Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: dreed on June 06, 2011, 09:26:03 pm
-
In another thread RSL said:
So you define pictures of storms, volcanoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, floods and animals as "landscapes?" That's an interesting twist on the definition, but I don't think it holds up very well. Weather, maybe, though there are thousands of landscapes that include weather, including many of St. Ansel's. But I'd define the others more as photojournalism or wildlife shots than landscape, especially pictures of bisons being attacked by wolves.
Which prompts the question of when is a photograph a "landscape photograph"?
Does a photograph of flood waters reaching a particular level qualify as photojournalism or landscape?
Or does it depend on the context?
And why should a photograph being a member of one particular category exclude it from others?
-
I define landscape photographs as being about place or space. That conveniently lets me include cityscapes and large interiors which are things I like to shoot as well as scenes where the natural world is prominent.
Edit...and perhaps I would like to exclude pictures where things like flowers, rocks and trees are the subjects, those are pictures of objects rather than of place or space.
-
I'll suggest that it doesn't have much significance as to how the types are defined,
buy I'd offer the idea that journalistic photos have a connection with a story or
news event, while landscapes do not.
-
... I'd offer the idea that journalistic photos have a connection with a story or
news event, while landscapes do not.
I disagree. Really fine landscape photographs DO have story.
-
As with the definition of "Art," I believe the definitions of genres like "Landscape" need to be very fuzzy at the edge, because these names are intellectual constructs and the images we make or find don't always fit neatly into rigid definitional boxes. So, IMHO, "Landscape" is in the eye of the beholder.
Eric
-
Yes, Eric.
And that's not taking into account esoteric fields such as the 'interior landscape'! I think several very successful photo artists (there! I wrote that and survived) have delved into that world... artiste as nurse, as hitchhiker, as actress in a scene in an imaginary film... Usually, it requires the ability to wear certain clothes and not look too ridiculous in the process. One can go to classes for that.
There is truly no limit to landscape.
Rob C
-
...IMHO, "Landscape" is in the eye of the beholder.
Right. And if that eye has had the pleasure of beholding some of Thomas Cole's or Albert Bierstadt's magnificent landscapes, looking at a photo landscape will be a lot like listening to the Hallelujah Chorus played on a kazoo. The notes will be there, but the effect will be somewhat underwhelming.
Is that "H" really appropriate, Eric? It certainly wouldn't be in my case.
-
Is that "H" really appropriate, Eric? It certainly wouldn't be in my case.
I guess I could spell it with a Cockney accent: "'U."
-
Right. And if that eye has had the pleasure of beholding some of Thomas Cole's or Albert Bierstadt's magnificent landscapes, looking at a photo landscape will be a lot like listening to the Hallelujah Chorus played on a kazoo. The notes will be there, but the effect will be somewhat underwhelming.
Russ, you keep making this same argument, and from the beginning it has had a serious and fatal flaw. It is that you compare painting to an entire orchestra, and landscape photography to a mere kazoo. Really? A kazoo? It's an argument purposefully exaggerated to prove your own point, thus contains little validity.
A more rational and honest comparison would be to compare painting to a piano (both considered quite traditional with long histories), and photography to an electric guitar. Each is musically popular and quite unique with certain virtues and strengths. More importantly, neither can be considered a good replacement for the other therefore one cannot be considered superior over the other. Still, even that comparison fails. It is, however, a far more fair argument.
The bottom line is that you prefer the romanticized, fanciful and falsified worlds of 19th-century painters such as Cole, Bierstadt or, perhaps, Moran over the "reality" of photography. That's perfectly fine. It does not, however, rise to the level of "fact" as you would have us believe.
-
...therefore one cannot be considered superior over the other.
You're right, Chuck, I exaggerated. And, as you know, I sometimes do landscapes. They're not nearly as good as your landscapes, and I have a lot to learn about landscapes, as Slobodan so ably demonstrated not long ago. If I really believed the extreme statement I made, why would I even think of doing a landscape? But, I don't entirely turn my back on the statement, extreme as it may be.
