# 5876-79 / landscape • the new topographic ~ walking with a toothache in my heel

(embiggenable) • µ4/3

(embiggenable) • µ4/3

(embiggenable) • µ4/3

(embiggenable) • µ4/3

WARNING: RANT TO FOLLOW…I just gotta get this monkey off my back…

…a couple days ago, I come across-over on T.O.P.-yet another exquisite example of Landscape Porn adulation. You know what to expect, picture wise, when you read picture descriptions like…

The photographs are consistently beautiful, running the gamut from stunning vistas in perfect evening light, to dramatic storm-scapes, to telling details. Without exception they are technically immaculate, stunningly detailed, with a beautiful yet restrained color palette.

Or, perhaps I should write, I know what to expect - puerile, romanticized, schmaltz / dreck. To be certain, uninspired, follow-the-camera-club-landscape-picture-making-rules landscape pictures are rather commonplace and, to be honest, should not be grounds for near apoplectic fits on my part. But the fact is, they most often incite such a reaction to my tender landscape picture sensibilities.

However, it is not the picture’s visual qualities-or lack thereof-that sets me off. Rather, it is the ongoing perpetuation of the big lie. Once again, I quote John Szarkowski (from the Introduction to the Robert Adams book, THE NEW WEST):

As Americans we are scarred by the dream of innocence. In our hearts we believe that the only truly beautiful lanscape is an unpeople one. Unhappily, much in the record of out tenancy on this continent serves to confirm this view. So to wash our eyes of this depressing evidence we have raced deeper and deeper in the wilderness, pass the last stage-coach stop and the last motel, to see and claim a section of God’s own garden before our fellows arrive to despoil it…[N]ow however we are beginning to realize that there is no wilderness left…[A]s this recognition takes a firmer hold on our consciousness, it may become clear that a generous and accepting attitude toward nature requires we learn to share the earth not only with ice, dust, mosquitoes, starlings, coyotes, and chicken hawks, but even with other people.”

Just in case you don’t get it, let me be clear, pictorially, I am sick unto death of sappy, escapist, god’s own garden sentimentality. Walk as far you will into the so-called untouched-by-humankind wilderness, but the fact remains, there is no such thing as untouched by humankind.

My position on this situation, picture making wise, falls directly in line with the words of Robert Adams in his book, WHAT CAN WE BELIEVE WHERE:

In common with many photographers, I began making pictures because I wanted to record what supports hope: the untranslatable mystery and beauty of the world. Along the way, however, the camera also caught evidence against hope, and I eventually concluded that this too belonged in pictures if they were to be truthful and useful….[A]s much as I try to stay away from abstactions, I often find myself asking three questions, and I repeat them here as a point of entry into this book: What does our geography compel us to believe? What does it allow us to believe? And what obligations, if any, follow from our beliefs?

So, some might think, shame on me-Adams, Szarkowski, et al-for even suggesting that a picture maker might have, in some situations, obligations in their picture making endeavors. What am I, some kind of a picture making commie, socialist, bleeding-heart, pinko? How dare I even hint that a picture should be truthful and/or somehow actually useful? You know, useful, as in, more meaningful than its use as an object of escapist decoration.

And, please, do not try to rationalize such escapist tripe as playing a part in raising people’s awareness of / appreciation for “nature”. Given that such pictures have been adorning walls, calendars, books, et al for generations, the evidence-the current state of the planet’s environmental state / health-can only support the fact that it ain’t getting that job done.

FYI, if you are wondering why I am so passionate about this issue, it is simply because I live in very unique place, the so-called Adirondack Park (it’s not a park, it is a forest preserve) the largest publicly protected wilderness area-and the largest National Historic Landmark-in the contiguous United States-bigger than Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Glacier, and the Great Smokies National Parks combined.

