Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: RSL on June 15, 2016, 12:52:36 pm

Title: More Sublime
Post by: RSL on June 15, 2016, 12:52:36 pm
Mat, you haven't been on here long enough to understand that there's a group of people who'd seriously ask the question you were asking and really believe they could find an answer. They pop up regularly, so be on your guard.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 15, 2016, 01:00:34 pm
Since Mat locked his thread, I will post this here:

Sublime = spectacular

Mat's shack = picturesque (barely)
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 15, 2016, 01:04:47 pm
Russ

I have been on here since July 2008, sometimes there are glimpses of excellent information in amongst the nonsense, I can post a thread in the hope that some of that would arrive, but obviously not, my mistake.

As I see it, I asked an entirely reasonable question which you took to answer over and again whilst not really answering what I was asking, you then picked up on an error in my grammar and dismiss the whole thing even though my original post and everything I have responded with has been aimed at actually trying to find out if there is such a thing and whether I can find out more about it. Your response could have been as simple as, I know the literal meaning of sublime but don't know of anything different as relates to art, for which I would have thanked you and waited to see if someone else had more relevant information, if not, I'd have had my answer.

It doesn't matter though, I have learnt my lesson!

Have a good evening.

Mat

Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 15, 2016, 01:06:32 pm
Since Mat locked his thread, I will post this here:

Sublime = spectacular

Mat's shack = picturesque (barely)

Haha! I am so depressed, as I was taking this shot I was thinking, please let Slobodan like it, please!

If you want to continue I have no problem with it, as I closed the original thread there is absolutely no need to respond with anything sensible so have at it!

Mat
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: RSL on June 15, 2016, 01:06:54 pm
Mat's shack = picturesque (barely)

In other words, "nice." He didn't pick up on that one, Slobodan.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 15, 2016, 01:09:53 pm
It's not that I didn't pick up on it, it's just that it doesn't matter. As I stated many times, it is not about my photography it is about the concept but like I say, have at it, rip it to shreds and have fun, it's all good!

Mat
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 15, 2016, 01:10:24 pm
Why so defensive and sarcastic, Mat?

Nothing that I said was meant as an attack on you or the image. I used a descriptor you already heard from somebody else (picturesque), which means I think it is a nice image. Nowhere I said I didn't like it.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: RSL on June 15, 2016, 01:11:47 pm
It's not that I didn't pick up on it, it's just that it doesn't matter. As I stated many times, it is not about my photography it is about the concept but like I say, have at it, rip it to shreds and have fun, it's all good!

Mat

Uh huh.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 15, 2016, 01:13:49 pm
I'm not being defensive Slobodan, it's just a fact, you could think it was amazing or terrible and it wouldn't matter, I am quite comfortable with what I produce, it's for me. I was being sarcastic but that's my nature, I can't change that, it's one of my many many flaws, I embrace it!

Mat
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 15, 2016, 01:15:03 pm
... trying to find out if there is such a thing and whether I can find out more about it...

Yes, Mat, there is such a thing and you can find more about it. There is a book:

Landscape and Western Art (Oxford History of Art) (https://www.amazon.com/Landscape-Western-Art-Oxford-History/dp/0192842331/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466010759&sr=8-1&keywords=landscape+and+western+art)

where there is a whole 20-page chapter devoted to sublime and landscape art (between pages 129 and 149)

I hope you'll find this information helpful.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 15, 2016, 01:18:27 pm
Now that is what I was looking for, many thanks Slobodan, I knew there would be some information out there somewhere.

Mat
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 15, 2016, 01:20:10 pm
I have also very kindly been sent a link to this..

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sublime-Documents-Contemporary-Art/dp/0854881786/

Just in case anyone else is interested in learning more about the concept.

Thanks again.

