the visual journey - gallery i Spirit Garden

I think the problem here is the use of the words art and artist, which get bandied about WAY too much and are often misunderstood.

In this very thread, some have assumed that the saturation, Thomas Kinkade effect, sharpening, greens that look like crayola on acid, and the Disney-esque star burst, because they are something unreal-looking and thought up by the photographer's imagination, are a sign of art. IMO, that's a false assumption, just as sure as kitsch is false art. Worse yet would be the assumption that any and every photo posted or chosen as POTW is by default art.

The Pictorialists have to be put into context and they sort of HAD to do certain things to get photography accepted as art. But there is much Pictorialism that, though painterly-like, gauzy, and pretty idealized and not emphasizing the uniqueness of photography but rather trying to mimic already-accepted art forms, is still subtle, nuanced, graceful, and compelling. Many of the Pictorialists modeled their photos on GOOD art, as opposed to Kinkade's crap, and two of its defining characteristics -- as in THIS PHOTO BY STIEGLITZ -- were atmosphere and soft lines, nothing like what I see in the POTW.

Now, we can call Kinkade bad art or not art, it doesn't really matter to me and not a discussion I want to get into, but either way, throwing the term art at this particular photograph may not be all that helpful in assessing it, because in my mind it's either NOT art or not good no matter what we call it.

Rather than call it art, I'd prefer to call it "boiler-plate-early-21st-century-naive-photoshop-slider-bar-overdose."

As for the word garden in the title, it's poetic license and/or metaphor. I don't like most titles, and this is no exception, but I certainly don't mind the word garden here. I have more of a problem with spirit. This is spiritual in the same way TV evangelists are spiritual, in the same way early color tvs were spiritual when their color and contrast had been amped up by someone accidentally rubbing against the knobs that stuck out of the front of the set. I remember some Sunday nights when the earth in Bonanza and the faces of Ben, Hoss, and Little Joe Cartwright looked like glowing burnt-orange cartoons until someone got up off the couch and readjusted those little knobs.

it’s not so much the artifice of the frame, the sugary view of nature. It’s rather the stupendous presumption of the photographer to invite the viewer toward something transcendent, with an offering ever so maudlin. The phoniness of the title attaches perfectly to the image.

The present POW has achieved one great success. It has brought to the attention of the viewers, the readers, and the formulators of the comments and critiques, the reminder that art and quality of photography are not well-fixed values or appreciations. We all have different ways of determining what is art and what is not, or what is a successful and communicative photographic image, and what is not. The more we discuss these qualities, the better we will become at recognizing and appreciating creative works, at educating ourselves in regard to some of the criteria for such work, and in developing for ourselves a more refined experience and aesthetic.

This evolution is also pertinent I think for those elves who choose the POW images, their knowledge of the interaction of good art and photography and their ability to screen significant images without the crutch of recourse to popular ratings on Photo.Net or to specific styles of photography. At one time, many homes I knew displayed the clichéd reproduction of a painting of elephants thundering across an African plain. It was a popular style and theme. Does anyone remember the name of the artist? I have discovered some very fine images here simply by visiting the portfolios of some whose comments appear in the forums or in response to the thumbnails appearing below those postings. It is not uncommon or surprising to see few comments or critiques appearing with those very impressive images. If you are open to original photography and willing to spend a little time viewing such works, that exercise may be just as valuable as spending some time at a good art or photography exhibition.

I think Arthur is on to something here. While Marc has a stupendous portfolio and I'm envious of his work ethic in capturing such a variety of spectacular scenes, this image seems to border more on the lines of a fine illustration versus a photograph. However, that being said, I think Marc is on the cutting edge and is a master of what is to be expected (and has been practiced by commercial ads for some time) of photography in the future. We see the preferences shifting toward the more dramatic, saturated and lighting improbable images, even here on PNet.

In defense of Marc and his technique, I would assume that the Zone System and Ansel Adams would have been considered a heretic by many of the photographers of his day. Who's going to believe that the lighting in many of his works was what his eye was seeing. Adams was a master of dark room processing just as Marc is with software. I offer the sacrilege opinion that Ansel Adams would be a PhotoShop groupie if he lived today.

