the visual journey - gallery i Spirit Garden

If there is a moderator for this forum, now would be a good time to act. The focus of this discussion should be Marc's photograph. He deserves better.

To look at this tiny image and suggest is is plasticized boggles my imagination.

To complain that is is too perfect takes a discussion from the ridiculous to the absurd.

To focus on the fact that Marc on his website chooses to use the term "Artist" instead of "Photographer", and consider that to be a negative in the photography World indicates to me that there is a component of "reviewers" anchored in the past - way in the past - that based their critiques (whether admitted or not) on what the camera captured at the time should be presented after post-processing, rather than recognize that the camera is a mere tool, a piece of hardware that captures light on a sensor based upon some very simply settings the photographer chooses - hopefully when shooting Manual.

Joel Tjintjelaar, an Internationally Awarded Photographer wrote:
"I don’t believe in SOOC shots. I believe in the artistic result and in the visualization of the artist of how he/she sees the world. A camera is just a piece of hardware with no mind, no soul, no artistry, just an object that records a situation, unbiased and emotionless. I’m not interested in the vision of a piece of hardware, I’m only interested in the vision of the artist with a mind and soul, who will alter the image to his reality. It’s the difference between photography and art."

Marc's image is beautiful and brilliantly presented.

Look for example at the stream, and specifically the white water at the bottom of the image. The whiteness at the top of the white water draws is brightness from the sun star; to me they tie together. Without the star where would the bright light come from to illuminate that portion of the scene.

Some have complained about the size of the sun star burst. Why? Do you think that Marc manipulated the pixels to increase the rays; I think not!

Would you prefer that the forest at its depth be dark and dreary? Not me!

Regarding the comparisons to a Thomas Kinkade painting: the POW is way too messy of a scene to be comparable to one that Kinkade would have painted. (I say "would have," because he passed away several months ago.) Kinkade would have painted this scene as if a virtual landscaping team had gone in first and cleaned it up. Most of Kinkade's paintings include manmade structures (I'm an expert because I just did a Google search), but here's one that doesn't that I offer up as an example:

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=thomas+kinkade&start=176&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1219&bih=550&addh=36&tbm=isch&tbnid=0q-Bm6w-0-8t5M:&imgrefurl=http://www.flashcoo.com/paint/Thomas_Kinkade_paintings_01/JLM-Kinkade-Beyond%2520the%2520Garden%2520Gate%252014.html&docid=o0adzxDAMR0eVM&imgurl=http://www.flashcoo.com/paint/Thomas_Kinkade_paintings_01/images/JLM-Kinkade-Beyond%252520the%252520Garden%252520Gate%25252014.jpg&w=700&h=525&ei=fEgoUPCIAqPF6wGi7YDgBA&zoom=1

The popularity of Thomas Kinkade is certainly an interesting cultural phenomenon.

Is all the discussion here ignorant and disrespectful? No. Should everyone be able to voice their opinion without necessarily being an

expert in the genre? Yes.

It's only the low blows and snide remarks that raises my eyebrow and makes me wonder about the critic.

In principle, Kah Kit, it is this statement that appeared to some as disrespectful (low blow, to use your term) and unsubstantiated.

digital photography and photoshop do indeed give us pause about the "nature" of this style. of course it's art; Marc has a talent for fantasizing natural scenes. he chooses a real scene from nature, and then he plays around with photoshop to turn "real" nature into a sort of cartoon illustration. this picture is, as is all of Marc's work, very charming indeed. it's most certainly a skillful color wheel, and all that jazz, sort of rendition. he uses photoshop on a computer instead of a paint palette on canvas, but his work is more akin to painting and cartoonist illustration than it is to photography per se. it's a matter of taste and a matter of ideology. the importance of photography to me is that, unlike any other art form, it freezes a moment in reality for us, it's a document, it helps us to see the stuff of reality that we might otherwise miss; and because it freezes the moment without any exaggeration or distortion, it allows us to study and understand what our everyday eyes come in contact with everyday. digital art and photoshop are a genre onto themselves. the essence of photographic art in purist sense recreates reality in its own image without tampering with the scene anymore than is necessary to make the scene stand out better than would a casual snapshot. Marc uses a camera to freeze a scene, but his real artistic tools are his manipulative post-processing wheels and slide scales. it's the difference between an animated film like Mary Poppins (shall we say) and a drama like 12 Angry Men or Winter's Bone. Marc is a very talented artist, but a huge difference has always existed between realism and fantasy. i tend to believe that photography gives us a piece of the real, is documentary, or photo-journalism. painting with photoshop gives us something very different than the real; it gives us a fantasy. nonetheless, a lovely picture indeed, Marc ;-} dp

That's a very subjective statement regarding photography. I think when you state that photography "freezes a moment in reality," you're making yourself very vulnerable, even despite the fact that you added the qualifier, "to me." Many photographers are going to have a very different take on what photography actually is or does. For example, I like to use wide-angle lenses, telephoto lenses, and really slow shutter speeds. No exaggeration or distortion? I don't think so. I'm with you to an extent in spirit, but to me the arena of photography is much larger than you've defined.