Mat
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: photoenthusiasm on June 16, 2016, 05:00:24 am
Yes, Mat, there is such a thing and you can find more about it. There is a book:

Landscape and Western Art (Oxford History of Art) (https://www.amazon.com/Landscape-Western-Art-Oxford-History/dp/0192842331/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466010759&sr=8-1&keywords=landscape+and+western+art)

where there is a whole 20-page chapter devoted to sublime and landscape art (between pages 129 and 149)

I hope you'll find this information helpful.

thanks You Slobodan for giving this information. In the previous thread I responded early to the question about the meaning of sublime in the context of Mat's question. This language is not my native one and I thus am handicaped in expressing myself precisely. What I meant to say is more covered when You look in the dictionary at the word sublimation: which means raising it to a higher status. In other words: the spectator experiences emotianally more then the bare picture shows. The quest for how to achieve this in your own photography is a real challenge to me but also gives me extra "fun" in terms of reaching for new goals and focussing. In fact Mat's question has never been as actual as it is now due to the technical possibilities from digital photography: everyone can make a "wow"picture now and then. The actual question to me and many others: how to think, plan and act to let your picture speak to others with sublimation as a result (and thus not take a picture that results in an unintended but very welcome wow effect from others). I think this is one of the main focusses in (the more passionated) amateur photography nowadays then it was in the past. On the dark side: it is also a way to set a photographers' passion aside as he or she isn't acting according to the current expectations of achieving the primary goal to thrive for sublamation as being synonimous for excellence.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: elliot_n on June 16, 2016, 05:49:41 am
everyone can make a "wow" picture now and then.

"Good art should elicit a response of 'Huh? Wow!' as opposed to 'Wow! Huh?'" - Ed Ruscha
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: photoenthusiasm on June 16, 2016, 05:52:17 am
"Good art should elicit a response of 'Huh? Wow!' as opposed to 'Wow! Huh?'" - Ed Ruscha

superb description of sublimation!
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Otto Phocus on June 16, 2016, 06:19:52 am
Russ

I have been on here since July 2008, sometimes there are glimpses of excellent information in amongst the nonsense, I can post a thread in the hope that some of that would arrive, but obviously not, my mistake.


If you have been here since 2008, you should have realized that there is a set of people on this site who are lacking in human communications skills.  They pop up regularly.  It is best not to respond to them.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 16, 2016, 01:50:14 pm
... the word sublimation: which means raising it to a higher status...

That is an interesting formulation. It reminds me of one of my two favorite quotes that define my photography (in the Info/About section on my site - the other quote is by Socrates), by Minor White:

“One should not only photograph things for what they are but for what else they are.”
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Hulyss on June 16, 2016, 02:37:25 pm
I'm not being defensive Slobodan, it's just a fact, you could think it was amazing or terrible and it wouldn't matter, I am quite comfortable with what I produce, it's for me. I was being sarcastic but that's my nature, I can't change that, it's one of my many many flaws, I embrace it!

Mat

I (and many other) am quite comfortable with what you produce Mat. So it isn't just for you; your work and skills are very valuable. Lula isn't what it used to be and there is some individuals who just do not get it, like Otto said, and grab attention in almost all threads.

Fortunately there is some Lula members who came to one of my workshop and we concluded that we should build a new place, more controlled and focused on Photography and Professionalism. You check the two cases. You'll be welcome.

When all is darkness never forget there is always some hope and light.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on June 16, 2016, 04:23:28 pm
Well, in reference to landscapes to create a sense of sublime, you should really get to know where the black point of the scene falls within the dynamic range of your calibrated monitor. Crushing the shadows so it looks like traditional dramatically high contrast slide film will destroy anything close to looking sublime in a landscape. If looking at the scene before snapping the shutter doesn't evoke a sense of sublimation, move on to looking else where, just make a note of just how dense the blackest black looks compared to the rest of the scene. 0,0,0 RGB may not exist if not make up a small area in the scene.

Then control the gradation of those tones in post as they transition from zone to zone.

It's hard to remember how the overall scene conveys "higher quality and grandeur" between the time of capture to viewing it on the monitor. But I know what ruins it for me when looking at a lot of landscapes is black splotches peppered about the scene that represents the densest tones and they just stick out like sore thumb like the tree image below. The tree limbs in shadow look like they're burnt because there's no way of transitioning to lighter tones to make it agree with the overall bright sunlight.