While I'm still mired in reality with my amateur shooting, I'm trying to keep an open mind to the possibilities available to us and techniques that Marc is already using. It would be beneficial though if photographers, and not just Marc, would come clean when posting and without giving away any unique methods tell us some of the methodology used to present their work. I, for one, wouldn't be so frustrated when I spend bug bitten hours trying to capture a mountain scene and come away with a snapshot. It would let me know that perhaps that is all they got too, before the software.

ML, I think some of your points are very well stated, especially that Adams would likely have devoted much effort to learning and using Photoshop. It's not sacrilege to say that at all. It's fairly commonly agreed upon that he would have embraced digital photography and processing.

That being said, I am a bit more reserved when it comes to some of the things you said. It is certainly true that many innovative photographers and artists were not recognized until later and, because they were on the cutting edge, they were maligned by people not yet ready to accept their visions. For every one of those, there are probably ten thousand who were also maligned by the people of their times and who deserved it and never amounted to a hill of beans. It's tempting to justify a lot of stuff, and is done all the time on PN, by saying that anyone who is criticized is likely cutting edge and not understood by his peers and is a true artist even more so for not being recognized. I'll take a pass on that.

I agree with you that Adams's finished photos of Yosemite don't look like the Yosemite I've seen and felt, nor should any photo have to meet such representative standards, but they are neither illustrations nor over-the-top in terms of what light and natural textures can do, and I'm not here to defend Adams who I think of more as a fine craftsman and technician than an artist. I find NO comparison between the sensibility and approach Adams took to his work and what we see in this POTW. Adams worked tirelessly to make his darkroom work at least seem organic to his content and to have the processing support the content, not overwhelm it, though I suppose some do find Adams's processing overwhelming. If they do, I understand that, but the difference is that Adams's darkroom work, like it or not and find it overwhelming or not, was highly refined, not something I'd say of the present POTW.

I am a lover of post processing and what Photoshop can do, but that doesn't mean I appreciate or love all iterations of what Photoshop can do. I always leave room for the possibility that many fine artists (who have here criticized this POTW in very similar terms) could all be wrong and will be proven wrong in the future. But I also recognize how very remote that possibility is.

Van Goghs are not the norm.

Just seems to me that this is one of the weaker photos in Marc's portfolio.

Would make more sense to discuss the merits of his style using one of the many, much stronger photos in this portfolio, for instance, Paradise Forest (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=13331692) or Spirit of the Forest (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=13331692).

There's a version of this picture on Marc's website. There, the colors are a little toned down, the contrast is a little lower (compare the rocks in the lower right corner), and overall the picture looks more natural and appealing: http://www.marcadamus.com/photo.php?id=517&gallery=newwork

It might be a good time to actually do some reading about these sorts of things. The Zone System was just a means of quantifying and structuring the sensitometry of film and development into a system that could be easily used (although many never found it as easy as it actually is). Adams work was received well from the beginning. When he began to champion the photograph for what it was rather than as a way to emulate painting, he and f64 did have a divide with the Pictorialists, but many in the art world--especialy Steiglitz--had also moved past that (Ansel did a whole portfolio in the pictorialist style in his early days).

Anyway, I would also suggest that the particular over saturated style we see here has been around a long time and is neither new or unique to Marc. It has had its day as I think MI said, popular in commercial work for some time but that was a while back, amateur sites generally trail commercial trends by a couple to several years (on the shorter end probably now as the internet use grows). If one pays much attention to what is going on in the fine art world, this type of landscape photography has lost a lot of its former shine (not sure the over-saturated ever shined, but certainly has and still does sell in some circles). When more traditional types of landscape images do get noticed, they are generally much more focused around a concept rather than from a more random sampling of pretty places.

http://lightbox.time.com/2011/09/13/mitch-dobrowner-the-storms/#1

Photographic art has always been encumbered to more or less extent by the nature of the process, by the oftimes over reliance on, and subservience to, the instrument, to technical details, to gimmicks (For example, some of the Cokin or other special effects filters, the starburst included) and to the post processing software. These are all most useful tools in the hands of a photographer who conceives in his mind and elaborates his vision, and then uses them purposely, but there seems to me to be a point where it is the instrument, the software or the gadget that is very present in determining the outcome, often unsuccessfully. In some cases, of course, this can be subtle and powerful, in others only a bit like adding considerably more icing to an already well conceived cake. The potential of beauty, originality or surprise then gets lost or diluted in the technical and aesthetic overkill. It is a pity that Marc has not seen this discussion and thus in a position to discuss or elaborate on the whys and whats of his approach.

