The Non-Romanticised Landscape

[m_stephens]

<p>Phylo Dayrin,<br>

My ignorance is growing every day. "Miksang" is new to me, and I thank you for introducing that to me. I have seen the output before, but I wasn't aware of the formal movement.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Sometimes our desire to add to a discussion engenders some leaps beyond the context. Fred, you always have something interesting to say and I enjoy reading your thoughts, even when the context is somewhat "expanded" as in your recent remarks . Your social conscience is mirrored in my own thoughts and I gather it also is in the thoughts of many others.</p>

<p>I do appreciate Antonio taking the time to discuss what was important to him in making the image, but at the same time he seems to have adopted something of the practice of Miksang. Perhaps he, like me, does not believe that a photographic approach unfettered by our prior sentimenmts or cultural values can be ignored completely. However nonchalant was his aim in the car wash image, he surely was influenced, consciously or not, by his values (which on a minor scale is not the "once a week" cleansing of the vehicule", but the opposite choice of "let the dirt fall of by the action of gravity"). I think he admits as much in his analysis, which brings the approach into line with what you were saying. So the point in this particular case appears to be about as contentious as brushing one's teeth before retiring, and your obseervation that "everyone and everything you touch becomes a piece of meat" is perhaps not a valid judgement of a Miksang-like approach in photography. Values cannot be deleted so easily.</p>

<p> </p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p><strong>Fred</strong><br>

Well, of course there was an intention, at least a few seconds before shooting, and it was created by my cultural influences and more. However, this photo is not part of a project, I didn't plan to go out and hunt for these kind of images. I didn't shoot with my eyes closed after a couple of spins but also I did not plan this at all and all the thoughts and cultural influences came to my head all at once in the split of a second. There is nothing wrong about shooting with intention, did I say that there is something wrong? I do shoot with a pre-visualized concept or project in my head very often but not in this case. My cultural background definitely had a major role here but I think you are playing around with words when you say <em>Something to consider is that intentions don't just get formed in the few seconds before an act like pushing the shutter</em>. We are talking about shooting following a conscious line in your head or just your instincts and thoughts <em>at the moment</em>.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>M, good points. Thanks. Yes, I can be hyperbolic at times. I didn't mean to suggest that your shooting telephone poles the way you describe is the equivalent of racism or objectifying women. I just meant to note that they can exist on the same continuum. For instance, seeing "landscapes," "cityscapes," or "manscapes" as merely transmitters of light and texture, objectifying in many ways, can have perilous results. I'm merely questioning what I see when I look at these things. And I prefer not to try to avoid them as subjects, even while appreciating line, geometry, and how light can fall on them. As a matter of fact, I don't think I could not see them as subjects. It is an objective view of these things, a stripping away of their subject-hood, that has led us to abuse the environment and trash our urban environments. Now, I'm not saying that photographing them with that kind of objectifying attitude is as dangerous or as likely to result in negative consequences as living that attitude in other ways, but I am wary of it. For me, to be the subject, the content, the story, call it what you will, is not separable from the composition, the geometry, the light. They come as a package.</p>

<p>Antontio, I did misunderstand you when you said you go out with no intent. Sorry. The attitude I thought you were emphasizing has been expressed a number of times in the philosophy as well as other forums. So I was responding to a "Don't think, just shoot" attitude I've heard a lot. Thanks for clarifying.</p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p><strong>Fred</strong><br>

Yeah, that attitude is the one photography newcomers use because they think taking pictures is easy and they need no training, technical knowledge, cultural background... just be yourself, right? Many people fall in that trap, me included up to a certain period of time; they think they are very talented artists with a lot to say and they are better than anybody else the minute they take a camera in their hands for the first time... I know that attitude and I don't like it at all.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>I am amazed how these threads can "run" after days of sitting!</p>

<p>One of the things that constantly comes to my mind as I read here is how semantics seems to get in the way of understanding. As I read this person saying this and someone countering with that and construing it this way or that, most of the time I just see them as different sides of the same coin--it is the same thing, it just looks a little different based on one's own perspective or way of working. Maybe a little more generosity in our reading might find a sense of commonality rather than opposition, although probably it wouldn't be as much fun.</p>

