Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: ChrisS on May 24, 2009, 03:04:24 pm
-
The convention is to introduce yourself when you arrive, I believe - I'm afraid I'm doing the opposite.
LL has been a real help to the development of my photography through the incredible level of expert advice that is available at a technical level.
I'll continue to use the remainder of the website, with many thanks to you, Michael for all the help it continues to give me. And thanks to everyone who has responded to my often silly questions.
(Less time spent reading this forum will be more time spent taking photographs, which can't be a bad thing!)
Signing out,
Chris
-
The convention is to introduce yourself when you arrive, I believe - I'm afraid I'm doing the opposite.
LL has been a real help to the development of my photography through the incredible level of expert advice that is available at a technical level.
I'll continue to use the remainder of the website, with many thanks to you, Michael for all the help it continues to give me. And thanks to everyone who has responded to my often silly questions.
(Less time spent reading this forum will be more time spent taking photographs, which can't be a bad thing!)
Signing out,
Chris
Chris,
Sorry to see you go. I hope your shooting will be productive.
Best regards,
-
RSL
Had a look at your site and two things come to mind.
1. I am currently reading a book called Atlas Shrugged, and those country shots of yours with all that decay sent a chill over me. You could have been doing the illustrations for the thing! The point is this: it has happened in the States once already; God forbid it does so again, which seems ever more possible.
2. Your stuff from ´68 could be from an entirely different photographer; do you feel different or is it to do with changing from one kind of camera to another? Whilst some of the newer material looks much smoother in the sense of tones, there´s something about the film stuff...
Rob C
-
RSL
Had a look at your site and two things come to mind.
1. I am currently reading a book called Atlas Shrugged, and those country shots of yours with all that decay sent a chill over me. You could have been doing the illustrations for the thing! The point is this: it has happened in the States once already; God forbid it does so again, which seems ever more possible.
2. Your stuff from ´68 could be from an entirely different photographer; do you feel different or is it to do with changing from one kind of camera to another? Whilst some of the newer material looks much smoother in the sense of tones, there´s something about the film stuff...
Rob C
Rob,
It's been a long time since I read Atlas Shrugged, but I remember it vividly and I think it's frighteningly prophetic. The worst decay was back in the thirties, when I was a kid, and was caught in books about the depression such as An American Exodus, Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, and several others. Most of what's in the "Ghosts" section of my web came from the sixties, a time when many of the farms and farming communities on the Colorado and Kansas prairies were being abandoned by the great grandchildren of the pioneers. I was lucky enough to be stationed in Colorado Springs and photograph these places before they disappeared. Almost all of what I photographed in the sixties is gone now. Back then I did a short book on the subject with a prose introduction, a long poem, and a bunch of photographs. I never attempted to publish the book, but in 2002 I put a version of it on the web and you can see it at http://www.pkinfo.com/Voices/voices_frame.htm (http://www.pkinfo.com/Voices/voices_frame.htm).
I don't know that I'd call it "decay." I guess I'd call it "transition." Some of it breaks my heart, but it's a creative kind of destruction. When you realize what percent of our population used to have to farm to feed us compared with the current percentage you realize that in economic terms -- in terms of productivity -- the transition has been a positive thing, though, as usual, the transition was traumatic for many.
I don't know the answer to your question about the differences in style. I'm not sure they're always so different. In "Ghosts" there's a shot from the sixties of an abandoned structure titled "Prairie Farmhouse." Farther down the line there's another from 2006 titled "Deserted Kansas Farmhouse." The first, of course, was with film. The second with a Nikon D2X. I can't see an awful lot of difference between them. On the other hand, when I was shooting on the prairie in the 60's I did a lot of it with a 4 x 5 view camera. I agree with your comment about film. I loved it, did all my own B&W processing and printing and loved that too, but I'll never go back to it.
-
Russ,
Thanks for your reply and for the link to your story. It is so surprising, in the best sense of that, to come across these different facets to a person´s personality. I wonder what you would have done had you not had a life in the forces... I´m sure you could never answer that, any more than I can the same question about myself, which I have to admit to having asked on several occasions!
It´s strange, this fascination that so many different nationalities seem to have with the America of those pre-war days; with the whole adventure of the opening up of the country. Possibly (probably?) a product of your literature, music, Hollywood and all those sources of influence, but there is a magic to the names that roll off the memory almost as if they were part of one´s own experience when for most of us non-Americans they never could be.
The sort of life of their own that you attribute to the US superhighways has already begun to be reality within Europe. Over many years my wife and I used to drive from Spain through France and England up to Scotland to see the family. On those early trips we took the N Routes through so many towns and areas, each with its own style of houses, roofs and agriculture; we got to know some roads quite well and then for one reason or another, we decided to try the new Autoroutes... It was still France but not as we knew it from the first few trips. It was pleasant to be able to sit at a legal 130kph, but in the end, once used to the speed, you began to think you were still doing no more than 50 or 60; the day just crept along and with much greater opportunity for boredom. Fortunately, able to draw from earlier experience, we knew where to turn off for the evening and for some good food and comfortable beds. We never did go back to doing it the old way - then I had the first heart adventure and we didn´t do it again in any way. In November my wife died and I have toyed with the thought of going back, just to France and not to Britain, but I wonder if it would imply killing the good memories by substituting a sad, lonely experience in their place. Or not - I might find it all just different, but I don´t know if I want to risk that yet and delaying another year might make it impossible anyway.
