Style, Voice, and Formula

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>It's having really something to say. It's genuine passion, curiosity, anger, love - and the ability to make your emotions really work as protagonists in an image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this is a really nice way to put it, Wouter. Beyond the composition, beyond the style, is whether the photo speaks to me. That speaking is the voice. Salgado's photos, whatever else I can and have said about them, do have this intensity you talk about, and much of that is his willingness to be there and to zero in on moments that embody something significant. His particular treatments of those moments are a bit another matter. There's an unflinching quality to his work. Interestingly, his consistency may actually get in the way of the authenticity of what he's doing and so I again hesitate, as Steve pointed out, to associate consistency too closely with voice.<br>

<br>

As to calling oneself an artist, it's something I allow people who are artists. And if someone is truly an artist, they ought to refer to themselves that way. As to others bestowing the title, it's done and others do get it right sometime but probably just as often get it wrong. Often, the title, even if deserved, won't be bestowed by others because they've missed it, since artists often push the boundaries of what's already considered art and people tend to judge based on the past rather than the present or future. Just as it will depend on who's calling himself an artist, it will depend on who's bestowing the title. Many people throw the term around willy-nilly with no real substance or rationale behind it and I am likely to dismiss their bestowals, whether it's about others or about themselves. A bestowal will only have meaning for me if it comes from someone (the artist himself or a viewer) who knows things about art and has a good feel for it. Not every Joe will have much sway with me on calling someone an artist.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"However, most of the people who appreciate my work tends to be family, friends," Marc.</p>

<p>　<br /> Methinks more than just family, friends, your photography is respected among your peers... the highest of accolades...me, for one, and I consider myself....guess. This modesty thing which us photographers carry about like a lump of coal our shoulders...Hmm.</p>

<p>　<br /> "What's wrong with me just wanted to take nice pictures?"</p>

<p>　<br /> Nothing, I used to know a bloke who just took photos of pub signs.....he enjoyed himself a lot. Is that not what photography is all about? However, It should also have a more serious side depicting the world as it is. Is not that our strength, our art; which gives us a special uniqueness.....truths.</p>

<p>But then, Alan, you do not really believe our photography is just all about nice happy pictures...you are pulling my plonker.</p>

<p>Interesting post, Fred. May you live long and prosper.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>A few more thoughts....</p>

<p>I like Charles photography his depicting of the coyote and capturing a certain essence and character....<br>

His story about the life and times of a little bird in his garden....I have been doing a similar thing. The little things in life to my mind are the most interesting as they join together to tell a big story.</p>

<p>Brad, in his left hand a documentry photographer, in his right hand the artist. He clasps them together....and we have the photography of Brad.</p>

<p>Happy new year folks.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Allen: My definition of "nice pictures" are those that inspire, give hope and tickle the senses with amusement, joy, beauty and yes even thoughtful pain at times, as long as the latter pain doesn't become a habit. Most people, myself included, can only look at people hurting for so long before becoming depressed. Maybe that's why Salgado dresses his pictures up with perfect lighting, composition, and contrast. So we can still feel inspiration through the suffering. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>While it may feel good to feel inspired through other people's suffering, I'm not sure I find anything terribly human or compelling about that. What I'm inspired by, relative to Salgado, is his donating money, effort, and time to the causes he gets involved with and his working alongside and with organizations that are doing something about these problems. And what I also find inspiring in his pictures is the determination, love, and family strengths I see even though so many of the people he's shooting are suffering. In many of the pictures, there is little hope evident especially, for me, the war pictures. I don't need or want to be inspired by war photos other than to change the way things are. It's a harsh reality that I'm not afraid of seeing presented in a realistic manner without the frills of pleasantry that allow others the luxury of feeling inspired by war.</p>

<p>No, it's not always about inspiration, hope, or amusement. Sometimes the world can be fraught with hopelessness and misery and I want to be able to see that, not for my own good but for my own education and my own ability to help transform things to the extent I can, along with the help of others. Awareness and empathy may be much more a key than inspiration when it comes to photojournalism and documentary. A documentarian's job shouldn't have to be to inspire anyone. Let the truth be the inspiration to make changes happen and let the documentarian and photojournalist provide at least a glimpse into the truth.</p>

