Copper Mine, Virgin Gorda, BVI

Hello. I thought I would drop by to see what you do - hadn't seen yet... Here are a few quite general comments about this image and the whole folder... I hadn't seen this place before, and you captured it well, but now, have I really seen it, have I felt it...? Colors are fine, the angle is ok, basically it's a no-problem picture, but it's also a picture that lacks impact. This one has a clear subject, whereas a few others in the folder show a costal line or such from so far that we can bearely see it... All this brings me back to discuss the reason why we take pictures. To me - and there are other ways to look at it for sure - the only reasons to take such a picture would be to create a postcard-like shot, or to actually create something so powerful and impactful that it wouldn't be missed nor forgotten... Here, it is quite clear to me that the subject isn't worth a postcard. It is quite an anonymous little ruin middle of nowhere. So, it shouldn't be treated a s a postcard-like shot

- imo - because it would inevitably remain weak as such. So, it should be art. Art, unlike postcards, "doesn't reproduce what's visible, but makes new things visible" (Paul Klee's words badly translated). There hasn't been a shot of this kind I took in my life without thinking of this sentence... Let me explain why I find these words so great... What is visible here is: the sea, the stones, the 2 doorways in the ruin, the shape of the ruin, the little wall in front, the plants in front of this wall, etc. We all can see that, and it's nothing much in itself, as we said... But, what can we show about this place that wasn't visible before...? Example of an answer (among thousands): death. This is a ruin, and it is quite soul-less now, but it was inhabited before - if not there wouldn't be doors... These doorways are not doorways, they are where human being passed by, and no longer do. How long ago ? I don't know. Maybe these human beings passed by there with the sun behind them long ago, and maybe their shadow was projected on a floor which used to be flat, and now it's all broken... Maybe these human beings died. Maybe they were fishermen, maybe they left a widow with 2 kids, as they disappeared in the sea. And if you look at one of the wall, maybe you will see something engraved in it, a stupid heart with an arrow in it, or initials, etc. Who engraved these words. We do not know. All we know is that people lived here or used this to store things, and that they gave up on this place, and that life might have by now left their bodies. Death. And other people came after them, and others, and others... That's what a ruin is: a place were lives have passed by, and where only Death has really settled down for good... Now if you could show that about this ruin, you wold have created art. Of course all this is only 1 single possibility among many others. Probably every sain person reading my BS would say "Hey man, hold on... this was just a capture of a ruin ok ?" Yes. It was JUST that. And that's the problem - because nobody cares about this place as a place, whereas we all care about death. Example of a possible application to execute this imaginary shot about death... Load a Black and white film - death can't have ordinary landscape colors -, wait for the sunset and while the sun goes down, observe the stones from different angles. Plan a wide angle at first - because it's the most dramatic kind of lens - check where the shadows are, what gets highlighted, which lines are most dramatic, look for a detail or 2 on a wall that would be symbols of death (a forgotten dress damaged by time, something engraved somewhere, something sharp, a threatening shadow)... And here it comes. You will find. Why ? Because you knew what you were looking for.

That's about it. Art is basically just a way to project your vision of things on them, a way to paint all with yourself...:-) You can show Death, anything you like that the subject would allow to show, but you'll have to show something, and to show it strongly, and to show it your way. Overall, if you agree, and if you think a bit more about this - feel free to e-mail me by the way, if you want -, then you will improve so much in a short time in the art of capturing people's interest, that photography might have taken a completely new meaning to you... I wish I'm not just plain wrong...:-) Regards.

In general, I agree with what you had to say. :) The Copper Mine photo is somewhat weak, and many of the others, especially in that folder, are as well. I'm not a very good photographer, and even the stuff I like best many people would find boring.