Whatever your viewpoint, it is very good that this discussion of what is art or a good photograph is aired in this POW, something that is hard to find in many of the eulogizing portfolio image critiques, or if it appears elsewhere it often does so without adequate photographic examples, as in much of our philosophy of photography and other discussions dealing with the photographic approach. We all have photographic egos and tend to speak from within our own little barricades. Perhaps the lack of direct one on one discussion in person enhances that position in some cases.

Here's an impressively rugged snowy mountain scene by Marc, from a 2007 National Geographic News contest: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/photogalleries/mountain-pictures/

Quite a picture, if you ask me. Shows a different side of what he can do from the more fantasy-oriented work he shows on Photo Net.

Martin, your example of Marcus's work from 2007 is indeed a very good photograph, one in which the wind blown snow and directional lighting of the snow capped peak is natural, aesthetic, curious (with the dark peak behind it) and appealing, and something that is not seen by just any observer. It is good to see, and it is quite different in my mind from the image being discussed at present and in many of his more recent strongly photoshopped images within his Photo.Net portfolio.

One of my recent gallery artists, who is a rather gifted and original painter who adopts a personalized form of expressionism, recently moved from her enigmatic and somewhat tragic appearing series of paintings to a new series of different style in which the human form is important. Her evolution and lesser gift for human form portrayal is for me a disappointment, as her current life images miss the power of her former work. This of course is like many artists and photographers, who may excel in certain approaches but are sometimes much less successful in later work. The creative road has many forks in it, just like life.

John A., I think it is best at this point to agree to disagree where we disagree and be happy we agree more than we disagree.

I do wish to say it very clearly that I feel the artist no doubt has some sort of vision that as far as he understands it is sincere. If only sincerity per se could create great art.

It's been a long time since I've spent so much time reading such a copious amount of drivel. Criticism regarding the choice of title because it is not actually a garden. Really? It's not my favourite Marc Adamus photo but I'm bemused by comments about how the photo is too 'perfect'. It strikes me that many here don't have a clue about how to make a landscape photograph. In fact looking through the portfolios here, if we were to collate the work the majority of the harshest critics, there wouldn't even be half a decent landscape image to be found. The depiction this sort of rainforest landscape with perfect light and composition comes about through the months Marc spends hiking in the wilderness looking for such scenes and waiting for the appropriate lighting.
I asked Marc about his approach a little while ago when I commented on one of his photos. Me : "Personally, I have adopted a much more documentary style and prefer my own work to reflect a greater dose of reality. However, I can understand exactly why you have changed your philosophy in recent years and admire the way you continue to push the boundaries."
Marc's reply. "I do both. Just depends on what I want. The only line for me is not changing the subjects themselves, as I do want people to see those. I have always ranged from true to what I saw to an exploration of what's possible with the tools we have. Probably always will."
The fact is that this landscape exists. Sure the processing has optimised the details, contrast and colour. The problem is that the majority of people never have the opportunity to witness wilderness like which is I presume the reason for cynicism and ignorance.

Who is it that has to label cynical and ignorant opinions that differ from his own? What a shame.

That I don't choose to photograph landscapes (in fact, I do, I just don't show them much) doesn't mean I don't spend time in nature and doesn't mean I can't critique landscape photos or understand the different approaches to them and the different kinds of landscapes there are.

If this forum were meant to showcase a particular genre of work and only critiques by those involved in that particular genre were thought beneficial, it would have been set up that way, which would have been shallow and ridiculous. There can be just as much validity in an objective viewpoint as a subjective one, and I take criticism based on the perceptions of the critic and how much sense their analysis makes, not on the subjects they photograph.