<p>When I read the part on bias, I couldn't help but replace it with predilection and would we argue that we all have certain predilections that come through when we are shooting? We shoot things, intending to or not, generally that we are attracted to or have a predilection (bias) towards. Bias is not always a negative. On the other hand, I don't think we have to go against this to move forward--most just photograph what they respond to. We may move forward by appearing to go against these "biases", but my thought is that we already moved past that at least subconsciously before we do it. In a different way, I will say I have a strong "bias" against shooting sunsets, I don't ever go looking for one and rarely shoot them when I see one with camera in hand. But I have done that, I have worked the files and have no intention of ever showing them. The last time was 3 years ago as I got back to the car after a couple of hours shooting in Big Bend. I saw something that interested me in that sunset and shot it, not too seriously, but with intent. I don't know where the act of doing that will lead or manifest itself, but there was some reason for- and something learned by-doing it.</p>

<p>I like Fred's comment about intention being formed over time and with influence. But when I read the discussion about intention, I see that most everyone is suggesting a different layer of intention--or referring to it in a different place in the process. I guess I see all of these things as valid ideas about intention. So, you might not go out with any specific intention but you have one or you wouldn't go out. You might have an intention to work on an idea, but you might let go once you are in the process. You might work with specific intent throughout the process as well, however, I do believe that the most successful photographs generally come when we surrender to what we are doing, but that might be instantaneously in the middle of intent--we anticipate or respond mindlessly at that point. It all works and probably each is experienced maybe more or less and at different times by most who have been doing this over any length of time.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"For instance, seeing "landscapes," "cityscapes," or "manscapes" as merely transmitters of light and texture, objectifying in many ways, can have perilous results. I'm merely questioning what I see when I look at these things. And I prefer not to try to avoid them as subjects, even while appreciating line, geometry, and how light can fall on them."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do take exception to this statement when it comes to certain sorts of photography--not as to Fred's own process, that is his own, but in a more general way. I know I have used landscape over the years, and in a current project, where I could care less what specifically I am shooting. My interest is not what is before my camera but more what it becomes through the process. It doesn't matter to me if it is a rock, a stream, cracked mud or sky, what matters is does it work or communicate. I don't see this as harmful or even objectification, it is just something that works for me when creating certain kinds of images. Sometimes you can tell what it is I shot and sometimes you can't, it isn't about that thing as subject.</p>

<p>Aurthur, looking at your foundry photo, what I would say is that I think it has a very strong tie to the long tradition of such photographs. My thoughts immediately went to Weston, Adams and Strand--among others--and their famous photographs of similar structures. It is a lovely photograph and much more romantic, and I would think traditionally done, than banal. I would think it would get lots of comments as opposed to the car wash photo. (if I didn't mention it before, I really am enjoying a book called "The Ongoing Moment" by Geoff Dyer and how he addresses this sort of thing.)</p>

<p>Someone again referred to landscape as being more approachable than urban photographs and I would again say I don't really buy that argument. I think this came up regarding the car wash image. I don't think it is the subject itself but how it is photographed and what one chooses to include in the frame. I don't think we would see too many reacting favorably if an unknown were to post images like <a href="http://www.luhringaugustine.com/artists/joel-sternfeld#/images/74/">Sternfelds' "Oxbow Archive" series, </a>for instance, in their photostream here. Although landscape, the views he presents aren't probably going to find wide acceptance with the general population of hobbyist photographers.</p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p><strong>John A</strong><br>

<em>The Ongoing Moment</em>, I read that and loved it. The writer isn't a photographer and that's what makes the essay even more interesting. As a musician, I am always more interested in hearing non-musicians' comments than those from my fellow colleagues.<br>

I realize that it is very difficult to give definitions to processes that are continuously changing and evolving such as music or photography; we evolve and they inevitably evolve with us but it's nice talking about them and using semantics to engage into tight arguments and maybe end up in the same place. I learn a lot from it.<br>