 

I never used to post photos in public at all. I don't do this for public consumption. But, I was critiquing on photo.net (constructively, or at least attempting) and kept reading the accusations against those who critique but don't post photos. Personally, I never agreed with that notion, but I thought, wok the heck, I'll do it. So when I first got a scanner I grabbed a few things and uploaded them. Copper Mine was one of them. I need to go back through my folders and delete many of the images and replace them with better ones. But even my best isn't all that much better. :)

 

My personal relationship with photography revolves around a few main themes. One thing that fascinates me is photography-as-time-machine. The fact that a photo freezes and preserves a micro-instant of time, already gone by the time the shutter closes, fascinates me no end. Whether it's my own work, or that of others, this notion of "time machine" is always strong for me. So in many cases, even a work that is, at best, banal to other folks will interest me quite a bit. Another is that I like beauty, and formalized, conventional beauty at that.

 

So, in my own work, you'll see a lot of very static, formal, boring (to most) compositions. This is intentional. Not that I mean to be boring. :) It's just that, to my aesthetic, they are *not* boring. The capture-in-time holds my interest, and the static, formal composition pushes pleasure-buttons within me associated with my own perception of beauty. Also, the formality and balance in the compositions relates to inner notions about the way the universe is constructed, and paints an idealized vision of a world that, at first glance, seems not to exist, but that I believe does exist, just at a much higher level than we can normally see.

 

Another thing I take a LOT of, in fact, my most common subject matter, is cloud patterns and sunsets. It's an unusual roll of film for me that isn't at least 25% of this subject matter. Oh, yawn, how boring! :) What can there possibly be to say about a sunset? What worthwhile thing to communicate?

 

Nothing. Other than pure beauty, there is nothing there. No overt message.

 

Ah. But! :)

 

To me, there are several strong messages, even if I am the only one who hears them. One is the overwhelming beauty of the world at its best, something we are fortunate (or is it unfortunate?) enough to be blasé' about. I photograph beauty. What is more beautiful than a good sunset or cloudscape? Very few subjects I come in contact with very often.

 

Another is the incredibly transitory nature of that beauty. By freezing it in time, clutching it in my hand, I have cheated Death itself. Hah! Take that, Kali! You thought that sunset was lost and gone forever, but no, I have it locked up here, in my jewelbox.

 

Still another is the pure unhuman-ness of that beauty, and indeed of the world itself. I am here, intoxicated, transfixed by this beauty...but the world is uncaring, unconcerned, not even aware of my presence. To me, that's a powerful message about what's important and what's not.

 

You said (quoting Paul Klee): "Art, unlike postcards, "doesn't reproduce what's visible, but makes new things visible"".

 

Well....yes and no. Sometimes presenting the "commonplace" is intended to make you see the commonplace with new appreciation. Much of Warhol's work, for example, was about this. Warhol usually intended to communicate some sardonic comment about society. I try to show incredibly beautiful, and yet commonplace, banal, overworked, clichéd subject matter. Why? To shake you (and me) up, slap you aside the head, MAKE you remove the blinders of complacency and familiarity. The message is that the very notions of "commonplace", "banal", "clichéd" are straightjackets of conceit that serve nothing but the ego...and you are not your ego, the ego's shrill protestations to the contrary. The message is that the world is an incredible dance of beauty and light and change that is offered to you, freely, with open hand. The only price is that you have to leave your complacency and ennui behind.

 

Do I succeed at communicating this stuff? Probably not terribly often, if ever. I don't claim to be good at it. :)

 

Note that when I say "you" in the paragraph above, I don't mean you personally, but just "the viewer".

