(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
(embiggenable)
WHILE GETTING THROUGH THE PUSH TO THE FINISH LINE, re: An Adirondack Survey ~ in plain sight project, it occurred to me that I had made a rather grievous omission, picture wise.
That is, in my desire to keep the subject matter focused on the quotidian landscape as seen here in the Adirondacks, I deliberately did not include any pictures of the natural world, grand scenic genre wise. My thinking was based on the fact that I did not want the work to bear any resemblance to the typical cliche-ridden, sappy Adirondack ain’t-nature-grand books, calendars, post cards, and the like. However…
…quite fortunately, my brain kicked me in my butt when I realized that, in fact, ain’t nature grand is very much a part of everyday life in the Adirondacks. More accurately, what I realized was that while all of the hand-of-man picture evidence in the body of work was made over time during my daily just moving about the place-as opposed to heading out for the purpose of making pictures-I had made quite a number of ain’t-nature-grand pictures in exactly the same manner. That is, just driving / walking around the place and being “confronted” with such a picture making opportunity. Ya know, just a part of everyday life here in the Adirondacks-as opposed to going out and chasing the light.
So, I am now faced with a dilemma of sorts…my submission of the work to galleries / art institutions is 2-fold; a 12x12inch, 50 picture book (sans ain’t-nature-grand pictures) and a companion 15 print folio of additional pictures from the body of work (to illustrate the print quality of the work). I have printed a few ain’t-nature-grand pictures for the folio, but…the question is, should I re-edit the book to sprinkle about some ain’t-nature-grand pictures?
That idea gives me stomach cramps cuz getting the book just right required quite an effort-original editing, a first book that didn’t feel right, a second editing, a second book that looked right but had a couple pictures that needed color corrections, a third book that was, thankfully, “ perfect”. The idea of yet another go-around has little appeal but, it all has to be “perfect” so…
All of the above written, I have asked myself how in the hell did I make this mistake? What was I thinking? Well, the answer is quite simple - I have very low esteem-some might even say, extreme dislike-for camera-club, calendar “aesthetic” grand landscape photography. Or, as Sally Eauclaire wrote in her the new color photography book:
[work in which] the lust for effect is everywhere apparent. Technical wizardry amplifies rather than recreates on-site observations. Playing to the multitude of viewers who salivate at the sight of nature (in the belief that good and and God are immanent), such photographers choose such picturesque subject matter as prodigious crags, rippling sands, or flaming sunsets…they burden it with ever coarser effects effects. Rather than humbly seek out the “spirit of fact” they assume the role of God’s art director making His immanence unequivocal and protrusive.
Consequently, I did not want to “pollute” the book with anything even remotely resembling camera-club, calendar “aesthetic” grand landscape photography. However, the fact of the matter is, here in the Adirondacks the natural world is fully capable of getting in your face with some very sublime visage(s) that are difficult to ignore, picture making wise. Visage(s) that require no technical wizardry / coarse effects to amplify its (their) ain’t-nature-grand appearance. And, since I always strive for the “spirit of fact”, I should feel no guilt / have no qualms about including some un-effected ain’t-nature-grand pictures in the body of work.
FYI, I have added an ADIRONDACK SCENICS gallery to the WORKS page.