Worth Reading

[Norma Desmond]

<p>If I were looking at a nude and couldn't tell which body part or gender, I'd likely be intrigued if it were a decent photo.</p>

<p>I don't want all the work done for me as a viewer and I don't want to do the viewer's work for him as a photographer. Often, the best photos make a viewer work. Often, ambiguity is a significant quality in a good photo.</p>

<p>It is true that the top-rated photo forum on PN and the popular Internet photography sites tell us a different story, one in which easy is good and where quick-view digestion rises to the top. It's why most landscape photography calendars sell.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>I would also display the moonbow shot much darker. FWIW, a moonbow is one of the shots of the Lower Falls of the Genesee that I still hope to capture someday. The last time there was a full moon, clear weather, and enough flow in the river to create spray, there was a construction project going on with so many lights that there was no way a moonbow would be visible. This endeavor also involves parking the car in a rough section of town at 4 am. I need backup for this project. </p>

<p>Ideally, I would fix the thin bright line at the horizon, but this was another quick example. </p>

<p>

[Moderator's note - Image removed. Not created by poster]

[Matthew Currie]

<p>Ron your photos will never sell because they are not pink and purple with garish clouds overhead, and you forgot to put the dead tree in the foreground.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Just a reminder that the Photo.net terms of use state that anything you post must be your own creation, not a modification of someone else's (copyrighted) work.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Ron, I have never seen a moonbow, but one time I did see a "moon dog" caused by high cirrus around a nearly full moon. It was not as bright as a sundog, but it was very distinct--though a bit grim and forbidding-looking. Call me superstitious, but less than three days later I was carried to the hospital for a ten-day stay--my only hospital admission since my tonsillectomy at the age of six. Divine sign? I don't know. I just know that I don't want to see any more moondogs--unless I have a camera and a tripod with me to prove that they can happen.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[danmarchant]

<p>I was rather amused by this comment the blog author made</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>There was even a photo that was almost identical to <a href="http://www.lik.com/news/newsarticle57/" target="_blank">Peter Lik’s Phantom</a>,</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which I think says a lot about the quality of Lik's work and echoes what others have said. many of these images are unoriginal in their execution. In addition most of them appear to be overly sentimental representations of the location produced using excessive pp. They are desktop pictures, inspirational poster images with no hard edges and nothing meaningful to say.<br>

So I wonder, what will future historians call this school of photography? The mediocrests? </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>what will future historians call this school of photography?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Probably several names will apply, just as they have for decades, depending on where each one falls:<br>

<br>

Commercial photography<br>

Kitsch<br>

Crap<br>

Popular photography<br>

Snapshot<br>

. . .<br>

</p>

[dave_s]

<p><em>Everything has been photographed. Accept this. Photograph things better. (</em>Guess who said that?)</p>

<p>Mr Ugo Cei seems to have created a bit of a straw-man argument. You can't say those images are the cutting edge of landscape photography, and they're what you'd expect to find on a site like that.</p>

<p>I don't think this stuff is representative of the state of the art. You guys have far more photographic erudition than me, but I think most people who take landscape seriously have other influences.</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>On vacation in town ?????? on a rainy day we went with my wife to the local Thomas Kinkade gallery. The paintings made us laugh so hard that we had to run out of the store under managers suspicious eyes. There is value in bad art.</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Never really understood the hatred for Kinkade. Many people enjoy the idyllic little world he created. It gives them a sense of peace and calm. Norman Rockwell basically did the same thing in a different style. Does something have to be ambiguous or abstract or edgy to be considered 'good' art? Why can't it simply be 'pretty' or pleasant to look at? Does it take any less effort to make a photograph like the ones presented here than it does to make one that some would consider good art, perhaps because of nothing more than its subject matter? Why are the opinions of thousands of people who have a Kinkade hanging in their homes discounted as ignorant or uneducated or laughable? There is no universal definition of art. Like beauty, it's completely in the eye of the beholder. Just because something appeals to the masses doesn't make it 'bad art,' does it? </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Just because something appeals to the masses doesn't make it 'bad art,' does it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Kinkade's stuff is bad (I don't think it's art) not because it appeals to the masses (plenty of great art appeals to the masses). It's bad because it's bad. In Kinkade's case, bad means superficial and syrupy as a can of coke. It's not art because it's not creative, not original, not transformative.<br /> <br /> It might be of some value to look carefully at the work of Norman Rockwell and the work of Kinkade and get a feeling for why Rockwell is an artist and Kinkade is not. They may, of course, have some things in common. But probably focusing on the differences would be of benefit. Google some critical articles about each of their work. See if anything written makes sense to you. The political, cultural, and social aspects of Rockwell's work may be a place to start.<br /> <br /> As far as beauty being in the eye of the beholder, there's some truth to it, as there are to many clichés (in that sense, it's a good phrase to apply to Kinkade). But a lot of that beauty, to call forth another cliché, is only skin deep. I believe viewers can learn how to view with more depth just as photographers can learn how to take better pictures. So there are some "eyes" I give more credence to than others just like there are some photographers who I think are more developed and worthy of my time than others. There will always be differences of taste but I wouldn't want taste to be the thing the prevents people from deepening their level of visual sophistication and appreciation, from learning how to see and how better to look at paintings and photos.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>Kincade's paintings have some value in the same way that McDonalds has some value. Both stimulate certain pleasure centers in the brain. McDonalds can satisfy hunger (and can also result in obesity). Kincade paintings can be pleasant to look at (and can also empty your bank account). Both are effective in what they do. I wouldn't call either one art. </p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Kinkade is merely an example, but there are many who paint/photograph still-life's, landscapes, wildlife, flowers, etc. Are their works not 'art' simply because they aren't cutting-edge, original in subject-matter, controversial, emotive, 'transformative?' And just because it's not any of those things to you, the viewer, doesn't mean it isn't at least one of them to someone else.</p>