Donna, I guess more than one person is going to pick up on this statement.

One question: if I go out at night and it is so dark that my eye sees almost nothing because it is so dark, you would suggest, wouldn't you that I should capture the black scene? And, if I left my lens open for several minutes so that the sensor could gather the light that my eye cannot see, you would say, wouldn't you, that what I have captured is

because what I captured is not allowing the viewer to

BTW, in your portfolio there is an image entitled Sun-Soaked Fog. Does that image accurately depict the color that your eye saw that day? Do you shoot Manual or in some Auto mode? Do you do any processing in Photoshop or do you limit your processing to cropping and alignment so as to present only what the camera captured? I ask not to in any way be critical; only to further understand where you are coming from with your comments.

Donna, would this slight rewording of your statement still work for you? "The importance of photography to me is that, unlike any other art form, it HAS THE POTENTIAL TO freeze a moment in reality for us, it CAN BE a document . . ."

I'm hoping that would still capture the spirit of what you're saying by recognizing some of the unique aspects of photography while not suggesting that that means it is always done that way. IMO, a significant part of photography is its connection to the real world (which I think is what you're saying), even in the most fantastical of renditions. But, like Stephen and Jay, I think the camera itself and the lens and the lighting, etc. can all see to it that a photo starts out being a manipulation of that reality to a lesser or greater extent. Hell, just framing something and leaving out what's in our peripheral vision can be seen as a big manipulation to begin with.

I don't have any quibbles with manipulation or fantasy per se. IMO, both manipulation and fantasy are fine . . . but I don't have to like all of them or think all attempts at fantasy are well done or moving.

Coincidentally, I saw a great ManRay exhibit today. To me, he was a photographer's photographer if ever there was one. He seemed really to be attached to the medium. Yet his kind of Dadaism/Surrealism took great liberties with intentional distortions and manipulations and took us far away from the normal grounds of reality. He was neither a digital artist nor a graphic artist, IMO. He was a photographer who practiced photography in a completely appropriate and sensitive way, unusual though it was.

And, Fred G., I have no problem with anything you have just written.

I would take it further and also add that it is incumbent on the photographer/artist to disclose the extent of manipulation so as not to lead the view to believing that what they are seeing is necessarily what the camera captured.

A perfect example, for me, is Marc's Twilight Kingdom, an image I really like. In fact, while I first thought that the Tufas were giant in size and liked the image, when Marc disclosed that the structures were at best 12" high, I liked the image and Marc's creativity even more so. I just believe that the view should be advised up front without having to ask that these tufas were only 12" high.

@ Arthur. I stand by my statement. As an outsider to this critique circle that's my observation. I see a group of critics, some of whom are mean-spirited in their observations, passing judgment from their high horses with no landscape work of their own to show for their snide comments. That's just my observation, feel free to interpret and do with it how you like - probably another remark that I don't have balls no doubt. You ask for an example. Here's one which shows the ignorance that I spoke about.
"I do see a burst of light, artificially induced, but that--mere pictorialism--is not enough to convince me."
What evidence is there which points to the sunburst being artificial? Did the critic ask how this light came about? No, he merely arrogantly assumed that it was artificial since it did not occur to him that there is a technique to creating this in-camera and controlling its appearance.

The difference between seeing and looking often leads the photographer to interpret a scene not to perfectly record reality but to do so in his own way, much like an artist creates on canvass something that is at the same time similar and dissimilar to what was before him. I don't think that those who react more negatively to Marc's original and well-crafted image do so because he is transgressing some absolute principle of photography that states you must always record subject matter with absolute fidelity. What he has done requires considerable talent and effort. Rather, the criticism seems to me to be in regard to the aesthetics and expression related to the form of fantasy and art that he has created. Some see the perception of fantasy in that manner. Others may prefer fantasy in art in the form of less apparent manipulations, less related to popular movements in which color and light are re-interpreted. A classic example is that of Man Ray's photograph of a tear on the face of one of his female models. Instead of a real tear, it is a small diamond. Perhaps a similar example in a possible landscape might be an unreal direction of light in part of the frame or an uncommon size or form of some picture element. Enigma and fantasy can be created in different ways and the aesthetics of such art do not always find a common audience and a common critique. We react subjectively to the type of fantasy and how it is performed, while often recognizing that the talent in making the work is at a high level whether or not we appreciate it.