One might recognize that there are shared and universal themes and aspects to different genres of photography and other mediums and arts, which doesn't minimize the uniqueness of each but certainly allows for critiques to be given from beyond a small inner circle of similarly-oriented folks. If this forum is meant to be about learning, one can learn from all kinds of comments, even and sometimes especially those of non-photographers! One of my photos was critiqued recently on this very forum, and I considered it a gift to be able to hear from all kinds of people with all different opinions and all kinds of sensibilities and experiences. I don't make pictures just for people who photograph or think like me. Only if I had thought of my work as complete and not in need of improvement or growth would I reject criticisms because the critics weren't homogenous clones of me and what I do.

Embrace diversity!

* * *

That someone hikes 50 miles through the rain and elements to get a picture may mean I admire their grit and stamina and I still might not like their photos.

* * *

<<<The only line for me is not changing the subjects themselves, as I do want people to see those.>>>

IMO, processing itself can affect and alter a subject every bit as much as cloning something out or cloning something in. It can dramatically change a subject and, in the present case, it has.

I find some agreement with Kah's criticism of the criticism in that it seems to me to show very little regard for the fact that Marc is a pretty talented guy, although I do not think that this is one of his better pictures (in fact, I really don't like it).

But I do like and admire other of Marc's pictures, even though the genre that he is working in is not necessarily my cup of tea. This is a picture that has kind of stuck in my mind over the last few days, and it could easily grace the cover of a sci-fi novel or a poster for a movie: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=16001513

The lack of variation in green hue and tonality made me wonder whether that was part of nature or something that Marc did. I decreased the luminance of the greens using Lightroom and ended up with this. I'm interested in this from both a botanical and photographic perspective.

All very good points Fred G. However I'm not labelling anyone cynical nor ignorant solely because their opinion differs from my own. As I alluded to I don't particularly like the photo myself, I'm indifferent. Marc has many more compelling works in his portfolio, some are documentary style and others are more fantasy like. So on the most basic of levels, I agree with some of the criticisms. I will be the first to agree with you that whether someone has hiked 50 miles to achieve an image has no bearing on the quality. However I stand by my statement that there is a huge amount of ignorance and cynicism to be found in these critiques together with a healthy dollop of pomposity and disrespect. It makes me wonder why many cannot direct such advice inwards to create significant works of their own? As I was reading in a culinary book recently, the author, a chef, asked of a food critic whether if one could not distinguish between a langoustine and a crayfish, should she be so critical?

It's amazing how we can read the same comments and come away with such a different impression. Martin, it seems to me Marc has received a whole lot of appreciation from many people for his talent. Here are several examples. Don't let the strength and variety of criticism hide the fact that a lot of appreciation has also been shown:

The overall scene is well perceived and the capture of light shows the professional photographer's competence.

In the end, it's the technical aspects of the processing that stand out the most, and the resulting perfection in light (in particular) and color catch the viewer's attention.

Having said that, there is no question that Marc is amongst the best in this style of work that there has ever been. He is a master of this.

I appreciate Marc's knowledge and even wrote him on his body of works.

I admire the skill Marc has, I admire the extents arc goes to to capture an image.

I think Mark's work reflects his hard work in seeking, finding and capturing some amazing subject matter. His pictures always succeed in causing you to take a second look and I admire his work.

Great shot. From a quick scan of your portfolio this photo is perfectly inline with a definite style that you seem to have perfected.

I see a wonderful shot taken, most likely several exposures to overcome the extremes of light and shadows as would be the case if only one exposure was used. . . . This beautiful scene was captured because different exposures allowed the dynamic range of the scene to be captured. . . . His post process is well done . . .

I think Marc is on the cutting edge and is a master of what is to be expected (and has been practiced by commercial ads for some time) of photography in the future.

Kah, I don't understand answering a critique by putting down the work of the critic, especially if you aren't going to stand up and be brave enough to be specific and tell why the person's work who you think falls short would affect the criticism given. I know the portfolios of at least several people who have commented negatively here and I think these photographers' work not only stands up and shows some fine examples of good photography but I also know these photographers to be extremely self critical and also quite open to the critiques of others. If you look at a lot of their photo pages on PN, you will see some substantial dialogue about their work, in which they themselves show a degree of self criticism and willingness to learn and grow and in which they graciously accept from peers suggestions and critiques as well.