<p>One should always be open to changing one's perspective on a thing, be it a photograph, a painting, a food, a film, a piece of music, a book, whatever, but I would consider myself arrogant to dismiss something as being unworthy of being called art simply because I didn't like it.<br>

</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>No Ron, but you would call McDonald's 'food,' and it would be food every bit as much as a meal at one of the world's finest restaurants. Perhaps not nearly as good to some, but better to others. </p>

[randrew1]

<p>Bill is right. McDonalds serves food. Kincade produced art. My prior post should be modified to say, "I wouldn't call either one fine art." </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Bill, if you're addressing me in terms of being open to changing my perspective, I am. If you could point me to something that's written about Kinkade that addresses why it's either good or art, I'd be willing to read it and see if that might change/open my mind. I've been looking at it for years not thinking it's art, so it would take a nudge, perhaps by someone more visually acute than me, to make me see what I have so far not seen in his work. That has happened with several artists who I originally did not appreciate, but upon further study and someone else's critical eye guiding me, I've changed my mind.</p>

<p>If all art is not simply decoration then art has to have some qualities that go beyond mere decor, IMO. I'm not afraid to address those qualities (though not all art has all of them, of course) and I am OK with excluding some things from the category of art, even if others would include those same things. Over the years, I've developed the sense that art is not anything anyone refers to as art, so I don't think I need or would want to accept anything as art just because some people think it is.</p>

<p>Again, if my statements led to your saying it's "arrogant to dismiss something as being unworthy of being called art simply because I didn't like it", there is plenty of art I don't like. My liking or disliking something doesn't make it art or not. <strong><em>Just like someone else's liking Kinkade doesn't make it art.</em></strong> If it's "arrogant", not a word I'd use to characterize the opinions expressed here, to dismiss something as art based on one's not liking it, would it be arrogant to call it art <em>because</em> one liked it? I don't much care for several of Saint-Saëns's orchestral works but believe they're art. I'm not moved by Ansel Adams's photos other than on a technical level yet I wouldn't question others referring to him as an artist. I don't particularly like some amount of the religious paintings of the Renaissance but have studied much of them and think even the stuff I don't like is important art.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Art is made by artists, so it is important to think of yourself as an artist. Ansel Adams and his ilk demanded to be treated like this and hence we do think of him as an artist, just as Michelangelo tried to make himself an independent person not just a craftsman subject to the whims of his patrons. This is the eternal problem of being a creative person and yet having to make a living. </p>

<p>The blogger is quite right, landscape photography is one of the dullest forms of photography because it is everywhere and so much of it is recycled famous "beauty spots". And yet it wants so often to be taken seriously. I also agree that ideas of what constitute good landscapes seem to have been settled and that as a result we have endless low angle, wide angle shots (must have shift-tilt lenses!) with blurry waterfalls, hyped up colors, cloned out wires and electricity pylons, and obvious graduated filter use. I know I am not alone in being heartily sick of "golden hour" photos of any kind. There is a relentless desire to prettify everything in most landscapes. I wonder why?</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Fred, no, I wasn't addressing the perspective comment to you specifically, but saying that any person with any interest in 'art' should be open to the idea of changing his/her perspective, including myself. I'm not a fan of Jackson Pollock, for example (as you know from a previous discussion), but I'd be quite willing to listen to someone's perspective who is, and perhaps change mine in the process. I have nothing that would convince you that what Kinkade did was 'art' because I am not able to define art. In its most general definition, pretty much anything that is created purely for aesthetic reasons is art, which would certainly encompass Kinkade's works. Naturally art can go beyond that, and try to express specific emotions, social injustice, point-of-view, etc. Some works certainly have more significance than others in what they are trying to convey, but I don't think we can dismiss something that IS just for decoration as not being art.</p>

