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Lately, I have rather felt that the 'ordinary uncommon place' has been done to death. Stephen Shore is much to be blamed for."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And that raises the related question about purpose. For example, someone could have a goal is simply finding the previously unseen by human eyes - the three headed goat. As the promoters might bark, "Never before seen footage!" Perhaps they catch 1 photo a month, or 1 a year? Of course I am being hyperbolic. With a billion cameras taking a trillion photographs, what isn't going to be done to death by next week? If I am not mistaken, a 12-page spread in NatGeo is derived from some 3,000 rolls of film as source material. Now, that's pressure!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"But using the forms as they are found, they are not much different to perhaps someone who has seen neither?"</em><br>

--M</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since you have been and we have been wondering about viewers, are you playing to viewers from Mars? Will anyone see your photo who has seen neither? If not, perhaps that's something to consider if and when you consider your viewer, which you seem to be doing (as I do). Is a bus or a bison a "form"? In this photo, I'd say at most in part. In your photo, I see bus AND form. I can't separate the two, especially since bus is on road. Yes, also, form is on line or path. But definitely bus is on road. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a "mundane" manscape, would it? It would be a geometric abstract, which it's not.*</p>

<p>_____________________<br /> *Though it can be looked at, at least in part, abstractly, I also think the literal is inescapable here.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Starvy, I don't "blame" anyone for taking photographs. Stephen Shore is responsible only for his photographs. Others are responsible for theirs.</p>

<p>The only stuff that is done to death is stuff that someone doesn't take the time to impart with some kind of individuality or care. Not everything needs to be unique. If it shows actual care and commitment, that can be enough.</p>

<p>As none of us except God is creating <em>ex nihilo</em> (from nothing), we each just do what we can with what we've got or can get. Sometimes actual passion trumps originality. So does honesty portrayed.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Fred G.,<br>

"Since you have been and we have been wondering about viewers, are you playing to viewers from Mars?"</p>

<p>If it was a bison on the bluff, and shown to a Lakota in 1875, he'd shrug his shoulders, just as we do today for the bus on bridge. I may be using the word <em>form</em> in my own way here to simply mean a manifest shape or mass. As is being pointed out in recent posts, the photograph is a surface phenomenon, a pattern of light on paper. There is neither bus or bison to be found. If the viewer wants a story, it's their responsibility to supply one. (One might see the bus is headed to "Fortuna," for instance.) Is the light pattern pleasing, or does it need to be translated <strong><em>first</em></strong> into a rare mammal?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>M, thanks. I like hearing your thinking on this and will be interested to see how it continues to manifest in your photographing. Since you may be thinking about what Luis said about light-sensitive photons echoed from the surface of the subject, I'd like to hear his response. I'm guessing he might have something interesting to say. My quick take would be that the echoing would be as important as the light-sensitive photons and "light-sensitive photons" would be only one kind of description of what's happening.</p>

<p>After all, consciousness may someday be described by brain states but I don't think that will negate consciousness and the human factors that are also applicable. Sure, bison are just a bunch of molecules, even when not photographed. But we kind of see them and treat them as living animals as well as groups of molecules. Pain is really just a physical process . . . but it hurts.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>M, a further thought. Often, a photo does boil down to a kind of visual description. And, since the photons and the mass (or form) is one description among many, why not try to express that in a photograph? It occurs to me that no photograph, no philosophy, no one description is complete. Again, it makes me more and more intrigued to see where this perspective will take you.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Fred G.,<br>

Yes, visual description. A language and vocabulary of the light patterns is a clean way to think of it. That more or less eliminates what I initially referred to as romanticism - good point. I've never given myself a lot of opportunity for experimentation in photography. I always assumed that I was supposed to find and capture jaw-dropping images for the viewer. Of course, since I don't find many of those, it was pretty much designed for failure. I don't do that any more.</p>

<p>I have so much more time now that I am retired, I can really just mess around with a lot of ideas and see if anything perks to the top. I am not at all investing in any particular outcome though, I am just enjoying the process. I've been spending a couple hours a day walking around with three cameras hanging off my neck. Friday, as I was taking pictures of the outside of an old cement factory, the owner came out to see "what the heck I was doing," and we ended up in a marvelous hour long conversation, that culminated in a tour through the incredible dusty bowels of his cement pipe factory (built and designed by his grandfather in 1935). Well, I managed to get some photos inside this dark place - even though all I had was ISO 100 Tmax in my cameras - and I was absolutely tickled by the experience, which was absolutely out of the blue. So, I made him some nice 12 x 18 prints that I will drop off later today for this nice gentlemen.</p>

