Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Patricia Sheley on February 01, 2013, 01:03:41 pm
-
... did pilgramage free the mind to discover essence, does immersion and intimacy with place allow revelation? A wonderful contributor here, Riaan van Wyk, (his deep and abiding love for the Nguni cattle of the Zulu people and his land) has brought this to my mind lately when he provided me this link http://www.stevenson.info/exhibitions/voigt/voigt.htm
As I began to immerse myself in their story dating from before the Iron Age the beautiful gift of discovering the names dressing their cattle, from their intimate understanding and experience of place, as in "The beast which is houses", "The Eggs of the Lark", "The Gaps between the Branches of the Trees", took me to my own garden where dormant in the frozen ground but daring expose their arms and buds of promise wait "Coiled Dragon in the Mist", "Green Dragon in a Pink Pool", "White Crane Feather", "White Crane Standing in Snow, "Green Dragon Lying on a Chinese Ink Stone"...
Who are these souls ? How out of the chaos of detail, the landscape before each of us, are we to give name to such powerful simplicity and essence...how do we not overwork the canvas, how do we give voice to what it is we know , our truth in such eloquent and enigmatic ways...fog helps me there at times, very poor vision at others the chaos of detail stripped away, even exhaustion at times enabling the stillness and quiet of mind just long enough to glimse the ambiguous "other".
...not to question but to begin to understand the exquisite beauty of simplicity and essence...
-
In a nutshell, Patricia, prose and poetry do it better than pictures.
Rob C
-
Rob - I really don't understand your need for absolutes. Sometimes prose/poetry, sometimes images, sometimes music and sometimes a combination. The point is to share the essence of a thought or feeling between us. Why not accept them equally?
Chuck
-
Chuck: it's sometimes difficult enough to express one's self, one's emotions with words, never mind trying to do that with graven images.
Words can create a direction, a sentiment that stems directly from the writer along with all the verbal hints and nuances that are his to offer; a picture simply fails there because too much is left to the viewer who is not the creator of that image.
In that sense, the superiority of one medium over the other is clear.
Art is no more ambiguous than anything else; it's just that art without much to say latches onto the concept of ambiguity in the hope that that such a latching on will allow it to seem to have something to say. In essence, it transfers the debt to information from the creator to the veiwer who, should he buy into the game, feels that when he sees nothing, it's his fault. Naked emperors are the flavour of the art world. Flavour, yes, but its substance is money, purely and simply.
Rob C
-
...not to question but to begin to understand the exquisite beauty of simplicity and essence...
This (http://www.google.com/search?q=mondriaan+tree&tbm=isch) has helped me understand this (http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=78682)...
-
In that sense, the superiority of one medium over the other is clear.
Rob - Before we slide into the vortex - I don't have a desire to participate in your need to affirm the superiority of your preconceived viewpoints. Nor do I wish to weigh the impact of the medium through which we communicate on a scale that is personal to the individual. So let's let it be. We don't agree. I will enjoy Patricia's post without commenting further on your viewpoint.
Chuck
-
One problem with visual art is that its language is based on space and time, and how one reacts to an image is based on his experience of space and time, most of all on the connections his memories make between scenes, events, and feelings.
I'll go Rob one better and submit that the most powerful art, the one most able to produce a transcendental flash not dependent on space, time, and experience, is music. Music is completely abstract, and therefore, universally powerful.
Before you jump off in the wrong direction by pointing to the noise people nowadays incorrectly call music, let me explain that I'm talking about actual music: not rock, rap, or any of their predecessors or disoriented derivatives. Mozart will do, as will Beethoven or Chopin or Mendelssohn, or Rachmaninoff, or more recently, Barber, or the greatest of them all, Giacomo Puccini. Each of these guys can stab you in the heart, and you can't explain where the stab came from.
-
Rob - Before we slide into the vortex - I don't have a desire to participate in your need to affirm the superiority of your preconceived viewpoints. Nor do I wish to weigh the impact of the medium through which we communicate on a scale that is personal to the individual. So let's let it be. We don't agree. I will enjoy Patricia's post without commenting further on your viewpoint.Chuck
Which, clearly, you just have.