This is one of the reasons Ansel Adams made most of his midday lit landscapes look so dark.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 16, 2016, 05:08:46 pm
Hulyss, if you create a place to talk about ideas and concepts then I would love to be a part of it.

I still think my intention to discuss and learn about the concept of sublime in art is being confused with peoples perception as it relates to the dictionary definition, as in someones personal idea of something being so nice that it transcends in to sublime, not what I was talking about or wanting to get to know about, although the notion of creating something that you consider to be sublime in that sense is obviously a worthy endeavour.

Thanks to some really nice people who have messaged me, sent links and pointed me in the direction of new things to look at, I am beginning to get the idea and how it could relate to modern scenes or the idea of capturing something that represents sublime in it's original artistic form.

I found some things that I like and will quote here for those interested. I like this from an artist which I think highlights why I believe we are talking about something different..

"...as the painter of a canvas to which many viewers have responded with mentions of ‘the sublime’. They do so, I should add, to describe the tradition to which they feel the painting relates, rather than to praise it."

I think this is the thing some are missing, it is not about praise, it is the sublime as a description of the idea or notion of the piece of art or photograph. I found this really interesting body of work by Edward Burtynsky, exhibited under the title, The Industrial Sublime, a really incredible collection of images that would be difficult to class as sublime as it relates to the dictionary definition but the work really appears to relate to the previous quote I posted from Burke, the work deals with environmental devastation.

The project is here http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/site_contents/Photographs/Oil.html
I also found this text discussing it an interesting read.. http://www.academia.edu/1025404/Are_the_Oil_Sands_Sublime_Edward_Burtynsky_and_the_Vicissitudes_of_the_Sublime

"The sublime experience verges on threatening the subject with complete annihilation, yet intrinsic to the experience itself is a sense of security and safety. It reveals to us our very minuteness and insignificance  yet simultaneously seems to expand the boundaries of the ego. "

This to me is interesting, with my limited reading, it seems like the idea of sublime is a mixture of attraction and revolution, this is a good description from the above text..

"... On print after print, we are presented with panoramic photos of industrially wrecked and ruined landscapes possessed by a surreal beauty and frightening gran-deur. Frequently, the viewer is entranced by spectacular landscapes, which upon first glance could almost seem to be of natural wonders such as the Grand Canyon, only to realize moments later that what one is witnessing is a toxic dump..."

I am sure that there is a lot to read on the subject, it interests me and may not anyone else, that's cool, we all like different things but thought it worth posting something. I think that this notion of sublime is deeper than what a lot of people posting above think it is, I don't think personally that it relates to the black point on your monitor for example, I don't think it necessarily relates to technique at all, not that it matters what I think, it could just as easily be entirely about transitions from zone to zone, ultimately it's just photography and the desire to learn new things and see where it goes.

Mat





Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on June 16, 2016, 06:04:58 pm
Glorifying destruction of the natural environment is what I'm understanding from your links. It's like rubberneckers at a car wreck, they just can't look away and they don't know why but the wreck just looks so interesting. They don't know if they should be ashamed or entertained which makes it even more compelling. A viscous loop of complacency and voyeurism talking to an ape mind thinking there's more to it.

Mat, from what you've indicated I'm getting the impression you can't effectively define and communicate to yourself the meaning of or the ability to recognize sublime in art.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 17, 2016, 01:33:59 am
Hi Tim

If that's what you see then that's what you see!

I'm not really giving the impression that I don't know what sublime is in relation to art, I'm asking outright, what people ideas of sublime are as it relates to art because I don't know, I have never until a few days ago heard of the idea, I can list off thousands of things I think of as sublime in the literal sense but that's not what the point of the discussion, if you can call it that.

Here is what the Tate say about it..

"What is the sublime?

The sublime evades easy definition. Today the word is used for the most ordinary reasons, for a ‘sublime’ tennis shot or a ‘sublime’ evening. In the history of ideas it has a deeper meaning, pointing to the heights of something truly extraordinary, an ideal that artists have long pursued.
Taking inspiration from the rediscovery of the work of the classical author the so-called ‘Pseudo-Longinus’ and from the writings of the philosopher Edmund Burke, British artists and writers on art have explored the problem of the sublime for over four hundred years."