<p>It's interesting that you use a composer analogy in your comment, as I had started to do the same in a previous one but edited it out. I was going to compare Stravinsky to Vivaldi in terms of how one might compare Kinkade (Vivaldi) to someone that might be considered more cutting-edge. I believe both are artists, though I'd be hard-pressed to make it through any of Stravinsky's works while others despise Vivaldi.</p>

<p>I'm afraid I'm getting a bit lost on what you consider art exactly. Why would an Adam's print be considered art, for example (an assumption I'm making because you said you'd have no problem with him being referred to as an artist), and not those landscapes presented at the start of this thread? Perhaps the differentiation is with the term 'fine art,' as Ron notes, though I have no idea what that really is either.</p>

<p> </p>

[jordan2240]

<blockquote>

<p>There is a relentless desire to prettify everything in most landscapes. I wonder why?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think the answer to that is obvious Robin. It's because what appeals to us visually is pretty universal, or so it seems to be given the number of people from different parts of the world who create similar depictions of landscapes. Take a picture at the 'golden hour' and the same picture on a gloomy overcast, day and chances are a large majority of people with normal vision will prefer the one taken at the 'golden hour.' And besides, part of the appeal of taking a 'beautiful shot' is in having taken it yourself, no matter how many shots are out there just like it. </p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>I have included Thomas Kinkade in to this conversation because I feel that there are some similarities between his work and landscape photos OP started discussion with. I get similar impression of shallowness, falsehood and drive to please the widest audience possible for commercial gain. I'm not passing any judgment on the man or people who buy his work. My dentist has one of Kinkade's gardens hanging in front of patients chair - very thoughtful idea. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The difference between Adams and the landscape photographers in the OP is, IMO, a matter of both craft and refinement.</p>

<p>Don't short-change Vivaldi. Stravinsky may sound more cutting edge to us because he's closer historically and we haven't had the benefit of a long historical past yet. Vivaldi, for his time, was quite innovative. And Stravinsky, to many contemporary composers, might already seem a bit pedestrian.</p>

<p>I also wouldn't want to over-emphasize "cutting edge" as a necessary component of art. It's a component but it's not what all art is about. Art that's personal, that has a degree of authenticity, might not be that original but can still be quite powerful. There were plenty of good cubists who followed Picasso and many of them were not as original as Picasso but still had a personal and authentic voice in using that cubist style.</p>

<p>When I look at Adams's landscapes, whether or not I like them, I get a genuine sense that this was the way he saw landscapes and he was in touch with what he wanted to show and what and how he was seeing. When I look at Kinkade and the landscape photographers in the OP, I get much more a sense of pandering and inauthenticity. And even if "inauthentic" is going too far, in that maybe that is really the way they saw things, then I'd say they simply were not in touch with the degree of influence on them and the lack of personal investment in their own visions. There were cubists who were simply copy-cats and those I would likely not see as artists. Then there were cubists who used that successful grammar of the day to still give us something of their own. The landscapes in the OP don't seem to me to have anything of their own.</p>

[ted_marcus1]

<p>Mr. Cei's blog post reminds me of the reason I quit the local camera club some years ago. The judges, drawn from luminaries of the Southern California Council of Camera Clubs, seem to have a "groupthink" checklist applied uniformly and reflexively to all pictures. Any violation of the Sacred Rule of Thirds or the "law" calling for a "single center of interest at or near a crash point," or anything that was difficult for a judge to "read" immediately (through cataracts?), resulted in a low grade.<br /><br />Many if not most of the club members were primarily looking to win competitions. They quickly learned the checklist, and mastered the craft of consistently producing uniformly conforming images that got high scores. But the resulting succession of high-scoring images was soporifically boring to sit through. The pictures were pretty enough. But they lacked anything compelling, or anything that distinguished one member's work from another's. <br /><br />I quit because I was more interested in improving my photography than in learning to consistently apply a rote formula that yielded calcified high-scoring images. The emphasis on competition (and on gear) did not help me with what I was looking for.<br /><br />Mr. Cei seems to have much the same complaint. But here it's a "groupthink formula" that's apparently deemed the secret for producing saleable images. It perhaps confirms Stephen Sondheim's observation that "art isn't easy."</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Fred, I get it now, points well taken. And just for the record, I always liked Vivaldi, but am aware of his critics (but who in the art world doesn't have critics).</p>

<p>Ted, well-explained.</p>

[jimpete]

<p>I am of the camp that it is difficult to do landscape photography. Despite all the chatter about it being boring and trite and that all the familiar sites have been photographed to death it is still difficult to execute. It takes a lot of effort, money, and time, and being in the right place at the right time with the correct light is ephemeral. There are always new angles and interpretation of different lighting at familiar sites. If we get bored of all these magical places that have been photographed over the years with excellent skill by many photographers then we are all in trouble. Looking forward to excellent interpretations of landscape photos in already familiar sites in the future. How does creativity become boring?</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I like the places: it's the photos and photographers that are tiresome.</p>