Vortex? Which vortex? What are you talking about?
Rob C
-
One problem with visual art is that its language is based on space and time, and how one reacts to an image is based on his experience of space and time, most of all on the connections his memories make between scenes, events, and feelings.
I'll go Rob one better and submit that the most powerful art, the one most able to produce a transcendental flash not dependent on space, time, and experience, is music. Music is completely abstract, and therefore, universally powerful.
Before you jump off in the wrong direction by pointing to the noise people nowadays incorrectly call music, let me explain that I'm talking about actual music: not rock, rap, or any of their predecessors or disoriented derivatives. Mozart will do, as will Beethoven or Chopin or Mendelssohn, or Rachmaninoff, or more recently, Barber, or the greatest of them all, Giacomo Puccini. Each of these guys can stab you in the heart, and you can't explain where the stab came from.
Oh, absolutely. I don't share your personal musical interests, Russ, and I do love jazz and much 50s-60s rock, but without any doubt whatsoever, had I the ability to play any instrument well, I would rather be a musician than a photographer at any level of glory. The power of music to move the soul is infinitely more powerful than anything else - it's a form of love, I think.
Rob C
-
Oh, absolutely. I don't share your personal musical interests, Russ, and I do love jazz and much 50s-60s rock, but without any doubt whatsoever, had I the ability to play any instrument well, I would rather be a musician than a photographer at any level of glory. The power of music to move the soul is infinitely more powerful than anything else - it's a form of love, I think.
Rob C
makes me think of things I may never have on my own...
also, like reading, maugham or tolstoy, kingsolver or silly rhymes-
it doesn't matter what makes your cochlea quiver as long as it reaches the part of you that has some capacity to think
-
makes me think of things I may never have on my own...
also, like reading, maugham or tolstoy, kingsolver or silly rhymes-
it doesn't matter what makes your cochlea quiver as long as it reaches the part of you that has some capacity to think
And perhaps even more importantly, to feel.
That's why I think music is so much more powerful than visual imagery: it touches your emotions cleanly, without filter of written pretence - as in artist/curator statements - or even through the peripheral glamour of glossy gallery or expensive book, but enters straight into your heart on your own terms.
Some pictures can also reach directly into your consciousness; for just one quick example, let's consider some of the pix of his environment that Seamus posts here: they don't depend for their power on fantastic reproduction, tremendous tweakings of software nor even highly-paid models: they simply and directly touch something that's already there in our psyche: we recognize what's happening because it appeals to our own humanity and, I hope, awareness of the latent madness within each one of us. Not many photographs and perhaps even fewer paintings can claim to do that.
Rob C
-
[...]
...not to question but to begin to understand the exquisite beauty of simplicity and essence...
Or read this book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Reality
-
Here here Patricia. Passion is what is lacking. The time to understand and see the beauty before you. Keep the Tech out of it. Its just a tool. The goal is to experience the beauty before you and capture the soul of it when the light finally comes.
You must see the whole beauty before it happens. Or in simpler words put the pieces of the puzzle together like Painter. Light is very fleeting and does not wait for you.
See it, Compose it, Capture it. Or as I like to say.... Love what you said Patricia!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Here here Patricia. Passion is what is lacking. The time to understand and see the beauty before you. Keep the Tech out of it. Its just a tool. The goal is to experience the beauty before you and capture the soul of it when the light finally comes.
You must see the whole beauty before it happens. Or in simpler words put the pieces of the puzzle together like Painter. Light is very fleeting and does not wait for you.
See it, Compose it, Capture it. Or as I like to say.... Love what you said Patricia!!!!!!!!!!!
“There are no short cuts.
Great photography requires
understanding light, vision and
patience – simple discipline –
simple but never easy.”
TW
Tim, I don't get it: when you know what you are doing, it's always simple or easy enough to figure out: photography ain't rocket science, but I suspect rocket scientists feel exactly the same way about rocket science.
When you enjoy what you do, it is never about discipline; discipline doesn't come into it because the emotion and demand is pleasure. I realise that some strange people do call discipline - of a sort- a painful pleasure, but that's something altogether else. But yes, photography can be coerced into that scene too, if not in the one I think we currently share here...