<p>If those pictures that give hope and inspire are only palatable nature pictures and happy-go-lucky portraits, then there's something wrong with hope and inspiration. I, at least, want hope and inspiration to go a little deeper than that.</p>

<p>The hope is that pictures of suffering will move us in some way. Hope doesn't have to be the subject of the photo. One way to avoid the depression that comes from seeing images of reality is not to replace them with simplistic and easy-to-look-at niceties but rather to become part of a solution to the realities that bother or depress us. It might be more hopeful and inspiring and uplifting for us to turn <em>toward</em> the problem, as Salgado did for so many years, rather than away from it.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>You're entitled to your tastes as I am. But for me, I prefer pictures hanging on my walls and those I shoot to provide inspiration and pleasure, those that uplift. If I want to feel "down" or wish to pull out my checkbook to see who I might want to help, I'll read the newspaper or watch the evening news. </p>

<p>As an aside, Fred, I don't see anything in your own photos that are really depressing or show suffering. Even the Plowshare photos, which I admire, show challenged people but who show hope as well. So you seem to appreciate upbeat and inspiring, or just plain regular photos, as much as most people. Not from what you say but from your own shooting. You're cheerier than you think. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>You're entitled to your tastes as I am.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My previous post had nothing to do with taste. I don't know what you're talking about. Of course we're each entitled to our taste. But we can have a substantive discussion on photos that inspire and depress, a discussion that causes us each to think about our positions and doesn't warrant a "to each his own" conclusion, which as far as I'm concerned usually gets us nowhere. It's just a platitude that allows everyone to go home feeling good about their own opinions without having to look at or think about them.<br>

<br>

Alan, I don't think I ever suggested that I aspire to be a Salgado or am trying to do what I think Salgado is trying to do. I didn't say upbeat can't be inspiring. I said inspiring wasn't limited to upbeat. And I said pretty nature pictures aren't all that inspiring to me and I said that Salgado's work, even though depressing, is inspiring in certain ways. Just because I appreciate what Salgado is doing and see it as more than depressing doesn't mean I want or need to emulate him. I'm content to be Fred. Whatever discontent I have about my own work you may have hit upon, actually. And it's that I have a harder time letting my own darker side out, something I continually grapple with and will continue to try to break through.</p>

<p>And, again, what pictures you want to hang on your wall is not my concern. I don't want to hang many of Salgado's pictures on my wall either, which doesn't stop me from discussing them in depth and being significantly moved by them. Like I said earlier, comfort and decor are different from art and photojournalism.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Generically to this thread, I think it is pretty right that taste does come up - I think it is very related to the subject, and at the same time quite irrelevant too.<br>

In between style, voice, formula, it's pretty easy to get roadblocked by taste. If a photographer has a certain message, a certain treatment, a certain visual language that doesn't appeal to you, which doesn't fit your tastes, it's easy to dismiss the work alltogether, or label it as "depressing", "depicting suffering" and whatever.<br>

But that way, there isn't a whole lot left to be discussed, is there? Salgado is depressing and only depicting misery, full stop, period. Right. OK. Who's next? And what did we just learn here?</p>

<p>There is so much art that I only learnt to appreciate over time, with a serious effort and a serious step outside of the comfort zone to get into it. The first time I saw Mondriaan paintings, I could not imagine how one would pay even a dime for one. Now I'd just wish I could afford one. The first time I heard Mahler, I could not make any sense out of it, and found the finale (1st symphony) a hodgepodge of unrelated noises. Now, my fairly sizeable collection of Mahler recordings is among my most treasured things and it's the music I'd take to that proverbial island where you can take only 1 recording. For years, I didn't like to eat fish much. Now, living in the Mediterrenean, there isn't a thing I'd rather eat.<br>

Basing my decisions just on my taste, and taking that taste as a yardstick for anything, is limiting myself to a small, small world. Sure everybody is entitled to his or her taste. But liekwise, everybody is also entitled to challenge others to look outside of that small world, and discuss. I know people made me do so, and I am eternally grateful for that.</p>