The place is unique in that Adirondack forest preserve is a combination of public and private lands dedicated to the practice that the public lands are protected-by the NYS Constitution-as forever wild and together with the private lands are under the regulation of the Adirondack Park Agency, created in 1971 by the New York State Legislature to develop long-range land use plans for both public and private lands within the boundary of the Park. To date, this regulated public / private land use has demonstrated that humankind and the natural world can co-exist to the benefit of both. Read more about it here

# 5853-57 / still life (kitchen life) • landscape (civilized / ku) • people ~ this and that

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

THE MORE YOU LOOK, THE MORE YOU SEE. The more you see, the more you make pictures. The more pictures you make, the more you wonder what the hell you are going to do with all of them.

I have yet to come up with an answer / solution to that dilemma.

# 5848-50 / landscape (ku) • kitchen life ~ forever and ever, amen

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

I HEARD AN INTERESTING PHRASE LAST EVENING ON A PBS SHOW-”staring into the distance of the present”-which had nothing to do with photography or art but I thought it kinda said something about my pictures. Especially if it is paired with a quote from George Tice:

It takes the passage of time before an image of a commonplace subject can be assessed. The great difficulty of what I attempt is seeing beyond the moment; the everydayness of life gets in the way of the eternal.

Over the past few years in particular I have willfully avoided, while making pictures, thinking about anything but responding to the moment. I do not think about “the eternal” or any other notion, re: why I am making the picture. My intent at the moment of making a picture is simply to be successful in capturing that which pricked my eye and sensibilities.

My idea of success is measured upon the viewing of the finished print and whether or not it instigates the same prick I experienced upon the viewing of the actual scene / referent. With those pictures that achieve that result, I know that they will repeatedly do so every time I view them, a quality which makes them and the depicted referent somewhat “eternal”.

# 5838-39 / landscapes (ku) • civilized ku ~ simple is as simple does

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

f8 AND BE THERE. WHICH IS A QUIPPY WAY OF SAYING, if you have your picture making device handy, no matter where you might find yourself (aka: “there”) you are ready to strike when the iron is hot. It ain’t rocket science and, iMo, it sure as hell ain’t hard (aka: difficult).

Consider Robert Adams’ idea about art:

'“if the goal of art is to be reached: only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace.” – Robert Adams

iMo, if you want to make a picture look simple (aka: “easily made”), keep it simple.

# 5835-37 / landscape (ku) • around the house ~ making invisible pictures

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

RECEIVED MY POD BOOK FROM SHUTTERFLY. As is always the case inamuch as I always spec their 6 color printing option, the print quality is excellent. Shutterfly is highly recommended.

Writing of books, I have approximately 50 photo books of pictures made by other picture makers-monographs, exhibition catalogs, and the like. iMo, photo books are the second best manner for the viewing of photographs, second only to prints on a gallery wall. On the same level as photo books, but rarely encountered is a portfolio of original prints.

What all of these viewing experiences have in common is that each manner of presentation / viewing: a) places an actual thing in front of the viewer, b) encourages the viewer to focus all of their attention on the thing in front of them, and, c) in most viewing cases, the viewing environment is generally conducive to quiet contemplation.

Considering the above, I am forever at a loss for words with the idea of, why does anyone make images but fails to print them in some fashion?

(embiggenable) • iPhone

# 5831-34 / landscape (ku) ~ being forever in the moment,

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

I’VE HEARD IT SAID, READ IT WRITTEN A ZILLION TIMES, “ Be in the moment.” The directive is most often expressed when the person to whom it is uttered has allowed their attention to drift away from what is happening around him/her at any given moment in time. The “what is happening”-sights, sounds, activities, persons, et al-at any specific moment in time has been determined, by the admonitioner, to be worthy / demanding of undivided attention by one and all. And…

…iMo, one of the unique characteristics of the medium of photography and its apparatus is its ability to record, present and preserve select and discrete moments in time. Every picture (aka: photograph) ever made is an invitation for a viewer to see and vicariously experience, in his/her imagination, the “what was happening” in a past, fleeting moment in time. To wit, a picture issues an invitation to “be in the moment”. That is, to be vicariously in the preserved moment as presented in the picture and actively in the moment of viewing the picture.