;.-) (I may have a spot this morning.)
Rob C
-
Read the quote again and see it from the eyes of someone walking into one of my exhibits. They simply don't get it. Too many Pixel counters in this world and they simply don't get it!!!!!!
Yes for me its easy. Except for the wind and light not cooperating. Sorry but if you don't have discipline, in your business you will probably fail.
You can enjoy what you do. But discipline is measured in many different ways. Everyone has a certain formula of the way they approach a shot and the steps to make sure everything is being decided and looked at carefully. Thats the discipline I'm talking about. Not the random shot that is just carelessly shot, like 99.99% of the shots taken.
You say photography isn't rocket science so how come so many images are so bad. Painting isn't rocket science but why can't most people paint. Running for a living isn't rocket science but how many do it for a living. Why DISCIPLINE.
-
Read the quote again and see it from the eyes of someone walking into one of my exhibits. They simply don't get it. Too many Pixel counters in this world and they simply don't get it!!!!!!
Yes for me its easy. Except for the wind and light not cooperating. Sorry but if you don't have discipline, in your business you will probably fail.
You can enjoy what you do. But discipline is measured in many different ways. Everyone has a certain formula of the way they approach a shot and the steps to make sure everything is being decided and looked at carefully. Thats the discipline I'm talking about. Not the random shot that is just carelessly shot, like 99.99% of the shots taken.
You say photography isn't rocket science so how come so many images are so bad. Painting isn't rocket science but why can't most people paint. Running for a living isn't rocket science but how many do it for a living. Why DISCIPLINE.
Actually, I can think of a few artists (and scientists) who overtly despised discipline and still were the best at their art (that includes science I think). Oscar Wilde would be one name. Sure, you can "measure" discipline and demonstrate his discipline is in his writing, but I guess on that path everything can be made to fit the concept. Or take Francois Villon.
-
Read the quote again and see it from the eyes of someone walking into one of my exhibits. They simply don't get it. Too many Pixel counters in this world and they simply don't get it!!!!!!
Yes for me its easy. Except for the wind and light not cooperating. Sorry but if you don't have discipline, in your business you will probably fail.
You can enjoy what you do. But discipline is measured in many different ways. Everyone has a certain formula of the way they approach a shot and the steps to make sure everything is being decided and looked at carefully. Thats the discipline I'm talking about. Not the random shot that is just carelessly shot, like 99.99% of the shots taken.
You say photography isn't rocket science so how come so many images are so bad. Painting isn't rocket science but why can't most people paint. Running for a living isn't rocket science but how many do it for a living. Why DISCIPLINE.
No, not discipline, talent.
In the case of all of the arts, talent is the facilitator. That’s why there are so many bad examples of all of the so-called arts: people without talent still believe that putting brush to canvas, pencil to paper of camera to eye equates with art. Many of them believe this because they know no better, whilst others are sold this comforting idea by the commercial world that surrounds, supplies and benefits from pretty much anything that can otherwise be counted as an honest hobby.
I would exclude the violin. That can be listed under torture.
;-)
Rob C
-
OK, I'm going to get into trouble here, but then I'll walk away. I think it's safe to say Rob that you will never be accused of practicing Zen...accepted, which helps define the territory. You have and understand the feeling of silk moved between thumb and fingers and know and can operate from that experience when it is a matter of the sense expressed of that silk...but somewhere in the past you readily admitted to a cemented belief that photography is just a poor copy of the vista. We deserve more at this stage in life...the willingness, openess, readiness to evolve in our vision - understanding is not a commodity doled...it is a practiced discipline to allow the flow to carry us. Stamp our feet, put down concrete roots and the river will find its way around us...which is fine, but the experiences of your lives offer us the opportunity to do so much more than look, from one frozen focal length.