<p>That's kind of how my current photographic journey is unfolding. Walking around with some cameras.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Let me throw out this last example of the <em>mundane manscape</em> that has amused me now for a couple days - <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12943994-lg.jpg">here</a>.<br>

My only testimony (weak as it may be) about that one is that is that when it's in my Lightroom slide sorter grid with the 20 other pictures I took that day, my eye keeps drifting to it, the way it happens in a crowded room when you see someone that catches your eye. Of course, I could simply be imaging that too?</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong></strong></p>

<p>There's a lot going on with the echoing, including what we refer to as "quality of light". Plus stray light is also reverberating around from other surfaces, sneaking around the edges of the lens shade, etc, and entering the lens or light-gathering method used. On the way to the sensor, light is also colliding with dust particles, other light, and being diffracted, or refracted by airborne humidity, or sweat on the translucent living surface that is skin, water, a leaf, etc. There's the wavelength & frequency we call color. Lots going on there, and all of it matters, some times more than others, depending on who we are, what we see, do, etc.</p>

<p>The thing is that whatever else a photograph conveys has to be at least initially <em>mediated</em> by the surface and the light bouncing off of it. This is not happening in a vacuum, and as photographers we have a range of available choices regarding the surface and the light -- if we want to use them.</p>

<p>In photography, as with any medium, sensory awareness/environmental navigation and interaction with each other, there's an incalculable number of variables, a huge overflowing banquet of the senses (and much more beyond our senses) laid out before us. Deep within, we are still like newborns dazzled by the simplest things. This is not meant merely in a mystical way, but to say that there's lots to work with. More than we can imagine.</p>

<p>With portraits, the lack of words and sound distill by precipitation the main way we humans supposedly communicate. Everything else but what we type to each other.</p>

<p> </p>

[studio460]

<p>So many inspiring and thought-provoking posts. Coming here, and reading these threads is very good for my creativity. Even this simple statement by m. stephens evokes a theme very similar to a specific series I've been planning to shoot:</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . the way it happens in a crowded room when you see someone that catches your eye.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What this inspired in particular, is off-topic, but I'm grateful nonetheless. The <em>Philosophy of Photography</em> subforum is perhaps the most resource-rich section of photo.net. And, interestingly enough, the insight gained often has little to do with the literal meaning and intention of the post. It's similar to the experience when viewing others' work--nearly everyone walks away with a different interpretation--a different "effect." There are many places to seek technical discussion, but photo.net provides pertinent artistic insight. My thanks to all.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Photons, mass, form, reflections, difraction, atmospheric matter in the light path, surfaces, textures, etc. All of what Luis and Fred are pointing to are undisputably important, and their variety of effects and interactions have a certain effect on what collides on the sensor or emulsion to make an image. We know they are basic to our practice. But they are but one part of the mix that the magician photographer uses in his intrinsic and extrinsic variables "toolkit" to create a remarkable and unique image.</p>

<p>Such physics of photography and painting apart, it is the romantic or other mental input of the photographer that is most important. I don't care whether it is an abundant and splendid natural scene or a simple back street in Brooklyn, if the photographer creates, or responds to, a moment of visual drama, emotion, fascination, idealisation, fantasy or other human sense- or mind-impacting issue, it is to my mind more important than the most splendid use of the physics of light and form in making a fine photo.</p>

<p>Some of the most powerful images have been made under rather limited or poor lighting conditions. They often present simple scenes and use only sparse production means, yet contain a visual and mental message that overrides all that.</p>

<p>I use in my work a good practical technical knowledge of light, color, form and texture, but am more atuned to the importance of the non-physical factors that go into the making of a more highly communicative image. Those factors are both philosophical and psychological, and are in my experience harder to apply than the purely physical ones. Capturing a natural scene by mastering the light and color does not necessarily render it romantic, just as the apparent familiarity with or possible disaffectation with manscapes does not exclude that possibility. Whether we have been weaned to love nature or not is not the issue I believe in appreciating the extra qualities of fine images. Irrespective of whether it is the natural or the manmade world, or a blend of the two, the romantic is simply in the eye and mind of the photographer, .... or it isn't.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, when I pointed to the surface, I was not pointing to photons. As I said to M, "photons" is only one sort of description among many. I believe Luis was helping to flesh out what Avedon was saying and M who is exploring photographically at that level. And why not?</p>

<p>I don't see just photons on surfaces, but I do see a lot there. I actually think a lot often gets missed on the surface when I immediately go spelunking below. In a lot of cases, the spelunking rings hollow because the visual has been missed. The philosophy and message can be heavy-handed and often is when it doesn't well integrate with what is simply seen.<br /> . . .</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Such physics of photography and painting apart, it is the romantic or other mental input of the photographer that is most important."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think M is seeking an alternative and seeing very differently (from you and me both).</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Arthur's post brought to mind a metaphor that might apply here. The layers of the onion. If I first imagine the photographer's <em>whole onion</em> at the moment the shutter is depressed, it might look something like this from the outside to the inside:<br>