<p>It really isn't about taste, it's about the process of acquiring it. Trying to get under the skin of things, learning to recognise the voice, style and see if you can make heads or tails out of it, not dismiss it out of hand because of preconceptions. Pick up the message of consistency, and see if it resonates with you. See if a formula is wearing out soon, or whether it just really is a working formula, not dismiss it right away just because it is a formula. I cannot see how any art can be made or appreciated without going through these fases, let alone having a decent discussion on it.<br>

None of this means you have to like everything, or anything; none of this means you aren't entitled to like what you like and dislike what you dislike. It just means it all is part of an open-minded intellectual discourse.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>With that all said, wishing you all a great 2015, hopefully with plenty good discussions :-)</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I never said Salgado's earlier work wasn't terrific, that it didn't stir powerful human feelings in viewers, including me. What I said is that I wouldn't want to focus on it and similar work on a regular basis, nor mount and look at these kind of pictures on the walls of my home. That doesn't make me any less compassionate then others, nor less inspired by art. Even Salgado acknowledged that he gave up this kind of work to do nature and landscape because he found the former had gotten too depressing. It was wearing on his soul.</p>

<p>On my cable, there are TV stations that only play music. I'm sure you have these as well. There has to be at least 30-40 different types of music to select from. Do you listen to all of them? Equally? Are there any you never have tuned too? Or do you have your favorites? Life is short. We have to allocate our time in a reasonable and efficient way. </p>

<p>Anyway, it's been a nice discussion. So Happy New Year everyone. I'm making a resolution to talk less and take more pictures in 2015. Hopefully it will last more than a day or two.</p>

[spanky]

<p>Thanks Allen Herbert and yes, for street photography in particular, I know I'm not alone in thinking that the audience for this genre is mostly other street photographers. I mean when was the last time anyone saw a Garry Wingrand or Robert Frank calendar next to the Ansel Adams at their local stationary store? Speaking of other photographers, here's an amusing little story.</p>

<p>The picture below was taken at the LA County Coroners Unclaimed Body funeral...aka the "paupers funeral". It's an annual inter-faith funeral for bodies that go unclaimed after three years. This was my first time attending. I showed up early, and stayed late and took a few rolls of pictures. During this time I began to notice a woman with a large DSLR and a laminated badge hung around her neck. I presumed she was one of the many press photographers that also were in attendance. Anyway, as I moved about the small plot I noticed that she was always within about 15 feet or so behind me wherever I happened to be. Since she seemed to be hovering I kept her in the corner of my eye. That's when I noticed that after I would take a picture and move on, she would then stand where I just was and for all appearances take a similar picture. This occurred several times. The picture below is one such example. After I left, she got to where I just was, crouched down slightly like I did and took a picture. "What the hell is she doing?" I thought. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not, I'll never know. At first I was irked at what appeared to be her poaching on my ideas but then I just felt amused and wondered if it wasn't a coincidence then what was it about me that drew her attention. Oh well, if she ran any such pictures, I would hope she gave some photo credit to the man dressed in black with the old Nikon film camera and light meter.</p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>I recommend to all to read this post on a previous page:</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5189561">Wouter Willemse</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 30, 2014; 12:15 p.m.</p>

<p>What Wouter is saying about discussing our own approach or style I heartily agree with (in addition to his more recent message of wishes for the New Year!). While much can be learned from analysing the work of past and present masters, the professional photographers that receive attention from the public, or in exchanges through debating or discussing the opinions of those contributing to posts like this one of Fred, ultimately most of our interest is in developing our own approaches and voice in photography. We seem to be sheepish about discussing our own work here on Photo.Net, unless of course the "elves" discover our work among the thousands of portfolios on Photo.Net and stimulate discussion by creating the photo of the week and inciting commentary by those who visit that site (buried somewhere these days amongst the Photo.Net headings and drop downs).</p>

<p>Like Wouter, I once lamented the lack of inter community discussion of personal approaches and objectives in photography as these might be quite beneficial for the photographer seeking to develop his own approach (Yes, critiques of individual photos are there and useful, up to a point as they concentrate on individual photos rather than the overall process undertaken by the photographer).</p>