Fred I guess we are going to have to disagree on that point. The benefit of critiques differ depending on their quality and where along the path a photographer is. Of course this is a gross generalization. A beginner can sometimes make insightful observations and the experienced be totally useless. This article sums up my feelings on the issue well.
http://guytal.com/wordpress/2011/12/the-value-and-futility-of-critique/
As for the photo itself I don't think it stands out among Marc's work although it would tower above the average landscape photographers best. Finding a perfect composition like this in the chaos of a rainforest and marry it with gorgeous light and then having the technical skills to pull it off is impressive to me. What spoils it for me is the large sharp sunstar that takes too much attention away from what I want to concentrate on.

Kah, I think the main point I object to is your unsubstantiated claim that the critics here aren't self critical and don't get criticized themselves. That's a very personal hit, and one I think that very much misses the mark and is out of place here, since it doesn't apply.

I'm happy to disagree about who's critiques are valid, yet I do agree there is certainly some value to experience and expertise. However, in a forum such as this, I think a lot can be gleaned from comments from all kinds of people with all levels of experience. It's not just for the benefit of the maker of the Photo of the Week. Articulating a comment and/or criticism can help a beginner understand more about photography and so the critic can learn as much if not more than the photographer being critiqued. Also, other critics may respond to an ill-formulated critique, which happens quite often here, and we can all learn from that, including the original critic. Novices won't learn well if they aren't encouraged to give opinions and take risks with not only their photographing but with their commenting as well.

First let me state that I admire Marc's work. I truly like the fact that it takes me to a place I would never find on my own. I will not go into the technical aspects, as they have been sited and discussed in detail. Since this image is consistent with his body of work, I can only conclude that he is very skilled and clear about his vision...One of the goals many of us strive for.

I believe that an essential part of our evolution as photographers is to find an audience and a market for our work. Whether this makes one an artist is way beyond my understanding. However, becoming successful is an important part for most of us, if not just being appreciated. Digital images are and will continue to be the evolution of photography, with all the tools that go along with it....

I agree with many points made in this thread. I can definitely see Kah Kit Young's points.
Fred stated earlier: "I'd rather look, respond, learn, and move on"
Almost everyone here knows that you look Fred. You are highly intelligent, articulate, etc. Respond, boy do you respond. You respond to such a point that you will not allow anyone to have legs. You have told us that Kincade's work is crap. Ansel Adam is a technician and not so much an artist, you watched Bonanza as a child, and oh yeah, Marc's work doesn't do it for you. I'm not sure about what you learn, but the move on part is where I sense if you really respect the opinions of others.

Fred, you make a good point. There has been a lot of praise given to Marc in this discussion. I'm not sure why I perceive it to be otherwise.

Kincade, Disneyland, much commercial advertising, fantasy action films of Hollywood and the candylike/fantasy style of photography that Marc, among others, seem to practice, are I think simply a facet of North American society and culture that is ominipresent, that is familiar to viewers, and that exerts a certain effect on photography. That effect would even be there with software tools other than photoshop. It is a cultural thing, although one not espoused by all North Americans. Fortunately for photography, it is not trapped into just one form. Those, probably Fred, some others and certainly myself, who seek different forms of expression, are very free to do so and free to critique work in any form or style, as their conscience and aesthetic senses dictate. Critiquing the negative critiques by saying that their portfolios are lacking is disingenuous and without any attempt to be specific. Without balls, as we say. Following popular cultural lines has never been the realm of most innovative artists. It is interesting to see how the photography of the Orient, of the Middle East and of Europe are not very closely tied to the aforementioned North American trends.

The problem here, in these latter comments, is that some people are being as disrespectful as they seem to be accusing others of having been. One of the things that is generally done well here is that when we disagree with someone's point of view or comments, we address those comments. Calling people pompous, ignorant or whatever and then suggesting others aren't worthy rather than delineating specific issues is at best incendiary and certainly not very productive--unless bullying someone into silence is considered productive.

My own sense, generally, is that people have discussed and supported their positions very well--whether we agree or not isn't the point, we learn something if only other points of view by such processes. Generalizing and diminishing others serves no purpose but maybe to define one as being the offender they suggest others as being.