- Drama<br>

- Psychological need<br>

- Narrative<br>

- Composition<br>

- Light<br>

- Surface<br>

Now, along comes the viewer. My intuition tells me the viewer's arrangement of layers is roughly reversed. And, that the viewer must labor to peel back these layers.<br>

- Surface<br>

- Light<br>

- Composition<br>

- Narrative<br>

- Psychological impact<br>

- Drama</p>

<p>When is the viewer sated? And, having peeled back the first couple layers, will the remaining layers have the same meaning or message to the viewer as the photographer? Probably unlikely. The first 3 (or 4) layers from the viewer perspective are kind of a technical merit where one hopes the maker and viewer converge on common understanding. "Spelunking" below that, the viewer enters their private world, no?</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Arthur, I don't think anyone suggested that what you mention as essential in your post be disregarded or passed over as unimportant. We were talking about very specific things (the Avedon quote), and not excluding or negating everything else in the universe. If you read my post, I made this very clear when I remarked about Avedon: "...though I think he went a lot further than the statement [About surfaces] suggests"</p>

<p>Light is the medium, literally what is in the middle, what bridges the gap between the photographer and the photographed. Everything else is <em>initially</em> conveyed through it. Avedon was an exceptionally sophisticated man, adept philosophically and psychologically as few men ever are. What I believe he understood quite well is that initially everything is mediated by the light and surfaces it is echoing from. He went further, deliberately limiting the quality of the light he used to a very narrow range (whenever he had control of it), leaving it down to mostly to <em>surfaces</em>. What were the surfaces? <em>The skin, hair, eyes, etc and clothing of the people he photographed. </em>The gestures, poses, expressions they assumed, or were directed to. His legendary abilities to urge, cajole, manipulate or give rein to his subjects are exactly the stuff you ardently emphasize, but Avedon understood it came through the surface and the significance of working with and through it. He is also the perfect example to illustrate that this was only the beginning of the process.<br /> ________________________________________</p>

<p>I also think it is useful to make a distinction between romance and sentimentality. When I look at pictures that fail or are weak, unresolved, etc. most of the time I am seeing sentimentality, not romance. Worse, it is often the most hackneyed, saccharine, drippy kind, a bland, wormy-mass signifier or simulation of feeling, not romance. And no, I don't think Romance is either all-important, required, or unimportant and to be avoided.</p>

<p>________________________________________</p>

<p>Description was mentioned by Fred. It was the antidote to the sentimentalism typified by Steichen's <em>Family of Man, </em>proposed and disseminated by John Szarkowski and Garry Winogrand (among others). For similar reasons to why Sontag turned to it.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>M, I think there are and can be commonalities all the way down, though there is surely divergence among individuals. In a recent portrait of mine, the subject is affecting a very genuine smile (somewhat rare in my photos). Because the subject is an aging drag queen, a couple of viewers see that as sad, and suggested that was my intent. My response will be that the smile was Andy's intent, not mine. Judging by the comments, we did seem to reach the viewer in a sort of gut way (one viewer called the photo "interactive"). I certainly understand the "sadness" comment and my guess is that Andy will too. He may even think of some sadness in his own smiles as many of us do. I think if we only look superficially (DIFFERENT FROM SURFACE), we will see private worlds: he sees sad, I see happy. But if we really talk about it, I think we often come to really understand the other's reaction, which is not as private or as different from ours as we may have thought. The viewer will go where he goes. But I do put a lot of stock in the fact that I have chosen or created the skin of the onion, and I have considered the dramatics of it as well, so I will have at least some effect on how the peeling of the onion takes place and what the experience of the peeling is like and therefore how the drama unfolds. How the viewer will react to that and talk about it is another thing entirely. But the photographer affects the actual experience if not necessarily the viewer's understanding or relationship to that experience.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luis, I missed your post as I was posting. Nicely said.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>M: The order of your onion layers is probably not different, whether it is the photographer or viewer. In fact, from my experience it is not usually some linear process. Neither viewer or photographer is obliged of course to consider all the potential contributory building blocks or perceived aspects of a photo.</p>