<p>So, I suggested another forum on this subject and the reaction at that time (4 or 5 years ago) was that the opportunity already existed to do so in other forums. Wouter provides in his December 30 post one testimony to whether the current PofP forum engenders or not that discussion.</p>

<p>I don't know fully where my own development will take me in 2015, but in making a season's greeting card this month to far-flung friends I tried a light modification in PS Elements to a photo of one of our apple trees in winter.</p>

<p>In addition to my own greetings to fellow Photo.net followers I submit for your viewing a few modifications of a basic image. Each has been very lightly modified with an image editing filter in PS and one of the approaches or voices I am trying is to see how these images depart from the original and whether they add anything other than a simple departure from supposed reality and whether that reinforces or not the image. I am usually against great changes to a photographic image in PS but think that small changes can sometimes be beneficial. An exploration that will need much more systematic process on different subject matter before I can settle with one approach or style in future work. Thanks for looking. I hope you will consider Wouter's suggestion and I hope you will enjoy a great year.</p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>and modification no. 2</p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>and the original without minimal PS modification.</p>

<p>These examples may not be the best to incite exploring the potential of discussing approaches, styles and creation of a personal voice, but I like Wouter's restatement of a desire some of us have had to see more personal photography approach discussion in these forums. </p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Alan, thanks for your comments on my Plowshare photos, a community of people some of whom have some special needs. As Arthur states, it can be important and enlightening to discuss our own process so I'll provide a little feedback about that.</p>

<p>My photos reflect my experience at Plowshare. They are not meant to be a universal take on people with physical and emotional challenges. They are about this community. These photos have little connection, in my mind, to the photos of human suffering Salgado shows. I would hate to think we would associate people with emotional and physical challenges with the kind of human suffering in Salgado's work, though some portions of special needs populations certainly do suffer. What I've taken away from my now many visits to Plowshare is the way the community as a whole functions and the almost lack of clear distinction between those with special needs and those without. We all, as a matter of fact, have special needs. And commonality tends to be embraced far more than difference, even though difference is acknowledged and dealt with humanely. So, for me, though I understand and appreciate what you're saying, it's not a matter of <em>even</em> Plowshare photos showing hope. It's that, of course, they show hope, as so many photos of human beings show.</p>

<p>That being said, I'm just as taken by Arbus's photos which have a very different slant on a similar population and the many photojournalistic essays that have been done showing the ravages of certain institutions that are less than a healthy and prosperous environment for folks with challenges. I'm not covering it all. I'm covering what I'm exposed to and what I take away from it. And I've actually learned stuff not only from staying at the farm for a week at a time, but from looking through the pictures and discovering certain things when I see the many diverse faces all sharing something in common rather than showing differences. Someone else might very well pick up on the many differences apparent, and that would be interesting to see as well. It's just not where my experience and sensibility has led me.</p>

<p>There are darker pictures to be taken at Plowshare and I guess I'm not the one to do so, at least not yet. As a matter of fact, I've avoided certain photo opportunities that would have explored the darker side of things, purposely. It's simply not where my heart is. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and it doesn't mean I wouldn't want to be shown it by someone else who's more in touch with it than I want to be. I'm OK with experiencing it in the moment and dealing with the emotional hardships and more depressing sides of it, but I haven't found a comfortable way to express that through photography and am not sure I need to. When I say I do want to explore darker sides, I'd start with myself before putting the darker sides of others out there.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>We all have our limitations in life, and those change as well. Sometimes, things are better left unsaid or not photographed for the record. I know I have to understand my motives. If they help others, that's one thing. But I can become exploitative in a way satisfying my objectives exclusively. Situations like these can become delicate. I agree it's better to explore our own secrets. That's always healthier for us. </p>

<p>I'm curious, Fred, how you deal with the staff and people you photograph? How do you develop trust with them? Do any object and how do you deal with that? What are the limitations they impose on you? These are the kind of questions I ask when I have "dared" to take street shots. But of course you know these people on an intimate basis which is unlike street photography generally. </p>