If it has been a subject discussed for hundreds of years by philosophers and artists then it obviously doesn't have a specific definition, it's a concept, there have been artists and there are now photographers using the idea to classify their work, now I am reading more about it, I am starting to understand why they are doing that and why the notion of sublime is leading their work in a certain direction.

Anyway, if it is of no interest then it's not interesting.

Mat
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on June 17, 2016, 02:19:32 am
I'm not really giving the impression that I don't know what sublime is in relation to art, I'm asking outright, what people ideas of sublime are as it relates to art because I don't know, I have never until a few days ago heard of the idea, I can list off thousands of things I think of as sublime in the literal sense but that's not what the point of the discussion, if you can call it that.

Then if you don't know how others define sublime as it relates to art why are you so sure that it can't be defined in words from what you said here...

I still think my intention to discuss and learn about the concept of sublime in art is being confused with peoples perception as it relates to the dictionary definition, as in someones personal idea of something being so nice that it transcends in to sublime, not what I was talking about or wanting to get to know about, although the notion of creating something that you consider to be sublime in that sense is obviously a worthy endeavour.

You're making a word "sublime" seem allusive and mysterious as it is relates to art and want others to define it in those terms which contradicts what you want to know from others. We could say anything and it could go either way whether you agree or disagree because it's part of the undefinable as you perceive it in art. "What is the sublime"...The sublime evades definition"

That's going to be a tough conversation.

Why don't you tell us with specifics what you see and how you define sublime within the photos you linked to.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on June 17, 2016, 02:38:16 am
Your words...

Quote
In the history of ideas it has a deeper meaning, pointing to the heights of something truly extraordinary, an ideal that artists have long pursued.

How is that different from Google definition of the word...

Quote
1. of such excellence, grandeur, or beauty as to inspire great admiration or awe.

Now a more interesting take would be to see how that concept is influenced by or related to the saying..."Things look different when photographed"...Or why am I looking at it? Oh, it must have something sublime about it.

Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 17, 2016, 03:07:48 am
I'm not sure it can be defined in the strict sense, in fact having read the things I linked to, I am sure it can't be defined with any certainty, but the nature of a discussion on art is that people can give their understanding as it relates to their own views and then through the process of discussion it is possible to learn things, expand your horizons and maybe think about things in a different way, I like that and have no problem with tough conversations, none of us are born with knowledge, we need to learn it, shared experiences and listening to others views are a good way.

Your previous post about black point, tonal variations etc. is how you chose to describe your understanding, I read that and can't relate to it personally in connection with the artistic idea of sublime, I can relate to it as your description of what you want to see and achieve with your work to create an image that you regard as sublime within your own definition of course, I still feel that they are different things.

Now I am reading things that refer to sublime I am forming opinions on what it relates to, and how it differs to a literal explanation of the word. For example, you could take a shot of your kids first smile or first steps, you would rightly feel that the image is sublime because of the feeling it gives you, you could even be in awe at the miracle of birth and development, new experiences etc. etc. What I am picking up from reading stuff is that mainly it refers to landscapes, traditionally it was vast alpine scenes, where the awe is leaning towards the frightening, the expanse, the power within the image, maybe it could be an image taken from a precipice, maybe the viewpoint is one that simply is so vast that it prompts "fear" as you realise how small you are in the big scheme of things. In modern stuff, the notion appears to have moved towards the industrial impact within nature, the dark influence of man for example as per the Burtynsky work but not limited to that, I have seen images of power stations billowing steam within otherwise pristine landscapes, vast areas levelled by mining etc. I am still only scratching the surface so far.