I have been using a camera for no time in comparison to you and I do it with no intention of making money off of it; I realized how my approach has changed so many times over these few years that I don't even know where I am going with it anymore, and I love it. The camera is for me like a notebook where I write about moments, people or things I encounter in my life and I don't really worry about where my trip is going: Bruce Lee said "it's not about the destination, it's about the journey".<br>

Ok, I had a few glasses of wine with friends so tomorrow I could regret having wrote this stuff... :D</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>John, thanks for the Dyer book reference, cited in regard to your interesting points about your current photographic approach. I will read it for sure. </p>

<p>Antonio, you probably look upon the camera as some of us do in the sense of it being an instrument of exploration. No doubt a bit like your violin. I wouldn't worry about the liquor of Bacchus, it evidently doesn't interfere with your thinking. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John, I am truly thrilled that you take exception to something I said. That means, thank God, that we're not all really saying the same thing and that it's not just semantical differences between us. We're actually individuals. HOORAH!</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Arthur, the book is, as the title alludes to, an examination of how photography continues to essentially repeat itself, that certain motifs continue to appear. What I meant by this was sort of in reference to your shot of the foundry and how it stimulated my thoughts of those other peoples work--that there was a recognition of how this sort of photograph moves through time and yet can also be individual.</p>

<p>I think the Wessel video I linked to earlier (about responding to what you see before you engage it) or the writings of Minor White would probably be more apropos to my current project.</p>

<p>Antonio, I was just commenting to my wife yesterday evening how Dyer has so much insight into images that you would assume he has been doing this all his life. As you say, I know that I have found that non-photographers have always had more profound or more insightful things to say regarding my own work than do most photographers. I think that when you are into something, you really have to work to step back and see what is before you. Maybe it is like the old saying that when you are at a rock concert, whatever instrument you hear the most is the one that the person running the mixer plays.</p>

<p>Fred, I live to serve your needs......</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Just to zip a few pages back, in this context Arthur mentioning of Richard Strauss' work takes my interest. First of all because I adore this specific work (the Metamorphosen), second because it sends off my thoughts in some directions. So, warning upfront, all kind of directions, so this post may be more than a bit incoherent.</p>

<p>Richard Strauss wrote the Metamorphosen after the end of the second world war, and lamenting the loss of culture as a result of the war: the demolished cities, the numerous opera houses that had to close, the directors, composers and musicians that had to flee to America. Strauss himself lived more or less in exile, and would only write the 4 last songs after this work. His world, as musician in Europe, was gone. It's a farewell; to me, it does end in some sort of consolation, but not one that feels like there is a way back to the better days. More a sense of regret and acceptance.<br>

This is in short the work's context, and (in my view), it derives meaning from it (denying this context is very likely to damage the performance, I think).<br>

It requires good direction to make it work as a whole. It's a single bow of mounting and relieving pressure, taking 30 minutes with 23 soloists. This does not work without understanding where the work is coming from and where it is going. In short: it takes proper insight in the music itself, its context to start building a good performance. Not one to play as a newbie.</p>

<p>How then, does that related to urban images?</p>

<p>Maybe the key is in how something challenges us. Some works gain with revisiting, like Strauss in this case. Some works stay a bit what they are. Like most landscapes (a bit afraid to put a composer her to start a long discussion on his work...). <br>

To many people, nature impresses by just being. Images capturing that impress. Without much extra effort. It does not need to communicate something extra, as what it communicates already does appeal to most of us (a cultural value, in my opinion).<br>

The urban is much more a discovery.</p>

<p><em>P.S. Antonio, I encourage more writing after having a few wines, I much like what you said there (and share the idea). And quite sure you'll have the first in quoting Bruce Lee in this forum ;-)</em></p>

[aplumpton]