<p> </p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p>Wouter Willemse: <em> I find it a pity how it is assumed that talking about one's own photography (in terms of approach and hopes-in-results) is pretentious and intellectualising, while talking about others is all fine. It happens often in threads such as these, and I genuinely feel it is a pity.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em> </em><em><br /></em>I think there is a tendency to be reticent about talking about one's own work. Arthur also mentioned something similar above in regard to people sometimes feeling sheepish. For certain contests or galleries I have written artistic statements that might have seemed a bit overblown to some people. I take sort of a dual approach to describing my work or style -- talking about it (as in an introduction to a book I just published) in a fairly serious manner and yet, like Marc Todd, trying not to take myself too seriously at the same time. It can be a fine line. A PN friend who saw an early version of my introduction noted that I should not put in self-deprecating comments (advice I took to heart for the final published version). But I could see someone reading it and thinking "Who the hell does this guy think he is talking about himself like he's Garry Winogrand or John Szarkowski?". But if you don't believe in your work, and you do not take it somewhat seriously, why would you expect anyone else to?</p>

<p>On the matter of "audience" -- Marc made an interesting comment about not seeing Garry Winogrand calendars next to the Ansel Adams calendar. Very true. But I don't think street photography is only appreciated by other street photographers. (As an aside, I don't really like the term "street photography", it seems too limiting and doesn't encompass the kind of work which, to me, falls stylistically, atmospherically, or tonally, within the same ballpark: the so-called "New Topographers" like Stephen Shore for one example, or the work of Francesca Woodman or Diane Arbus for some other examples.) I think people can appreciate ambiguous black and white photos of the human condition and see them as intriguing and possibly as a form of art. There's just not a huge market for it.</p>

<p>The photographs that I put in my PN portfolio, or on my website, or in a book, are ones I find value in, that move me in some way that I cannot easily describe. I know that not everyone gets it, and that's okay. If I had to describe what I do as a photographer, I would say that I try to photograph in a way that matches the same type of work that I like to view. Not to imitate any particular photographer, but certainly to capture that hard to describe ambiguous atmosphere or tone that one finds in a number of different photographers. I derive certain feelings from work by Shore, or Klein, or Arbus, or Friedlander, or Eggleston -- each different, some even in color, but all possessed of a certain something that grabs me, that makes me revel in life, even while there is a certain muted sadness, or surreality, or ambiguity that some may describe as a bit "dark". I embrace that kind of ambiguity and darkness because it somehow transmutes into an appreciation for the commonplace in life as being a kind of marvelous adventure. And it always involves human beings, or the implied presence (as in Shore or others) of human beings. I don't turn up my nose or sneer at photographs that are unambiguously uplifting, but I get my uplift from exactly the kinds of photos that I have attempted to describe here. And that is how, most of the time, I choose to photograph. </p>

<p>Now Arthur, I feel, has done a brave thing by putting up his series of images. I think, Arthur, that I have seen you mention on a number of occasions recently that you are moving toward trying to break out and try different things. I applaud that. I am not at a point where I can do that yet (I take a more organic and haphazard approach and wait to be surprised by something I find in my own work which may lead me in a slightly altered direction -- as opposed to making a conscious effort of will). I would like to comment on your photos but I need to digest them a bit more (and I'm not entirely confident that I could come up with anything very helpful or intelligent to say). </p>

<p>The darkness of which I spoke above (a darkness from ambiguity, uncertainty, and the grittiness of the street) is a bit different from the type of darkness that Fred refers to above. At a venue like Plowshare, I too would be reticent about showing the clearly dark in fear that it would smack of the exploitive and the sensationalistic. </p>

[aplumpton]