The reason this came up is that I got a comment on some work I produced with no concept of sublime, on a trip to Lofoten Islands recently, I was in awe of the landscape, obviously it is a stunning place, but more than that, what struck me was the fragility of life in the place, how hard it is now and how much harder it would have been hundreds of years ago without our modern amenities. The images I produced are not in any way dynamic enough to be considered sublime as in this context and certainly not in the dictionary definition, they are not pretty, they are dark and stark, the feeling I got from being there. But now I can see that what attracted me to the scenes that I photographed could lead me to look deeper at sublime and maybe influence what I photograph in the future. The small shack I photographed dominated by the mountain backdrop spoke to me at the time, I was amazed that someone could live there, a family could have been raised there, kids schooled, played outside in the 24hr darkness of winter and so on, maybe those feelings and the reason for taking the shot could lead me to learn new things. On the second day I was there, we had an enormous snow storm, I sat in the hotel bar looking out the window as the wind battered and the snow blew horizontally, the thought of the years that little house had stood there, the amount of storms the occupants would have witnessed under that tin room, I guess you could call that idea as frightening.

Anyway, I’m rambling again, this may not be the place to discuss this stuff, no harm done. If people have a view then it would be good to read how it differs from mine, or not as the case may be.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: photoenthusiasm on June 17, 2016, 03:46:19 am
Mat, thanks for sharing the information You collected. Probably it is not about the use and interpretation of one word, sublime. Up to now I am learning a lot and just read on where people argue beside the original question. You refer to your trip to Lofoten. Are these pictures on your website? It makes sense to compare peoples contrxt by having a look at the website of their own achievenents. Great work You have in your landscapes, so I am curiuos about the Lofoten remarks.
Charles
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 17, 2016, 03:57:41 am
Hi Charles

I'm glad that you are getting something from this stuff, it's worthwhile if it allows us to look at new things.

There's nothing on my website from the last couple of years, been a bit busy so it has been neglected. I'm not keen to post images here but happy to send you a link to them if you'd like to see.

Cheers

Mat
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: pearlstreet on June 17, 2016, 10:55:40 am
Mat, I thought your original question was a good one. Unfortunately, it was followed by the usual argumentative chest-puffing.

i skipped a lot of posts here so this may have been said - I think the original critic might have used the word sublime to mean thoughtful.

Sharon
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: pearlstreet on June 17, 2016, 11:07:23 am
Since Mat locked his thread, I will post this here:

Sublime = spectacular

Mat's shack = picturesque (barely)

This post was rude and uncalled for.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: RSL on June 17, 2016, 11:27:22 am
What I still can't understand is why Mat's so hung up on the word "sublime," which, standing by itself is as meaningless as "nice." In fact some people think those two words essentially are synonymous and that the difference is a matter of degree. Mat may need professional help to get to the bottom of this quest.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: pearlstreet on June 17, 2016, 11:32:05 am
What I still can't understand is why Mat's so hung up on the word "sublime," which, standing by itself is as meaningless as "nice." In fact some people think those two words essentially are synonymous and that the difference is a matter of degree. Mat may need professional help to get to the bottom of this quest.

Russ that was so rude and disdainful. I hate snide superiority.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: pearlstreet on June 17, 2016, 11:35:03 am
So I'll leave this whole section of LL to you guys. It's not worth reading. It shouldn't be called The Art of Photography.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: RSL on June 17, 2016, 11:39:51 am
Good idea, Sharon.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 17, 2016, 11:40:50 am
Russ, I'm not sure why but you seem anti the idea of expanding your knowledge or looking at different things, sublime as nice is not the same as sublime as it refers to the concept in art, it's that simple. You not understanding it is irrelevant to the subject as a whole, just leave it and forget about it. Your continued input is really not necessary, you have nothing positive to add.

Mat
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: RSL on June 17, 2016, 12:01:17 pm
Oh, I understand it but I'm not sure you do. What you're trying to describe as "sublime" is what I call a transcendental experience. What do you get from this, from Dylan?

All the sun long it was running, it was lovely, the hay
Fields high as the house, the tunes from the chimneys, it was air
     And playing, lovely and watery
          And fire green as grass.

At face value it's gibberish, but it gives you a jolt that comes not from the denotations or even the connotations of the words themselves, but from the interstices between the images. It strikes me that that's what we're all striving for -- or should be striving for -- in our photographs. You can call it "sublimity" and I can call it a transcendental experience. Unless you want to play semantic games it's the same thing.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 17, 2016, 12:20:17 pm
..Or you could just carry on regardless!