On the other hand, I CERTAINLY consider a piano to be far superior to an electric guitar -- sort of like the difference between a full choir and a kazoo.
-
On the other hand, I CERTAINLY consider a piano to be far superior to an electric guitar -- sort of like the difference between a full choir and a kazoo.
It is superior as far as Billy Joel goes, but does little for the Rolling Stones. :)
-
Besides offering workshops, I teach a course at a local college called "Landscape Photography" and every time students try to pin me down to a "definition" I fail because there are so many different aspects to landscapes, from portraits to abstract to everything in between.
To help focus students (and to avoid the inevitable "Is this a nature photograph or a landscape?" question), I narrowed down the concept to something I call a "Classic Landscape", a notion that I've attached three criteriato:- depicts the surface of Earth;
- generally includes the horizon or a perceived horizon;
- portrays 3-dimensionality by showing a progression from foreground through midground to background.
Ultimately… a landscape photograph is a portrait - portraying the features, characteristics and moods of the land, sea and sky.
I'm then asked "Can people be in it?" - Yes, provided they are part of the landscape and not the dominant element in the photograph. "Can buildings be in it?" - Of course; buildings exist in the landscape and towns and cities are landscapes unto themselves.
It's important to recognize, however, that this "Classic Landscape" definition certainly doesn't cover all aspects of landscape photography - it's a starting point. It's also a goal for students to work towards, particularly the third criterion where students must work towards creating three-dimensionality, which, in most cases for learning photographers is easier said than done.
We then go on to explore the benefits of using a wideangle lens to achieve this: finding a foreground anchor and making it prominent then building the composition from there with leading lines and pathways. I always tell them that once they nail down these techniques they can be applied to many areas of photography. As well, they can then branch out to all the other types of landscapes: realism, impressionism, abstract, etc.
Why a wideangle lens since landscapes can be done quite effectively with any focal length? Mostly because wide angles are under-utilized as a focal length, and poorly utilized by learning photographers. It also helps to reduce the tendency of students to stand in one place and zoom to compose. I may come across as a tyrant, but I don't want to hear "retro-justifications" for choosing this or that - I want students to clearly demonstrate sound mastery of a set of techniques before they go off on a tangent.
-
It is superior as far as Billy Joel goes, but does little for the Rolling Stones. :)
Chuck, I should have added: The only instrument worse than an electric guitar is an electric organ.
But non-electric guitar, now that's something else. I like classical guitar a great deal, though I prefer Chopin and Mendelssohn.
It's amazing to me that those stones are still rolling.
-
We then go on to explore the benefits of using a wide angle lens to achieve this: finding a foreground anchor and making it prominent then building the composition from there with leading lines and pathways. I always tell them that once they nail down these techniques they can be applied to many areas of photography.
...wide angles are under-utilized as a focal length...
I totally disagree about the whole 3D requirement for landscape images, complete with the requisite fore, mid and backgrounds. That seems to me just another all-too-easily-defined rule that does little more than restrict creativity by encouraging young or inexperienced photographers to emulate the teacher. There are numerous examples of photographers who eschew this definition. Michael Kenna is just one example of a photographer whose landscape images whose foregrounds and/or backgrounds exist only by his careful placement of the subject within the frame. In many of his more successful images, it's the two-dimensional quality that makes them compelling. As well, there is Mitch Dobrowner who uses very little, if any,foreground in his recent "Storm" series. Then there is Mark Citrit, Brett Weston, etc. and, much, much, much, much...further down the list, myself.
As for the use of wide-angle lenses, I've never heard anyone state that they're not used enough. As a matter of fact, I've heard, and experienced, that they're used too much. The juxtaposition provided by wide-angle lenses, especially ultra-wides, is often used as a crutch by landscape photographers to overcome less than stellar subject matter. If you ask me, it's not the wide-angle lenses that are underutilized, it's those in the normal range.
-
On the other hand, I CERTAINLY consider a piano to be far superior to an electric guitar -- sort of like the difference between a full choir and a kazoo.