Consider this from John Swarkowski:

“…immobilizing this thin slice of time has been a source of continuing fascination for the photographer. And while pursuing this experiment he discovered something else: he discovered that there was a pleasure and beauty in this fragmenting of time that had little to do with what was happening. It had to do rather with seeing the momentary patterning of lines and shapes that had been previously concealed within the flux of movement.

Re: “the momentary patterning of lines and shapes” - as I have previously written, I tend to see segments of the world as lines and shapes-as suggested by physical objects, light / shadow, color, et al-which are perceived from only a very specific POV. While the perceived lines and shapes are not concealed within the flow of their movement, how I perceive them is most definitely dependent upon my (and my picture making device) lack of movement - that is movement away from my very specific POV.

Consequently, I am unable, unless I remain nearly absolutely motionless, to “be in the moment”, re: the perceived relationship of lines and shapes-which for me, in most cases is “what is happening”-for any length of time. The pleasure of seeing is very short lived.

However, in some ways, a significant part of why I make pictures is cuz I can preserve and extend indefinitely that short lived pleasure of seeing, aka: being in the moment. And, in the best of cases, my pictures can present to viewers thereof a tangible and palatable perception of the “being in the moment” (and what it entailed) of a picture’s making.

# 5828-30 / landscape (ku + civilized ku) • nocturnal ~ drawing with light

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

(embiggenable) • iPhone

RE: SQUARESPACE SCREWED UP MY BLOG - late yesterday afternoon, all of the issues with my blog suddenly (and unbidden) self-corrected. That is, in exactly the same manner-seemingly out of the blue-in which the issues suddenly appeared a couple weeks ago. In any event, only time will tell if the issues are gone for good. Moving on …

OVER ON TOP IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN THAT “I would never have transferred the word ‘photography’ to digital imaging. They [film and/or digital picture making] are enough different that they each deserve their own name.

iMo, that idea don’t mean diddly squat to me inasmuch as, over the years on this blog, I have used the phrase picture making to describe what I do with a picture making device (of any kind). If one prefers, one might label the use of that nomenclature an affectation of sorts, but I use it cuz it describes the idea that I make pictures. Although, if one prefers, what I make-by means of the medium of photography and its apparatus-could be labeled also as photographs.

FYI, Meriam-Webster defines photography as the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor).

However, my point is rather simple…that is, who f**king cares what you call it? I mean, are we not all just drawing with light?

# 5794-97 / landscapse (ku) ~ a simple walk in the woods

ONE OF MY FAVORITE AUTHORS-HE WAS ALSO A radio / tv personaity and a performing humorist / raconteur-had something to say, re: photography / photographers:

"Of all the world’s photographers, the lowliest and least honored is the simple householder who desires only to 'have a camera around the house' and to 'get a picture of Dolores in her graduation gown.' He lugs his primitive equipment with him on vacation trips, picnics, and family outings of all sorts. His knowledge of photography is about that of your average chipmunk. He often has trouble loading his camera, even after owning it for twenty years. Emulsion speeds, f-stops, meter readings, shutter speeds have absolutely no meaning to him, except as a language he hears spoken when, by mistake, he wanders into a real camera store to buy film instead of his usual drugstore. His product is almost always people- or possession-oriented. It rarely occurs to such a photographer to take a picture of something, say a Venetian fountain, without a loved one standing directly in front of it and smiling into the lens. What artistic results he obtains are almost inevitably accidental and totally without self-consciousness. Perhaps because of his very artlessness, and his very numbers, the nameless picture maker may in the end be the truest and most valuable recorder of our times. He never edits; he never editorializes; he just snaps away and sends the film off to be developed, all the while innocently freezing forever the plain people of his time in all their lumpishness, their humanity, and their universality." ~ Jean Shepherd

iMo, this observation could be, perhaps should be, the cornerstone/ foundation of understanding what it takes to become a "truest and most valuable recorder of our times".

Think about it.