<p>John, yes. I admit that I am influenced by some photographers in some of my work and the foundry shot is one of them. It is not a conscious reproduction of another's approach, but I often seek to reveal a certain transparency, interconnection of elements and simplicity in urban scenes that is not unrelated to the work of Strand in the Gaspé, where he linked fences, objects and buildings in what I feel to be a poetic manner. Apparently (reading the Guardian review) Dyer speaks mainly to portraiture and its often recurring themes (e.g., the reinvented blind person) but what he says is frank, considered and worthwhile for those of us working with other themes.</p>

<p>Wouter, when I attended the Metamorphoses concert last week, the piece was entirely new to me, although I am familiar with some of his other work (including Elektra, the final song cycle). We had seats behind the chamber orchestra and in addition to witnessing and hearing close up the great ensemble playing of the strings, I noted that the conductor (Zeitouni, the assistant conductor to Bernard Labadie) was feeling the music very intensely (between calm, fury and pathos) as he guided the orchestra through this amazing piece. A fortunate lucky dinner last night at the home of a local conductor and arranger (Gilles Ouellet) brought Metamorphoses to the discussion and he not only expressed his great admiration for that music but also lent me his vinyl Von Karajan recording which is one of many he has. I have a feeling I wil be hooked on it as I once was in earlier years with The Wayfarer's songs of Schubert, but I'm sure the experience will be an enhancement of my dour little existence.</p>

<p>Your reference to the music as a challenge to players and listeners and the way one creates and comprehends images of the urban landscape is a good one to consider. Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>A Minor White quote :</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The state of mind of a photographer while creating is a blank...For those who would equate "blank" with a kind of static emptiness, I must explain that this is a special kind of blank. It is a very active state of mind really, a very receptive state of mind, ready at an instant to grasp an image, yet with no image pre-formed in it at any time. We should note that the lack of a pre-formed pattern or preconceived idea of how anything ought to look is essential to this blank condition. Such a state of mind is not unlike a sheet of film itself - seemingly inert, yet so sensitive that a fraction of a second's exposure conceives a life in it. (Not just life, but "a" life). - Minor White, The Camera Mind and Eye</p>

</blockquote><div></div>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p>OK, let's see some of your non-romanticized photos, bring them on! :D So we give this thread a little boost! This one I took tonight, thinking about our conversations; this one had a specific intention behind but the location, the subject and the shooting moment and conditions were completely not planned (I was driving my car).</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12976032-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p><strong>Phylo</strong>, I like that quote, will buy the book.</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>OK, let's see some of your non-romanticized photos, bring them on!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure how to put this image into the language and context of this thread. I do know that I much prefer to shoot cityscapes, and rarely shoot naturalistic settings. I took this about two weeks ago. It was the first time I took out a brand new body to try it out. I believe this was my first frame at this location.</p>

<p><br /> <img src="http://studio460.com/images/grand1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[studio460]

<p>So, I love concrete and man-made structures. I love the way formed, or smooth-troweled concrete looks. I love its color--its texture. Does that bias make my images of concrete "romantic?" For me, it's just a favored design motif. Do I try to romanticize my treatment of such images in exposure, composition, and lighting? I think I try to do that with every image.</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>I believe this was my first frame at this location.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Correction: this was not my first frame--this was my first <em>set-up</em> at this location.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Here's a link to an essay by <a href="http://jnevins.com/whitereading.htm">Minor White on Equivalence.</a> At the end of the article there is a link "back to readings" that list some other essays that I haven't read yet--just looked--but seem to be of a type with much value.</p>

<p>Ralph, i think your image here is substantially a romantic image in the way I believe we have been referring to. For me, it isn't just how one feels about a subject but how one presents it. This image has a very strong sense that whoever made it (yes, I know you did) put a lot of care into the framing and its very richness and sense of subjective composition add to this romanticized presentation. </p>

<p>I have always had a sense, with the non-romanticized type of imagery, that when I look at them--at least initially--that the person making the image saw something very specific and ignored all the other elements. In the extreme, it would be like a pretty bug flew by and the person wanted to photograph it. It flew across the street and landed on some building. They could see where it was, but oblivious to the fact that 99.99999% of the viewfinder was void of this bug--and without regard for the other things included--centers the bug and fires.</p>