Don't know about kazoos, but I like this sort of piano...
http://youtu.be/vB-WF4lvVhw
;-)
Rob C
-
Besides offering workshops, I teach a course at a local college called "Landscape Photography" and every time students try to pin me down to a "definition" I fail because there are so many different aspects to landscapes, from portraits to abstract to everything in between.
To help focus students (and to avoid the inevitable "Is this a nature photograph or a landscape?" question), I narrowed down the concept to something I call a "Classic Landscape", a notion that I've attached three criteriato:- depicts the surface of Earth;
- generally includes the horizon or a perceived horizon;
- portrays 3-dimensionality by showing a progression from foreground through midground to background.
Ultimately… a landscape photograph is a portrait - portraying the features, characteristics and moods of the land, sea and sky.
I'm then asked "Can people be in it?" - Yes, provided they are part of the landscape and not the dominant element in the photograph. "Can buildings be in it?" - Of course; buildings exist in the landscape and towns and cities are landscapes unto themselves.
It's important to recognize, however, that this "Classic Landscape" definition certainly doesn't cover all aspects of landscape photography - it's a starting point. It's also a goal for students to work towards, particularly the third criterion where students must work towards creating three-dimensionality, which, in most cases for learning photographers is easier said than done.
We then go on to explore the benefits of using a wideangle lens to achieve this: finding a foreground anchor and making it prominent then building the composition from there with leading lines and pathways. I always tell them that once they nail down these techniques they can be applied to many areas of photography. As well, they can then branch out to all the other types of landscapes: realism, impressionism, abstract, etc.
Why a wideangle lens since landscapes can be done quite effectively with any focal length? Mostly because wide angles are under-utilized as a focal length, and poorly utilized by learning photographers. It also helps to reduce the tendency of students to stand in one place and zoom to compose. I may come across as a tyrant, but I don't want to hear "retro-justifications" for choosing this or that - I want students to clearly demonstrate sound mastery of a set of techniques before they go off on a tangent.
Seems like far too tight a definition and approach to be really useful in all but a select, limited set of circumstances.
In the end, what does it matter if a particular photograph is considered a 'landscape' or 'nature' or 'wildlife'? If someone likes it, if it moves them, if it evokes an emotional response that's what matters. What contrived category the image fits into is irrelevant. Maybe for a competition it matters, but then the group/organisation/magazine running the competition is going to have its own criteria for what fits and what doesn't. Burtynsky's Manufactured Landscape series wouldn't fit most 'traditional' definitions of landscape photography but it's a compelling project nonetheless, tells a strong story and there's no reason it can't be considered a type of landscape photography.
Screw defintions, make photographs.
-
Screw defintions, make photographs.
That's good advice, but doesn't stoke the energy fires that much; as with all graphics that, by definition, require to be put down on paper (or a screen, in this instance) one still needs a good reason to produce them in the first instance. That's the part, really, that needs commercialization, needs the ultimate entrepreneur to sell a 'why to' course in place of a 'how to' one.
Or maybe not.
Rob C
-
Well, my energy isn't stoked all that much when discussing categorisations either. Did the Impressionists or Cubists or Abstract Expressionists define themselves or did someone else (or several someones) do that? Does the definition of one as a 'landscape' photographer or a 'nature' photographer really provide the reason to produce? Putting aside commercial photography where the reason to produce is clear; when talking about the artistic side of photography the reason to produce has to come from within doesn't it? And not from some external definition.
Marketing and commercialisation are a different matter and while related from the standpoint that successfully marketing one's efforts and getting paid for them is good for the bank account, is it really the motivation to produce? Does the art world need more Thomas Kincades? I guess that brings to the table the idea that artists only become famous after they're dead which isn't good either. But perhaps that old maxim was true in bygone days when ideas around marketing and selling weren't as refined or advanced as they are today.
-
“Putting aside commercial photography where the reason to produce is clear; when talking about the artistic side of photography the reason to produce has to come from within doesn't it? And not from some external definition.”
Now that’s a bit of a doubtful premise, to say the least!