Look Russ, we are talking about different things, unless you are saying that the discussions of philosophers, artists, intellectuals over many years on the subject, despite galleries dedicating exhibitions to it, despite modern intellectuals studying the concept and writing papers on it, all along you had the secret to the entire thing. I can imagine you walking in to the midst of the discussions and just declaring proudly, arms aloft, lads, it just means nice, at which point Burke and his mates, the curators at the Tate and everyone else just sit back and go, wow he's right, lets go and grab a beer.

If that's what you are saying then sure, you've got it, end of conversation, many thanks.

I'm going to do us both a favour and remove the temptation to reply to you again by just ignoring you, I've only done that to 1 other person but honestly, you have absolutely nothing worth listening to and this acting like some strange geriatric bully, ridiculing and dismissing things that don't comply with your way of thinking is just boring.

Mat
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 17, 2016, 12:34:15 pm
This post was rude and uncalled for.

Would you care to explain why, as the intention was anything but?
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 17, 2016, 01:06:01 pm
Whilst I wouldn't like to speak for Sharon, the (barely) is the thing I would consider to be rude, it's the sort of thing that is said venomously, it's a word you would spit out, so for me, she is correct, but I'm a big boy, it's not something I would lose sleep over. If you didn't mean it in that way then it's worth noting that it's how it came across.

Mat
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 17, 2016, 01:42:07 pm
...  the (barely) is the thing I would consider to be rude...

Ah!

I said: "picturesque (barely)." In my understanding of English, that means that the picture is still picturesque, just on the lower and of the scale. It is still nice. I really do not see how saying that something is "still nice" is interpreted as rude, let alone "venomous." In other words, in order not to be perceived as "rude," one can only offer high praise?

I initially drafted the response without that qualifier, trying only to contrast "spectacular" vs. "picturesque." But there was one element that spoiled the pure "picturesque" feel for me (and some others): the metal roof. Hence the qualifier.

So let me explain why a contemporary roof spoils the picturesque feel.

In the already mentioned 20-page essay on sublime in landscape art, "picturesque" is described as, paraphrasing: "familiarized beauty, secure uniformity." Most of us are familiar (in arts) with huts with more natural, weathered, thatched roofs, thus introducing a more contemporary, metal version challenges our notion of picturesque. Hence "barely."




Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 17, 2016, 01:53:18 pm
Nope, saying the picture is on the lower end of the scale is not rude, and only saying things are nice is not necessary, it's the (barely) that is perceived as rude, as it appears as an addition with the express intention of diminishing the "picturesque". I think you know that though.

The term picturesque seems a little absurd to me in the context of the image, picturesque was the last thing on my mind when shooting it, definitely when processing it and certainly when displaying it, it is the opposite of picturesque, dark, bitter, lonely, the darks are dark and the composition was purposefully to give it a sense of being isolated from the beauty of the mountains, sure you can think of it as picturesque though if that's how you see it, it's no problem. For me as the photographer, the metal roof makes all the difference, it felt incredulous looking at it that it would offer protection, security or warmth in that environment.

What I have read about the subject, picturesque, pretty etc. is the opposite of the concept of the sublime, at least as I read it as a non expert on the subject, it may indeed be closer to the dictionary definition though.

Maybe this is of interest from a historical point of view?

https://blantonmuseum.org/files/american_scenery/sublime_guide.pdf
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: RSL on June 17, 2016, 01:59:37 pm
..Or you could just carry on regardless!

Look Russ, we are talking about different things, unless you are saying that the discussions of philosophers, artists, intellectuals over many years on the subject, despite galleries dedicating exhibitions to it, despite modern intellectuals studying the concept and writing papers on it, all along you had the secret to the entire thing. I can imagine you walking in to the midst of the discussions and just declaring proudly, arms aloft, lads, it just means nice, at which point Burke and his mates, the curators at the Tate and everyone else just sit back and go, wow he's right, lets go and grab a beer.

If that's what you are saying then sure, you've got it, end of conversation, many thanks.