<blockquote>

<p>I embrace that kind of ambiguity and darkness because it somehow transmutes into an appreciation for the commonplace in life as being a kind of marvelous adventure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve, good contribution in regard to things or environments that capture attention or tend to be part of appreciation and photographic approaches. I can sympathize with the attraction of the unknown, dark, enigmatic or uncertain, as they often inspire us to more profound thoughts. Please excuse my three photos that are not really a part of what I am trying to do in any symbolic or literal sense but are simply technical or craft approaches to achieving somewhat different visual depictions of a subject matter. These images communicate little as subjects I humbly acknowledge, but maybe I can find a way to use the modification techniques to favor other visual perceptions.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Arthur, Instead of me commenting on your photos since I don't know your intent, what is is that you were trying to accomplish with them?</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Exploration of subtle surrealistic colors or patterns superimposed on a straight image. A first shot at it for me and where it leads who knows. The ones in the images arte perhaps not subtle enough to be effective.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Mod 2 looks like a posterization. I guess you're going for some sort of a graphic design. The chopped off portion of the tree you show seems to eliminate any nature or landscape look. The mods seem to wash out some of the snow into the highly clipped area. But I'm not sure where you're going with these. Your picture does remind me of something similar I did when I converted a color to BW. But the landscape view was still intact. But I don't think that's what you want with yours.</p>

<p><a title="Stream B/W by Alan Klein, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5163/5262894240_268acf55e3_z.jpg" alt="Stream B/W" width="640" height="494" /></a></p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Alan, I am not concerned by the subject matter here or achieving a landscape look or an enhanced graphic result, as I am really only exploring the effect of different filters (including the light posterization effect of no.2, or one of a slightly reduced tonal range or other) on how more subtle PS filtration (that is, one bordering on a just recognizable effect) would affect images I have done, and whether the slight changes can enhance any feeling that the photograph may already suggest or which I would like it to suggest. The exploration will consider in future other subject matter than landscapes and those which have stronger emotional or symbolic content than the specific case of a simple landscape.</p>

<p>Your high contrast winter scene approaches that of a graphic image (Of course, photography incorporates a more generic term "graphics" into which art falls, but I mean here the use of graphic lines and forms that are extracted from, and emphasized, within a perceived image).</p>

<p>The following image is quite contrary to what I am trying to achieve but it was my first attempt to use the filtrations available in image editing to convey a message. In that case, the protection of cultural (farming) landscapes in our town was the theme of an article I wrote. I wanted to convey by the posterized sky and mountains a sense of continuity or permanence that wasn't at all guaranteed in the manmade landscape below. The photographic effect is much stronger than what I am now looking for. The approach or voice I would like to devrelop is more subtle and one which brings the viewer to think, "hmm, something is not real or true in this image, and I wonder why not?" In other words, to incite a dialogue with the viewer.</p><div></div>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Maybe smoothing the image using noise reduction might create that question in the viewer's mind. One thing I would consider though if you wish for people to think about the value of of not changing current land practices. If you distort the image, you might create an idea in the viewer that you're trying to influence them with an untrue picture of what the land looks like. It might be better to keep the picture as close to an honest view of what's actually there, without any un-do interpretation on your part.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>My view: What isn't real or true in the landscape is the sky because of the filtering. That filtering may suggest that farmland is, compared to the much altered pristine nature of the sky, as much a filtering of nature as is the photographic treatment of the sky. Also, sky is always changing its mood, so sky itself doesn't necessarily suggest permanence, sky instead may call to mind vicissitudes. Sky could be further filtered to suggest the dark side of proposed changes in land management. Note that rocks and mountains suggest permanence, able to withstand changes in weather, etc.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Charles, some good (and relevant) examples demonstrating different possible interpretations! Like the mountains, the sky clouds are in fact little altered (Weather certainly changes the superficial appearance of the sky; while clouds always have identical chemical and similar physical compositions they appear different superficially from each other as do snowflakes (or humans...). Maybe the land should be visually shown as uncertain (e.g., posterized) and the sky and mountains left "normal" in appearance, suggesting their permanence. But more than 12,000 years ago, before the last ice age, these small (2600 foot) mountains were quite different and as impressive as the Alps.</p>

<p>In any case, I doubt whether many of the readers of the plea for conservation of cultural landscapes took away from a reading of this image anything to do with the fragility of the manmade farming landscapes. They may have only seized its title.</p>

<p>Man struggles to imprint his order on nature, but nature obeys the opposing laws involving entropy, or the gradual and continual disordering of matter. </p>