Unless I misunderstand, what on Earth do you imagine drives the better commercial shooters to start in the business if not the wish, the very need to make pictures, to express their artistic nature? Yes, I accept that there are also those for whom a toilet is as good as a palace (if I may quote my late father-in-law describe his thoughts on surveying, his business) but then that holds for pretty well all the things that man can do. The ‘artistic’ side of photography is all there is in photography that makes it worth doing at all; I find it difficult to separate the artistic concept from commerce as if only the non-commercial practitioners hold the key to it; on the contrary, it’s the commercial world that puts the higher demands on artistic ability – that’s what they pay you to supply, to bring to life their ideas…
The so-called art world has another agenda. There, the way to success is clearly to create a myth, a secret society of values that, somehow, only the very rich in need of spreading financial risk is able to comprehend.
For my buck, the working pro is probably the more honest, the more inclined to produce a realistic or more genuine form of artistic endeavour, if only because more people have to be swayed by it. A democracy of artistic measure, if you will, but not, I hope, a lowest common denominator!
I’ve just watched another docu, this time one on grizzly bears in the Cascades. Looking at it on BBC HD, on a fairly large screen and seated at the unusual (for me) distance of around four feet from it, the landscape photography (motion) was fascinating and so detailed. I think I came to believe, then, that the secret of landscape photography isn’t to be found in stills, that it requires the dimension of motion to make it truly impressive.
Now, that sort of filming is a remarkable marriage of art and commercial enterprise.
Rob C
-
I totally disagree about the whole 3D requirement for landscape images, complete with the requisite fore, mid and backgrounds. That seems to me just another all-too-easily-defined rule that does little more than restrict creativity by encouraging young or inexperienced photographers to emulate the teacher. There are numerous examples of photographers who eschew this definition. Michael Kenna is just one example of a photographer whose landscape images whose foregrounds and/or backgrounds exist only by his careful placement of the subject within the frame. In many of his more successful images, it's the two-dimensional quality that makes them compelling. As well, there is Mitch Dobrowner who uses very little, if any,foreground in his recent "Storm" series. Then there is Mark Citrit, Brett Weston, etc. and, much, much, much, much...further down the list, myself.
As for the use of wide-angle lenses, I've never heard anyone state that they're not used enough. As a matter of fact, I've heard, and experienced, that they're used too much. The juxtaposition provided by wide-angle lenses, especially ultra-wides, is often used as a crutch by landscape photographers to overcome less than stellar subject matter. If you ask me, it's not the wide-angle lenses that are underutilized, it's those in the normal range.
I couldn't agree more - there is far more to landscapes than what I outlines, as I eluded to in the post! But when the course is "Landscape Photography" and not "Shoot whatever the heck your camera is pointed at", there has be limitations. As well, it's the students who are looking to build techniques based on good practice. I simply provide them with the tools to achieve what they want. Amongst professionals wide angles are used significantly, but the average learning photographer is unaware of how best to make use of a wideangle. They are often turned off of wideangle as "everything seems so far away". A simple bit of coaching on how to make best use of the equipment is what they are after and what I provide.
-
We may be splitting hairs a bit, Rob or we may be coming at it from entirely different perspectives. I'm not really sure.
I'll deign to disagree on the sole motivation of the commercial photographer. When I said the motivation of the commercial photographer is obvious what I was referring to was that the commercial photographer needs to shoot to make a living. No shooting, no income. To that end, I don't think that it's just the artistic ability or vision of the photographer that makes the end product what it is. Rather the opposite in a lot of cases. The photographer may play a part but in the end, it's the client's vision that needs satisfying. There's a good deal of compromise going on and the photographer who refuses to compromise, who refuses to accede to the needs/desires of others at least in part, who is, in other words, the classical 'diva artiste' won't be working very long. I disagree as well that the artistic side of photography is all there is that makes it worthwhile. Purely documentary photography isn't overly artistic but it can still be very worthwhile. And necessary. Forensic photography, for example.
When I was talking about the 'artistic side' of photography I was talking about that aspect of photography where, other than a buyer of prints, no one has to be pleased but the photographer. And most artists (photographers included) who practice that form of an art don't do it with the explicit intent of pleasing anyone else. They do it because it pleases them and then hope that it may please others as well. Or can convince others that they should be pleased by it.