To Kah Kit. I understand and appreciate your reaction to some negative critiques to the POW. All I wanted to reply to you is that in considering negative critiquers as unsuccessful landscape photographers you have not sought to identify the portfolios in question to substantiate or discuss that claim, only providing a statement in a recent post from an unrecognized critiquer. Even if what you say were to have some support in fact, does one have to be a landscape photographer, or indeed even a photographer, to critique landscape photographs?

Again, as we often do, we seem to come to a point of questioning what photography is or isn't. What baffles me is that it is on this particular image which appears to me to depict things that were probably there as we see them. Even if a filter were used to accent the light burst--unlikely IMO--it was most likely caught on the sensor itself.

Processing the image like this doesn't change its photographic nature and in this case is far from having done that. Most processing doesn't change the photographic nature but it can transform it into another form of the photograph--solarization, lithographic film etc. What we have presented here is a pretty straight photograph but a very stylistic rendition of the scene. That is where maybe certain people's sensibilities are possibly being challenged. But that limitation is something we should all attempt to realize that we own. Owning it doesn't make our sense wrong, it just gives us the ability to allow others theirs without feeling attacked or diminished. I think it was CS Lewis who said something to the effect that it is only the auctioneer that can appreciate all styles of art unbiased and impartially.

The bottom line is that there isn't any issue of this image's photographic nature but more of one of the interpretation of the scene with respect to pushing color and such. Regardless of the processing, this sort of image isn't really my sort of thing but if I were an AD or designer with a certain kind of project, this image, processing and all, could well fit the need for an appropriate illustration.

Kah, I tend to agree with what Arthur said above, making generalizations about the comments made or the expertise of individuals making them serves no productive purpose and it comes across as I said, exactly in the way you are criticizing. As I said before, if you don't agree with someone's specific comment, then challenge it. I don't think the one you quote is ignorant or arrogant but an interpretation of the image that might be right or wrong, I don't really know myself although I sense that light was probably there. In its context, I also see the quote as being more about the sense of spirit being discussed at the time than challenging the photo itself--more rhetorical in nature.

To me, appearances matter. Photography is a visual medium. Whether or not the star burst is a product of the camera and lens or a post processing event matters if I want to understand how a photo was created but doesn't matter to me in my aesthetic reaction. Camera-made or Photoshop-made, it looks the way it looks and brings to mind Disney. It may be totally camera-produced, but it's so-called "naturalness" or "realness" doesn't mean I will like it or appreciate it any more. It still looks hoaky to me, and I've seen flares that don't look hoaky but rather act expressively and suggest movement and dynamics or other qualities. It may even be what the eye saw at the time and I still might not like that way it translates in the photo.

thanks, gents, for indulging me this sort of "principle" i try to distinguish about photography.
Stephen... i know how reductionistic my comment is, but you are spot on to notice the point i'm making about the essential "spirit" of photography, and about, per John A., "fidelity" to the subject.
that said, we all know that any shackles imposed on an artist's vision is akin to censorship. art must do anything it wants to do to express an artist's vision of truth. Picasso tells us that "art is the lie that tells the truth." the sunburst, the dof, the highlights and shadow in this picture are lovely, and do evoke the spirit of a garden, a spirit enjoyed by anyone who tends a manicured garden in their backyard. the picture, nonetheless, is fantasized nature; some might call it adulterated nature (i do not; i simply feel that it's a Wonderland sort of fantasy.) it's manipulated to draw attention and, dare i say, celebrate nature.
Jay, your point about the disclosure of the extent of manipulation seizes my point about the difference between fantasy and reality. it may not, however, be necessary to disclose the manipulation, which indeed places a burden on the creative process, and because the viewer will no doubt immediately be impressed by the fantastic in the image. but, extent of manipulation should be disclosed or investigated when there appears to be an intent to deceive the audience.
i think you all get my point that there's a principle of mimesis inherent in photography, but we should never disdain any attempt by an artist to render the visual in a highly embellished way.
if you please, guys... i'd luv to share a quote with you by the 19th century Romantic poetic Samuel Coleridge...
”... It was agreed, that my endeavours should be directed to persons and characters supernatural, or at least romantic, yet so as to transfer from our inward nature a human interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith. Mr. Wordsworth on the other hand was to propose to himself as his object, to give the charm of novelty to things of every day, and to excite a feeling analogous to the supernatural, by awakening the mind's attention from the lethargy of custom, and directing it to the loveliness and the wonders of the world before us ...”
marc, i repeat, your art is lovely
;-} dp