I suspect often that you take on this disguise intentionally, but young eyes are watching, and want to understand. (and may not sense the grin and wink behind some of what you say) You look out and consciously or not edit all the time , you read and edit all the time, one paints and edits ones thoughts, and that vista? Camera in hand one can return with all the technique and tools available with a profoundly detailed map/picture of that vista. However we go about it , unless it was the detail/record we were instructed to bring back, it is a life filling journey to find the ways to describe what is right before our eyes- to paint for others the place within that vista our own subconscious editing found message/spirit/life/story... the tools, the semantics hardly matter...it is so much more than fitting the pretty picture in the frame...it is in this sense that I believe Tim offers the suggestion of passion, discipline...it's not for everyone, I understand that...but for some the seeking is life itself.
with love and respect,
p.
-
I'll go Rob one better and submit that the most powerful art, the one most able to produce a transcendental flash not dependent on space, time, and experience, is music. Music is completely abstract, and therefore, universally powerful.
Before you jump off in the wrong direction by pointing to the noise people nowadays incorrectly call music, let me explain that I'm talking about actual music: not rock, rap, or any of their predecessors or disoriented derivatives. Mozart will do, as will Beethoven or Chopin or Mendelssohn, or Rachmaninoff, or more recently, Barber, or the greatest of them all, Giacomo Puccini. Each of these guys can stab you in the heart, and you can't explain where the stab came from.
What nonsense. It's somewhat arrogant to think your taste is music is superior to other people's taste or opinions just because they happen like more contemporary fare.
Claiming Beethoven is superior to say The Beatles or the Beatles are superior to the Beastie Boys or the Beastie Boys are better than Boyz Noize is like arguing about which hue is the most intellectual colour in the paint aisle at your local DIY store. A complete waste of time.
Personal taste is well personal and entirely subjective. Thinking otherwise is simply deluded.
-
Rob - Before we slide into the vortex - I don't have a desire to participate in your need to affirm the superiority of your preconceived viewpoints. Nor do I wish to weigh the impact of the medium through which we communicate on a scale that is personal to the individual. So let's let it be. We don't agree. I will enjoy Patricia's post without commenting further on your viewpoint.
Chuck
Vortex? Which vortex? What are you talking about?
This one. :)
On a related note, do not let Rob suck you into his semantic vortex, where he's the proverbial judge, jury and executioner (i.e., both creates definitions and then determines how they apply to various genres).* Rob is simply front-loading creativity, i.e., accepting it only in the beginning of the process, on what is in front of us. Photographic creativity is back-loaded, i.e., kicks in at the end of the process (or even in the middle of it), in the end-result stage, be it in-camera or in post-processing. We do not create what is in front of us (in terms of landscape), but we do create an image, end-result. We do not re-arrange objects in front of us (neither did Cézanne), but we do re-arrange those objects in the image (via view-point selection, angle of view, lens and all other photographic elements, in-camera and in post-processing).
*Rob, that was purely for rhetorical purposes, no offense meant
-
OK, I'm going to get into trouble here, but then I'll walk away. I think it's safe to say Rob that you will never be accused of practicing Zen...accepted, which helps define the territory. You have and understand the feeling of silk moved between thumb and fingers and know and can operate from that experience when it is a matter of the sense expressed of that silk...but somewhere in the past you readily admitted to a cemented belief that photography is just a poor copy of the vista. We deserve more at this stage in life...the willingness, openess, readiness to evolve in our vision - understanding is not a commodity doled...it is a practiced discipline to allow the flow to carry us. Stamp our feet, put down concrete roots and the river will find its way around us...which is fine, but the experiences of your lives offer us the opportunity to do so much more than look, from one frozen focal length.
I suspect often that you take on this disguise intentionally, but young eyes are watching, and want to understand. (and may not sense the grin and wink behind some of what you say) You look out and consciously or not edit all the time , you read and edit all the time, one paints and edits ones thoughts, and that vista? Camera in hand one can return with all the technique and tools available with a profoundly detailed map/picture of that vista. However we go about it , unless it was the detail/record we were instructed to bring back, it is a life filling journey to find the ways to describe what is right before our eyes- to paint for others the place within that vista our own subconscious editing found message/spirit/life/story... the tools, the semantics hardly matter...it is so much more than fitting the pretty picture in the frame...it is in this sense that I believe Tim offers the suggestion of passion, discipline...it's not for everyone, I understand that...but for some the seeking is life itself.
with love and respect,
p.
