Landscape 'gardening'

[Norma Desmond]

<p>My point, Q.G., is that one could make rubbish an <em>inessential</em> part of a landscape and do it compellingly and meaningfully as well.</p>

<p>I'm not advocating either for leaving the rubbish in or for taking it out. I just try to look for all sorts of possibilities.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Yes, my mistake, Fred: it doesn't matter whether essential or inessential. You could make something other (no further qualification) than what you initially intended (part of) your chosen subject, and make it work that way. If however you elect not to do so, i.e. when it is not what you want to show, it is not.<br>There are composers who like to include every day life noise (and they probably select what noise that should be, and not be content with any noise that happened to present itself). And that's is a real possibility. And there are such who do not, want to add their own 'noise', their music, to the environment of the listener. Also a possibility.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I still think it's worthwhile to consider the difference between a lot of music and a lot of photos. Generally speaking, musicians don't make their music out of natural sounds already occurring in the world. They make music on instruments (or synthesizers), which are fashioned for the purpose of making organized and additional sounds to the ones already in existence. Most photographers, especially those out in the field photographing landscapes, are pointing their cameras at a landscape which already exists, creating a photo from that, what exists along with their own vision of how to make a photo of it. It's not like most musicians would have to make a conscious act of discarding ambient sounds from their compositions. That's just not the way most music works.</p>

<p>I've created many a photographic scene by setting certain furniture in a particular spot, by placing people in a pose, by giving them a prop. Sometimes I exert a lot of control over what is shown, sometimes very little, and sometimes it's more a combination of what's already there and what I want to add or change. It's a pretty "natural" thing for a photographer to do . . . to decide what to keep in and what to exclude from that which already exists before him. When I've created musical compositions, it's not really a similar process <em>in that regard</em>. I'm deciding or intuiting what notes on the instrument to play or to compose. I'm not really, unless I'm a Cage or other specific composer, drawing from the world of ambient sound. I think photographers are much more prone to work with ambient elements (as a matter of fact they have to, in most cases) than musicians are prone to work with them.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

So you subscribe to the 'photography is truth' theorem. But then again you don't. I think the analogy is perfect: musicians/composers and photographers alike create what they want to present to other people. The fact that you can point a camera at something that is already there is no different than the fact that you can hit something that is already there and get a sound out of it.<br>And as a composer, you are not making violins or timpani to create the sound you hear in your head. You use the sounds they and other 'given' instruments make to create a composition. Just like you use chairs and other props, people, trees, light, the position of the sun, entire landscapes, with or without empty beer cans.

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>So you subscribe to the 'photography is truth' theorem. But then again you don't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO, neither is the case. I think some photos may get at a kind of truth (perhaps a sort of personal emotional truth in some cases, other kinds of truths in other cases . . . historical, forensic). I think other photos don't even try. I think truth and accuracy are different, though there are overlaps, truth being deeper and more significant a lot of the time. I think "photography" is multi-faceted and there are too many different photos and too many different types of photos to say much about photography and truth generally speaking. Photos can be fictions and, maybe ironically, fiction is often quite truthful or is at least capable of expressing important truths.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The fact that you can point a camera at something that is already there is no different than the fact that you can hit something that is already there and get a sound out of it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, they're very different matters and I've given my reasons, so there's no need to repeat them. It's an interesting discussion.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>This generated a far bigger response than I anticipated! :)<br>

Many thanks to all who responded with thoughtful comments - and those too who responded with humerous comments!<br>

<br />At the very least my conscience is now much easier. :)</p>

<p>Thanks again,</p>

<p>Chris.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I prefer Monet and wonder what his work would look like if he had a camera and Photoshop.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

You're thinking Monet would have chosen to use the camera and Photoshop instead, E.J.? Why would he have?

[jodys]

<p>When doing landscape, which I enjoy doing at the moment, 'truth' is not an issue. The issue, for me, is making a photograph that faithfully renders what I wish it to render. The elements of the landscape are tools to be used to that effect, just the same as are the camera (and film, in my case, and also photoshop).</p>

<p>In answer to the OP's question on how much 'gardening' I do, I draw the line and climbing trees to reach an offending branch, or wading out into water above the line of my boots. But those are comfort issues, not lines drawn in the sand. I carry a pocketknife and occasionally other tools, I think nothing of trimming branches that I feel distract from the symmetry of a tree, or an offending twig that just happens to be catching the sun at the wrong moment in time. I would rather do this in the field than spend tedious hours with photoshop taking them out later. As for beer cans, I try not to put them down in front of the lens, though I did surprise myself once with a new lens that was a little wider than I thought.</p>