I'm going to do us both a favour and remove the temptation to reply to you again by just ignoring you, I've only done that to 1 other person but honestly, you have absolutely nothing worth listening to and this acting like some strange geriatric bully, ridiculing and dismissing things that don't comply with your way of thinking is just boring.

Mat

Thanks, Mat. Now I'm sure you need professional help.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 17, 2016, 02:01:54 pm
Maybe this also has some meaning?

"The Sublime

Things of great height such as mountains
Craggy, rocky, rough features
The dark and obscure
The dangerous and wild
The sublime eludes the limits of representation
The sublime is that which cannot be described or represented fully 
Encountering the sublime involves a loss of self
Encountering the sublime involves a loss of reason.

The Beautiful

Produces feelings of pleasure in the beholder
Can be represented
Does not challenge reason
Generates an emotional response, even love
The response to the beautiful is physical and sensual.  Women’s bodies can be beautiful, bur not women’s minds
The beautiful can be known and can be described. It is safe.

The Picturesque

Is a hybrid aesthetic category
Is a way of seeing and describing nature
Is a way of viewing nature as though composed for a landscape painting
Key features are asymmetrical shapes, sinuous shapes, the rugged, the irregular; light and shades; contrast; variety
A picturesque landscape can be inspirational (compare the sublime) but is controllable (compare the beautiful)
Picturesque landscapes often include the ruined or part-ruined, and concealed or part-hidden
The picturesque appeals to the eye but also to the rational senses, and provokes a rational response
The picturesque can be contained by and described using language"

This taken from another publication.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 17, 2016, 02:05:50 pm
Or this ...

http://philosophy.about.com/od/Philosophical-Theories-Ideas/a/The-Beautiful-The-Sublime-And-The-Picturesque.htm

"the sublime on the other hand, is a transformative experience typically associated with some negative pleasure and elicited by the encounter of an object or situation whose quantity transcends the limits of our actual grasp. Imagine of contemplating the sea, or the sky, an immense quantity of garbage, or a mesmerizing infinite series of numbers"

There is a lot of information on the subject when you start to look, the concept is always described as being different to picturesque or pretty or beautiful or even nice.

Mat
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 17, 2016, 02:33:10 pm
... The term picturesque seems a little absurd to me in the context of the image, picturesque was the last thing on my mind when shooting it, definitely when processing it and certainly when displaying it, it is the opposite of picturesque...

If so, why is my qualification as "barely picturesque" rude? You should have taken it as a compliment, it seems.

The reason I used the term "picturesque" is that the person you spoke to in the original thread used that term. Otherwise, beyond the genre labeling, it is a decent image.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 17, 2016, 02:49:19 pm
I've already explained what is rude Slobodan, there isn't an easier way to explain it than that.

I don't see what you wrote as a compliment but I am not looking for a compliment from you or anyone, I still would like to develop furthering my understanding of the subject. I wrote in my first post that I was told to continue to focus on the Sublime rather than the picturesque which as I read is not the same thing at all, would you agree? Having looked at the shots I had taken, the idea was to point my in the direction of a style that worked with what I was trying to do, rather than taking shots that could be classed as picturesque.

Anyway, I have received some excellent advice from people not involved in this thread, strangely they have been far more helpful! So I feel I have got enough information to start developing my ideas and looking in new directions.

Thanks to all who contributed.

Mat
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 17, 2016, 02:58:15 pm
I've already explained what is rude Slobodan, there isn't an easier way to explain it than that...

Given that English is a second language for both of us, I'll consider your continuous defensive, hostile, and argumentative responses to benevolent contributions as something lost in translation.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 17, 2016, 03:04:05 pm
Haha! Well of course you are entitled to do that Slobodan, your grasp of humour is coming along nicely though, well done! It is much easier to do that than deal with the actual subject I guess.

Have a nice evening.

Mat

Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Hulyss on June 17, 2016, 03:06:38 pm
Leave them alone Mat, you waste your energy for some dudes who are "barely" picturesque.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on June 17, 2016, 03:57:34 pm
What I still can't understand is why Mat's so hung up on the word "sublime," which, standing by itself is as meaningless as "nice." In fact some people think those two words essentially are synonymous and that the difference is a matter of degree. Mat may need professional help to get to the bottom of this quest.