Patricia,
I find it difficult to answer your post. I come across it fresh from a mediocre luncheon and an exhausting walk along the two piers that constitute my enforced constitutional à la doctor’s orders, each and every day.
I read you, and find myself wondering if I understand you at all, then I realise that I do, but only a little on each of several levels and never completely on any single one.
What does come out to me, loudly and clearly, is your desire for self-expression and, consequently, I realise that what you want to express is a thing far better done, verbally as here, than via any photograph or other form of ‘art’. Your words convey emotional attitudes that no picture can; you express feelings and concepts that are way beyond those pictorial, and so I reiterate my earlier thoughts: words are far better than images.
To me (and I pretty much always stress, or assume, that posts or written sentiments - call ‘em what you might – are ever personal opinion unless mere repetition of other posts, which happens a lot, but is instantly recognized for the shallow thing that it is), the seeking after exalted status for photography is a mistake. It seems to reflect a desire to make the photographer feel better about himself, to share space within some largely imaginary group of artists, pretty much all of whom seem to share the same need for recognition as being a chosen few, out of the ordinary.
Perhaps it is because I spent my life in photography as a professional, that I see through the veils, the manufactured myths that have been constructed around a basically very simple set of operations. This myth has never been shared by any other working pro that I have ever met. Not a single one has stood before me and pronounced himself artist. I have seen fantastic professional work, stuff that sometimes made me think that I was in the wrong business, that I simply hadn’t the eyes to see nor the skills to create that which some of my heroes (my greatest is a heroine – Sarah Moon – I shall never think of her as a hero) appeared to do as a matter of course.
Though none called himself artist, each and every one was a creative person par excellence, something borne out by the fact that they were heros to me well before the advent of the day of group therapy (sorry – teamwork shoots) that currently constitutes the reported norm.
So, summing it all up, I feel perfectly happy to accept that there are great photographers, mediocre ones and some truly rotten ones usually found to be singing the most loudly. But it’s all just the making of snaps, technically good ones or otherwise. Content, however, comes from a different part of the mind, and few have the abilty to discover more than what’s immediately obvious by dint of being there. Hence, why I believe that artists are born and not made, and why within photography isn’t usually a glood place to look for them.
There seems to me to be little credit in spreading the myths of photographer as artist to a younger, probably/possibly(?) impressionable generation some steps behind me.
The honest story I can offer them, if they care in the slightest, is that photography can be many things: it can be a great career if you are in the right place, at the right time and know the right people whilst still young enough to profit from the experience, and it can also be a fascinating hobby just as long as you keep it in proportion and don’t blow all your pennies on it. But, don’t imagine it makes you special, an artist or even a better person than the guy who loves messing about in his garden. Let’s face it: artist is an elastic term that can be stretched to cover all the bases from da Vinci thru Warhol and that Frenchman dancing around in the kitchen of your favourite 5* Michelin. It’s a bankrupt word today.
Rob C
-
Vortex? Which vortex? What are you talking about?
This one. :)
Thank you jjj; I had abandoned that thread. Guess it shows you can avoid both Charybdis and Scylla if, like me, you recognize the futility writ large in the early signs and cut loose.
Anyway, nice to see you active again after so long.
;-)
Rob C
-
What nonsense. It's somewhat arrogant to think your taste is music is superior to other people's taste or opinions just because they happen like more contemporary fare.
Claiming Beethoven is superior to say The Beatles or the Beatles are superior to the Beastie Boys or the Beastie Boys are better than Boyz Noize is like arguing about which hue is the most intellectual colour in the paint aisle at your local DIY store. A complete waste of time.
Personal taste is well personal and entirely subjective. Thinking otherwise is simply deluded.
Welcome back JJJ. The Art of Photography fora were becoming too bright and friendly anyway. I'm sure you'll fix that.
-
I'm perfectly friendly and cheerful as it happens.
So should I be pompous and arrogant, looking down on other people to fit it in here, or am I disqualified from having any say as I like modern music?
I notice you completely sidestepped the point made.
-
A picture paints a thousand words. 'Nuff said.
-
A picture paints a thousand words. 'Nuff said.
One lousy quotation doth not a truth make!
;-)
Rob C