<p>Fred and Luis, I only rapidly glanced at your posts and hope to come back to them when I can give time to their consideration (I've too much else going on at present, so it is not for lack of interest that I have to abstain at present). I do think we are on the same wavelength in all of this and my post was not to doubt Avedon's other views than that stated but to question the view of some on how a surface is lit or even formed as being the whole story, while often rejecting the nature of what is the real surface and what the interactions of mutiple surfaces of an image can recount.</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>When is the viewer sated? And, having peeled back the first couple layers, will the remaining layers have the same meaning or message to the viewer as the photographer? Probably unlikely . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>However, that's ideally the goal isn't it? I do like the layers analogy. I especially like lists (I've been making a few lists myself). I was thinking the other day, also about layers, but more in a technical sense. I was planning to introduce more "layered lighting" schemas into my shots. Since I don't know the code to insert carriage returns here, I can't faithfully reproduce your list here (so that I could refer to it while writing this response). But yours certainly seemed to be an ambitious list. I can barely accomplish just one of those things in a single photograph, let alone two or more. But it's a good rubric to follow. Well done!</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>m - "</strong>When is the viewer sated?"</p>

<p>Does one want the viewer "sated"? Why?</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Luis G.,<br>

I was just posing the question - does the viewer get sated before he makes it down through all the layers of intention by the artist? Or, does the viewer make it through just the light-on-the-surface layer, and say, "Ho hum, I'm done with that one," and move on? It's rhetorical, I suppose, because clearly "it depends" on the photograph and the viewer. But, in any case, I am rather dubious that artist's deep intent is passed on like some kind of germ to the viewers.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>I personally don't think the artist's deep intent needs to be passed on to the viewer. I am not sure that that is even a realistic goal--and I am not sure that the artist ever really knows that deep intent anyway. For me, the idea that an image can garner a response or a thinking on the part of the viewer is most rewarding. I don't want to know any exact meaning or reason why I created a piece. Certainly, there are things I see and things I intended but there is also mystery and questioning. But the beauty of an image is that it is essentially plastic and can convey different things to different people--and even to me over time. I love hearing alternative views or readings of my images, then I know the piece is communicating.</p>

<p>I am with Luis here, I don't even think the maker of an image should ever be sated. Certainly, one can be pleased with the work or even excited by it, but that is generally because the image has a life to it. But sitting on images over time, that is the true test. Can I see something new, will I think about something new or more deeply each time I confront a piece--or even will it have a positive effect, maybe calming, each time I look. Essentially, is the conversation still alive or has it become nothing more than wallpaper?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"Intention" is a red herring here. There are other things besides explicit (or even non-explicit) intention that come from the photographer and can allow for a connection between photographer and viewer. Photographers aren't necessarily conveying just intentions.</p>

<p>A photographer chooses a subject in a certain context. The viewer sees that. A photographer chooses black and white or color. A photographer adopts a perspective. A photographer may wait for or create a certain kind of light, bright and clear, shadowy and hazy, etc. The viewer will see all of this (whether explicitly or merely experience it as part of a gestalt). An explicit "translation" of that lighting will be difficult. Some will say mysterious, others will say murky, others will say sleepy, others will say I don't like it. But there is a connection between the act of photographing and the photograph that ensues and the photograph that is seen by the viewer. </p>

<p>I happen to think intent can be seen in photographs sometimes, especially when a good photographer allows for that and a viewer pays attention and has put some work and time into viewing photographs and knows something about how photographs are made. But there's a lot of mystery about intent as well, as there should be. When one communicates with words, one doesn't necessarily communicate their own intent clearly and intent is often misread by others. But one can communicate about their emotions, about where they've been and what interested them, about how they see the world. Sure, sometimes miscommunication and misunderstanding takes place. But, generally, we're not alone. We do manage to communicate. We do it differently with visuals. But we do it.</p>

<p>I think philosophy is burdened with a history that is tied to man's protecting his own "self" as impenetrable and autonomous. Unfortunately, this hardcore and to a great extent self-defeating idea of the strong self got codified for centuries starting with Descartes. It is only more recently that we are starting to develop more holistic ways of seeing man and nature, as a series of interconnected experiences and systems rather than as disconnected and vying individuals.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>"rather than as disconnected and vying individuals."</p>

<p>Unless you look at our political climate in the US.....</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John, not to get off on a tangent, but I think our political climate doesn't show disconnected and vying individuals. It shows a lot of group-think and allegiance to one ideology or another. There's very little individual thought, as a matter of fact. It's mostly spoon-fed talking points.</p>

<p>There are good and bad senses of individuality and good and bad senses of interconnectedness. For me, at least, photographing and photographs are a means of connecting with subjects and viewers, as imperfect (and I would have it no other way . . . I love imperfection) as it may be. A lot of photographs are public acts, and they are often born of and become shared experience, even while also being personal. I appreciate the harmony, discord, circularity, tension, and even ambiguity that is involved in that.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Disconnected to the people they represent and vying for power--for power's sake even if collectively. But certainly.....</p>