 

Thanks again for your comments. :)

Damn ! Had I known all this, I would have written the same kind of BS but using a different example ! :-) 1st, let me adjust something: Paul Klee didn't say "unlike postcards", that was something I added. 2nd, you probably read above that I didn't reject the idea of a postcard at all. I just see it as 1 of the 2 possibilities. 3) I stated that I found this place wasn't special enough - of course: to me - to lend itself to an amazing postcard... Though, thinking about it again, maybe at sunset, etc, it could work out... 4) You said also that you shoot or yourself, and not really to share your work, which is fine by me. But look, this is now pretty frustrating, after I wrote all this, if you actually don't care much to show your images !! :-)) I always assume from the start that we produce images to communicate - i.e to others. If that was wrong, I'm a bit lost right now...:-))

Finally, you also wrote this: "The message is that the world is an incredible dance of beauty and light and change that is offered to you, freely, with open hand." So, there is hope - for me...:-) Meaning that if there is a message, there is a language to convey it and a person to receive it - or am I wrong again here ? If so, the language for a message about beauty would need to be matching with its content, I guess. Which means that we should, if I follow your idea, convey beautifully our message - i.e "incredible dance of beauty and light and change".

If all this is correct, just replace my example of "Death" by these words of yours, and of course the whole thing will change but the effort will be essentially the same, won't it ?

Curious to read your reply, and I'd love if you could give me a link to a picture somewhere that achieves exactly what you mean to achieve - whether it would be on PN or elsewhere...

It is now pretty obvious that we are after completely different things with photography, but that's exactly what I find highly interesting in this case. So I want to visualize what you mean exactly. Thanks for this very interestinand, I must say, surprising reply. Kind regards.

Marc,

To respond to specific points:

1) Yes, I understood that and tried to make it clear. I may not have succeeded. :)

2 and 3) Yes, I agree, a postcard is one of two possibilities, although I don't see "postcard scenes" the same way most do, from an artistic value point of view. This photo was, in fact, a "postcard", just not a very good one. So, I agree with your critical assessment. :)

4) Well, sorry, didn't mean to waste your time. :)) If people choose to look at them, I feel honored, and if they go to the trouble of writing about them, as you did, I'm far more honored still. What I was trying to convey is that public consumption is not my motivation when I make the images. I fully accept that my sense of both artistic value and the true nature of reality is far enough from the norm that what speaks to me will be dismissed by most folks. If I was shooting for others, I'd probably attempt to make different sorts of photos from these.

It's ironic that you make the point "..we produce images to communicate..", because I have often said that the very definition of art is: a means of communicating emotion. :) To give fair credit, I think I got that from someone else many years ago, perhaps Heinlein.

"Emotion" is, perhaps, too limited a word for what art can communicate. In this case, I intend "emotion" to mean an opposite to facts or thoughts. A sort of left-brain vs. right-brain thing. But there's more to the human experience than just emotions and thoughts. Other things much more mysterious and hard to pin down. Art can often communicate or evoke these things, but just what is being communicated?

Anyway, where I think where our approaches may differ in "... we produce images to communicate - i.e to others..." is the "to others" part. Much art is a dialog between the artist and himself. I see mine that way. When I show it in public it's almost like I'm showing a page from a diary. I don't rate its success or failure on what other folks think about it, but what I think about it. And no, I'm not very satisfied with my work, at least as presented online.

Which brings us to my last point, which is to answer your request for a "... link to a picture somewhere that achieves exactly what you mean to achieve...". Grrr. Now see what you did? You made me even more unsatisfied. I'm a tortured artist! Waaah! :))

The closest I can come at the moment is this:

Dark sunset

It's really unsatisfying to have to point to this as the best thing online at present. This photo has several problems, but from my point of view (in terms of what I was trying to do), they're all technical. The color banding around the sun is problematic. Some areas need to be "burned-in". The slide looks just like I wanted it to. But I have continuing problems getting the info from the slide into the scan.

In addition, I have a lot of trouble getting the quality of light I find evocative onto film. Most of the stuff I find most compelling is shot into the light, and both exposure and contrast range is problematic.

I have hopes that getting an autobracketing back for my camera (for combined-scan techniques), a better scanner (higher Dmax), and learning more about using Photoshop, will help get more of the light I see into the final image. It's coming along, but I can't point to anything and say "I'm satisfied with that" I said I wasn't very good. :)

Thanks very much for the exchange. It forced me to consciously examine some things that I hadn't really thought through before.