<p>Even Antoinio's photo has more narrative to it for me than completely non-romantic. The mysterious night and the movement within the shot start to elicit story and point of view. I really think it is harder than most think to actually make one of these more banal images.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"We should note that the lack of a pre-formed pattern or preconceived idea of how anything ought to look is essential to this blank condition." --Minor White</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's interesting to note that White is talking about how things look and not necessarily about what they are. In order for me to understand White's comments (at least the comments here), I don't have to disregard subject or content. I will be open to <em>seeing</em> differently and without preconceptions.</p>

<p>I agree with John that the photos recently posted don't seem non-romanticized to me either. There are several examples of non-romanticized photos in the current Street and Documentary thread, <a href="../street-documentary-photography-forum/00YZlA">The Indecisive Moment</a>. Some (most?) are merely banal, which seem to me to be just exercises in bad photograph-making. They exhibit that "static emptiness" (perhaps a self conscious attempt at inattentiveness rather than a transformed kind of attentiveness?) that White seems to reject. On the other hand, some make me think twice about what I'm looking at and how I'm looking (or, to put it more simply, show me something), with a sensitivity to a kind of breath of life.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>This from yesterday morning.</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>M, very nice photo.</p>

<p>I think it is an un-romanticized view, though trains do have an association of romanticism (nostalgia?) for me.</p>

<p>The geometrical aspects, the intruding pole, the repeating light posts, the somewhat barren though still textural landscape, and the implied but unseen sky all work toward your goal, I think.</p>

<p>Subjectwise, to me the train stands out as train (which may bother you but doesn't bother me). That it acts in this photo as a non-train (almost more as a static structure, architectural in nature) works well with (or against) the fact that it is a train. That, to me, adds a layer.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Fred G.,<br />It's a location I've shot many times because it is local. In the past, I have maneuvered carefully to eliminate what at the time I referred to as unwanted distractions, like the pole. I created very romantic images of the rusted train - as a train.</p>

<p>Here - you called it as I meant it. The train as just one structure among the structures. Not to put too many extraneous words around this, but that is what I am trying to work with - structure and line and just composing the elements without too many labels on them.</p>

<p>Also, I shot this in the past using a wide angle to stretch the train detail out - more train'ish. Now, I am trying to compress the train into one form. I used a 90mm lens here.</p>

<p>I was telling a photog friend yesterday that this is a lot harder than I thought it would be. I feel I am just at the bare edge of understanding this experiment.</p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p>Interesting thread the Indecisive moment but most of the pics posted are actually very romantic to me, intending romanticism as a inner "motion of emotion" of any sort. Yes, Fred is right, in order to produce a non-romantic photo it must be very banal or one of those that happen by accidental release of the shutter (even those sometimes can produce something..). Capturing the lack of emotion and content takes practice, it's not something that can be done easily and actually I think it could be an interesting project (some have done it already, I'm sure).</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Perhaps the subject matter in seeking an unromantic image has some importance as well. Photographing clouds for their abstract or artistic composition effects without interest in what they are can be romantic or unromantic, depending upon what the forms or textures evoke in the photographer and the viewer. Detail or even full shots of nature can be quite unromantic at times, as I often feel when seeing black and white images of nature often featured in view camera or photo collector magazines. Some oft-photographed subjects leave me cold, not because they are not technically fine works or explore light and form in an experienced and able manner, but because I do not read much in them that hasn't been said already. A familiarity effect, notwithstanding the fact that when it comes down to it, all pictures are in some ways different. Detail or full shots of non nature subjects that we might wish to render in a non romantic manner (the classic examples are many that are used as scientific illustrations for conferencesn or papers, where the photographer has a non romantic aim and usually achieves that, if perhaps by default). An ostensibly uninteresting subject, per se, like the subject of the famous toilet bowl shot of the French intellectual (memory gap, but you have no doubt seen it), can be made romantic. However, many industrial subjects or common mechanical implements are "a priori" unromantic in our experience, unless turned into artful compositions that can evoke the imagination beyond that conceerning their utility nature. </p>