-
We may be splitting hairs a bit, Rob or we may be coming at it from entirely different perspectives. I'm not really sure.
I'll deign to disagree on the sole motivation of the commercial photographer. When I said the motivation of the commercial photographer is obvious what I was referring to was that the commercial photographer needs to shoot to make a living. No shooting, no income. To that end, I don't think that it's just the artistic ability or vision of the photographer that makes the end product what it is. Rather the opposite in a lot of cases. The photographer may play a part but in the end, it's the client's vision that needs satisfying. There's a good deal of compromise going on and the photographer who refuses to compromise, who refuses to accede to the needs/desires of others at least in part, who is, in other words, the classical 'diva artiste' won't be working very long. I disagree as well that the artistic side of photography is all there is that makes it worthwhile. Purely documentary photography isn't overly artistic but it can still be very worthwhile. And necessary. Forensic photography, for example.
When I was talking about the 'artistic side' of photography I was talking about that aspect of photography where, other than a buyer of prints, no one has to be pleased but the photographer. And most artists (photographers included) who practice that form of an art don't do it with the explicit intent of pleasing anyone else. They do it because it pleases them and then hope that it may please others as well. Or can convince others that they should be pleased by it.
Whittled down, then, you are admitting that such statements are really impossible to justify without so many caveats and exclusions that they become pretty meaningless - much as are any definition of what constitutes 'art' in the first place?
Rob C
-
I'm not 'admitting' anything. That's what I said from the start. Hence my 'screw definitions, make photographs' remark.
-
I'm not 'admitting' anything. That's what I said from the start. Hence my 'screw definitions, make photographs' remark.
Hey, Bob! Whatever you like.
This illustrates the sort of 'discussion', the closed loops, that drove me away from here a few months ago...
Rob C
-
Well, I'm not trying to offend you Rob. Clearly, I don't understand what you're saying. I actually don't think there's a great difference between our viewpoints. Apparently you do and I'm not understanding it. I don't understand what you mean by referring to this as a closed loop discussion. If you're prepared to try to explain it so that I can understand that would be fine. Perhaps I've not made myself clear enough. If so, tell me where and I'll try to explain.
-
Bob
1. “I'll deign to disagree on the sole motivation of the commercial photographer.”
2. “Putting aside commercial photography where the reason to produce is clear; when talking about the artistic side of photography the reason to produce has to come from within doesn't it? And not from some external definition.”
Okay, I’ll try to spell it out again.
Take your statement in 1: I do trust you understand the meaning of deign? Hardly a pleasant way to begin to address a reply to anyone; no wonder hackles rise.
On to point 2, then: you are clearly implying that commercial photography is exclusively about money and, by your sentence, further imply that it must therefore be devoid of artistic merit or motivation. This is patently not the case, at least not with any successful pro snappers I have known. Frankly, photography must be one of the most difficult routes to money one could imagine. There has to be something pretty damned basic and visceral to make a person try to earn their living with it. And that drive, that need? Obviously, that has to be the need to express an artistic nature, to make it one’s life. Artistic desire must be the basis for the wish to be a professional photographer – what else does it generally offer if not the hope of that?
I don’t really see the difficulty in understanding this.
Closed loops? Simply that in some ‘conversations’ things get repeated over and over again, either in exactly the same form or with a choice of different words with an identical overall meaning. In essence, I sometimes find myself obliged to answer the same thing again but in a different way; that must be as tiresome for the reader as for the writer, hence the recent retreat from the scene.
However, I’m perfectly willing to accept it’s two sides of a similar coin…
Rob C
-
I do understand the meaning of the word deign and it can be negative but it's not absolutely negative. It means 'to deem worthy'. It's often connoted with condescend which also has negative meaning but, again, isn't absolutely negative. It can also mean to yield. Granted, neither of those definitions are as common today but still valid. I intended no offense and apologise for causing any.