A small detail, for what it's worth, and my error: Man Ray's inspirational photo of Kiki has little glass spheres instead of tears, and not little diamonds as I mentioned.

i don't consider Man Ray as pure a fantasist as Marc is; and however artificial Kiki's tears are, the overall photograph is mimetic. ;-} dp

Donna, I like what you say about shackles. And yet, an important part of art and the history of art is criticism. There has to be a place for honest dialogue and honest dislike of someone else's work, just as much as each artist must make room for others to dislike his or her work. When others express dislike of one of my photos, even if I disagree and like it myself, it keeps it real. It means I'm saying something worthwhile. If everyone liked it and no one had criticisms, it would mean I was likely doling out pablum, certainly not provoking much. True, not everyone wants to provoke, but we should all be prepared for criticism and, hopefully, not seeing such criticism as a means to shackle anyone. Instead, honest and even harsh criticism can be quite liberating. This forum often sees passionate critiques, and Kah is right that sometimes it seems condescending, even rude. Read professional critics. Sarcasm is often the norm. Art arouses in us things very personal, and taste can become both offensive and defensive. Still, there's a difference between critiquing someone's photos, even harshly, and critiquing someone themselves, which I would worry would be more about oppression and censorship than critiquing someone's work, which seems necessary to the artistic process.

Here's something Tchaikovsky wrote about a critique he received from his mentor, Nikolai Rubinstein:

"I played the first movement. Not a word, not a remark. If you only knew how disappointing, how unbearable it is when a man offers his friend a dish of his work, and the other eats and remains silent!" Tchaikovsky played the entire piece and then, he wrote, Rubinstein told him it was "worthless, impossible to play, the themes have been used before ... there are only two or three pages that can be salvaged and the rest must be thrown away!"

Rubinstein offered to play the piece if Tchaikovsky rewrote it, but the composer replied, "I won't change a single note."

These are the kinds of exchanges artists ought to expect, passionate and blatant. Sometimes they will defend their work and completely reject the criticism. Sometimes, such a critique will penetrate and cause a change in their work that could significantly deepen it. It's for each of us to decide when to give credence to criticism. But it will never go away, as long as viewers are looking.

This is an artistic photo, a masterpiece. the processing is perfect, as all the other aspects of the image. there ain't nobody in this world who can do landscape photography better than this. but it seems that many people in this forum who have no idea about photography, especially landscape photography, with a portofolio below average, but find great pleasure to throw shit to the really high quality works of others. this situation is like throwing diamonds to the pigs. nad, no, this is not a matter of taste or subjectivity. anyone with at least minimal understanding in photography, plus a big amount of objectivity can see this clearly.

This is an artistic photo, a masterpiece. the processing is perfect, as all the other aspects of the image. there ain't nobody in this world who can do landscape photography better than this. but it seems that many people in this forum who have no idea about photography, especially landscape photography, with a portofolio below average, but find great pleasure to throw shit to the really high quality works of others. this situation is like throwing diamonds to the pigs. nad, no, this is not a matter of taste or subjectivity. anyone with at least minimal understanding in photography, plus a big amount of objectivity can see this clearly.

Fred, the only thing I guess I questioned in your comment here about critique is the role of like or dislike. I don't think that is the role or purpose of critique but rather a way to objectively look at a work and try to understand it in its context and as to our own response to it. Most of us tend to end up at like or dislike but more important to the person being critiqued are the underlying, more objective reasons for the conclusion. Often, it can be what a person doesn't like that is the purpose of the piece and to define what one doesn't respond to will clarify that more than just the judgment itself. Even if someone likes my work, it is what they express as liking that makes all the difference to me and actually often educates me to things I didn't see.

Zsolt... please don't consider offensive the suggestions i've made about Marc's "Wilderness" photography. it's just that its artifice and fantasy-like post-processing is quite extreme. i would suggest to you that the landscapes of Ansel Adams are quite more "natural" than Marc's, but Ansel's are, nonetheless, masterpieces... as are the naturalistic landscapes of PN's own Madeleine Guenette, whose brilliance is without doubt. Marc simply is different, and he fearlessly pushes the boundaries of digital art. ;-} dp

Madeleine Guenette

p.s.
i realize that my Adams example is a seascape, but i choose it just to illustrate as perfect a realistic rendition of nature as we''ll ever know in art. ;-} dp

I'm a little confused by all the negativity surrounding post manipulation that is well executed. How is this any different than all the time we used to spend in the dark room trying to edit to a better photograph. I've been out of photography for some time but, but way back when, the most fun I had with a photo was manipulating it in the darkroom. It sounds like these so-called purists take the shot and call it a day. Hats off to you if you can get that to work to your satisfaction.