Sublime is a real concept not to be dismissed though it can be quite subjective in its interpretation.

My understanding is to find a way to evoke a bigger than life aspect to imagery that has a down to earth central focus and story to contrast against and thus enhance the bigger than life feel.

After viewing Mat's gallery I can see why he got the "picturesque" comment. Every image in his gallery shows a technically perfect looking sameness image to image with none offering any contrast to lift it out of its sameness. Also there's too many images that support this sense of repetition.

Each image primarily depicts shapes, lines and shadows of baron landscapes taken at different times of the season. Where's the story? Why am I looking at it? What do I look for? Where's the central focus that tells the viewer they're not just looking at baron landscapes? Is there more to those landscapes than meets the eye? Thus those images don't communicate sublime qualities.

But I bet the ancient philosophers that discussed such concepts would have their minds blown by Mat's landscapes because everything is relative according to each person's sensitivities influenced by what they've become used to.

My gallery doesn't evoke sublime qualities either, but I'm not concerned with other's criticism of my work or whether or not they see them as sublime.

Most photographers that can capture that quality primarily have to be in the right place, at the right time. And a lot of that is based on whether they have the resources to make that happen.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 17, 2016, 04:08:30 pm
Hi Tim

What gallery are you looking at? There's nothing on my website from the last couple of years at least! But thanks for taking the time to analyse them, although I have stated before that my desire to understand the concept is not because I think it relates to my images as they are now, but rather it's something I want to know about in order to help me for where I am going. You are correct though, there is nothing on there that I would consider even approaching sublime.

Thanks also for your interpretation of the subject, it's interesting to read.

Mat

Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on June 17, 2016, 04:26:59 pm
Hi Tim

What gallery are you looking at?

Mat

Clicked on "Fine Art" in your linked gallery and found this... http://www.matrichardson.com/p942597165
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on June 17, 2016, 04:31:49 pm
Since it's difficult to find examples of what I would consider images that evoke a sublime quality, I decided to show what sublime is not.

I guess you know it when you see, but since I don't go looking for it, I know it when I don't see it is my only option in my interpretation and explanation of it.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 17, 2016, 04:33:26 pm
I see, well if I had wanted to show those images on here I would have, they are old and not relevant, it's not normally the done thing to post a link to someone else's shots if they don't post it themselves, would be great if you could remove the link. As I have stated, this is about gathering knowledge, my images are not there for critique from anyone which is why I haven't posted them.

Mat

Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on June 17, 2016, 04:43:04 pm
Your welcome, Mat. Nice talking to ya'.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 17, 2016, 04:46:07 pm
Hmmm, Tim, you have crossed a line, I would not dream of posting your images, it is just not done. If you have a personal issue with me then best you write me a personal message about it rather than post my work without permission.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on June 17, 2016, 04:57:19 pm
Mat, I have no personal problems with you. You've provided the link to your gallery in your signature for everyone to see and you asked me directly what gallery I sourced my opinion on. I didn't critique your work. I used your work as an example to explain the concept of sublime.

I'll let the administrator handle this.

And I don't do private messages. I believe in transparency.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on June 17, 2016, 04:59:16 pm
The posting of a link to publicly-viewable images on an open Web site crosses no line.

This thread(s) is occupying too much of my time and will be locked if the silliness persists.
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: mjrichardson on June 17, 2016, 05:02:59 pm
You know what, no problem, my private message was to ask you to remove the link, it's just common decency to agree when you are requested to do so, if you don't want to then no problem, I have nothing to hide, I am not ashamed of my images, they are just not relevant to the topic, but what the hell, if it makes you feel good to do it then be my guest.

Mat
Title: Re: More Sublime
Post by: RSL on June 17, 2016, 05:03:23 pm
Hmmm, Tim, you have crossed a line, I would not dream of posting your images, it is just not done. If you have a personal issue with me then best you write me a personal message about it rather than post my work without permission.

Hmmmm. . . Isn't that a link to your galleries at the bottom of all your posts, Mat? Does that cross a line?