On point 2, I guess we just disagree. I see your point. I understand it. I just don't agree with it. I'm not saying making a living at photography is easy. Christ I wish it were! I'm not saying there is no artistic aspect to commercial photography. I'm just saying it's not all about the artistic vision of the photographer and that in some aspects of commercial photography it's not about artistic vision at all. Thus the forensic photography example. I'm not sure anyone can claim there's any artistic vision or process in that line of work. Maybe that wasn't the best example. Is photojournalism a better example? While the photographer can influence the impression a photo gives based on how the image is framed, camera settings, etc. it's not all about artistic vision. Sometimes there simply isn't time to make those decisions and the image is what it is. I can't think of a better example off the top of my head. Perhaps my initial statement was too firm. I tried to clarify it in the follow up guess it wasn't successful. Maybe this will come at it better. I know commercial photographers who do fine art work as well as a 'sideline'. They do it because it allows them complete artistic freedom that they don't have in their commercial work; where they may be constrained by client needs/wants, environmental impediments, logistical impediments, whatever.
But let's put that aside. Where there is an artistic aspect to the endeavour, the motivation has to come from within and not from some external definition. Does that explain it better?
-
"I do understand the meaning of the word deign and it can be negative but it's not absolutely negative. It means 'to deem worthy'. It's often connoted with condescend which also has negative meaning but, again, isn't absolutely negative. It can also mean to yield. Granted, neither of those definitions are as common today but still valid. I intended no offense and apologise for causing any.
"
"Where there is an artistic aspect to the endeavour, the motivation has to come from within and not from some external definition. Does that explain it better?"
Bob
The first quotation reminds me of the movie What's New, Pussycat where Peter O'Toole is trying it on with Paula Prentiss in Paris. She informs him that she's a semi-virgin, and when he asks her what the hell is that, she tells him that in Paris she's a virgin, but at home (the States) she's not. Neat evasion on her part. Apology more than accepted - no grudge remains!
The second quotation, stripped to that, is something with which I totally agree, so again, we are cool.
;-)
Rob C
-
Bob
1. “I'll deign to disagree on the sole motivation of the commercial photographer.”
2. “Putting aside commercial photography where the reason to produce is clear; when talking about the artistic side of photography the reason to produce has to come from within doesn't it? And not from some external definition.”
Okay, I’ll try to spell it out again.
Take your statement in 1: I do trust you understand the meaning of deign? Hardly a pleasant way to begin to address a reply to anyone; no wonder hackles rise.
On to point 2, then: you are clearly implying that commercial photography is exclusively about money and, by your sentence, further imply that it must therefore be devoid of artistic merit or motivation. This is patently not the case, at least not with any successful pro snappers I have known. Frankly, photography must be one of the most difficult routes to money one could imagine. There has to be something pretty damned basic and visceral to make a person try to earn their living with it. And that drive, that need? Obviously, that has to be the need to express an artistic nature, to make it one’s life. Artistic desire must be the basis for the wish to be a professional photographer – what else does it generally offer if not the hope of that?
I don’t really see the difficulty in understanding this.
Closed loops? Simply that in some ‘conversations’ things get repeated over and over again, either in exactly the same form or with a choice of different words with an identical overall meaning. In essence, I sometimes find myself obliged to answer the same thing again but in a different way; that must be as tiresome for the reader as for the writer, hence the recent retreat from the scene.
However, I’m perfectly willing to accept it’s two sides of a similar coin…
Rob C
Gosh, how I've missed you Rob.
Russ is so much more regimented than thee
-
Hut.. hut.. hut..
-
Gosh, how I've missed you Rob.
Russ is so much more regimented than thee
Ah Rocco, he has a better-educated mind. Worse, he can understand software-writing!
;-)
Rob C
-
As with the definition of "Art," I believe the definitions of genres like "Landscape" need to be very fuzzy at the edge, because these names are intellectual constructs and the images we make or find don't always fit neatly into rigid definitional boxes. So, IMHO, "Landscape" is in the eye of the beholder.
Eric
+1. Why define things into smaller and smaller boxes? Waste of creative effort.