But whether I go or remain, the truth of the European Autoroutes is there in your American story: using them you see nothing and are so many steps removed from what you know is really there that there´s a sense of pity for those who never stray from the new ways. The changes are certainly impacting many of the small hotels and villages in France, and I remember seeing the same thing happen in Scotland when the new roads opened up between Glasgow, Stirling and Perth; entire villages/small towns lost their purpose and identities...
Not photography, but a pleasant few minutes before drifting off to bed. Thanks for providing the motivation.
Rob C
-
It's interesting what the Interstate highways brought. Allowed me to drive between Ohio, Tennessee, South Carolina, and California quite easily, and made my life a lot better because of it. But for some people, the loss of the old was a disappointment.
Today the factory farms with the GM crops are a new challenge - I've heard there are almost no birds in the very large areas of these farms. And there are serious questions about the crops. Time will tell.
-
It's interesting what the Interstate highways brought. Allowed me to drive between Ohio, Tennessee, South Carolina, and California quite easily, and made my life a lot better because of it. But for some people, the loss of the old was a disappointment.
Today the factory farms with the GM crops are a new challenge - I've heard there are almost no birds in the very large areas of these farms. And there are serious questions about the crops. Time will tell.
Absolutely right. Convenience and speed. And there isn´t a lot wrong with those concepts either. The problem lies with the sense of loss of what was already there had you but time, or the old knowledge that it is there, to savour it. Perhaps it breaks down into purpose: business or pleasure. My French Autoroute drives were usually spring or autumn and the fact that most of northern Europe drives southwards to the sunshine in summer did all that it took to keep us away at such times. The fact that the big roads charge tolls also reduces flow and creates excellently maintained parking and refuelling areas; something that poverty-stricken (or should that be resource-diverted?) Britain would do well to recognize and implement.
Leaving the French Autoroutes at Calais and joining the southern English ones again became a culture-shock in the extreme: dirty, unpleasant restaurants(?) and road surfaces that made you wonder if your suspension had just collapsed! And why? Because they won´t make you pay direct tolls, but try to do it by raising car ownership taxes and then diverting the money to mean, political advantage in the voter catchment areas that suit their party needs around election time. I guess a nation gets the politicians it deserves. The nation does the voting...
Much of Europe is doing its best to prevent GM farming; there might be financial reasons as well as safety ones for this, but all you need do is drive through France or even Britain and you see gigantic swathes of countryside with all the space you ever need for productive, conventional farming methods. What you get, in both zones, is the government paying farmers NOT to grow stuff... crazy, or what? We don´t need artificial food; we need to make use of the golden opportunities that nature has already given us in abundance. We need to cut out the subsidies, the payments to keep the wilfully unemployed off the land or whatever workplace they would otherwise have to fill.
There is an unemployment level in Spain´s Balearic Islands of over 60%, made up, largely, of people in the building trade, many of whom are from North Africa and beyond. The current crisis has stopped most of the speculative construction work and these people, along with the indigenous ones, are in dire need of support. Social Security payments last for 6 months - if you have been working legally for a while. Why are they even here? Because the locals have become too comfortable with the good times and easy tourist buck and refuse hard manual graft, so the contractors have to employ whoever they can find willing to work in the dust. Or in the fields, in the case of the farmers.
We used to have a concept called National Service in Britain. It meant that for two years of your life you had to become part of the military of whichever type. This served the purpose of keeping down the unemployment figures and providing cannon fodder for military adventures in foreign parts. It was said that it made a man of you - what a cute phrase and idea! What it did was take two years out of a life at a time when you most needed to devote your mind and attention to making something of a career! Or, you devoted as much time if not longer, during those sensitive years, to finding means of avoiding such a waste of time and, in so doing, wasted even more of it. The same concept remains in place in parts of Europe today...
Let those who want a life in the Services have it; we need them and if they are a voluntary force will be much the better for it. But why pretend the life is for everyone? Far better, in my opinion, the impossible task of making everybody experience the life of the self-employed for two years; there´s something interesting about learning the concept that the world does not owe one a living and, in fact, is trying its damndest to deny you one!
Rob C
-
Russ,
Thanks for your reply and for the link to your story. It is so surprising, in the best sense of that, to come across these different facets to a person´s personality. I wonder what you would have done had you not had a life in the forces... I´m sure you could never answer that, any more than I can the same question about myself, which I have to admit to having asked on several occasions!
Rob, There’s no way to tell. When I was at University of Michigan in late 1950 and realized I’d soon be drafted for the Korean war I decided I’d rather fly than walk, so I went into the aviation cadet program and flew. Until then I’d planned to be a professor of English literature, but I never really looked back after I went to war. Now I can look at what’s going on in English literature departments around the country and realize that if I’d followed my first plan I’d be having fistfights in the hallways with the other English lit profs. I guess, in a way, that’s looking back on what could have been.
The sort of life of their own that you attribute to the US superhighways has already begun to be reality within Europe. Over many years my wife and I used to drive from Spain through France and England up to Scotland to see the family. On those early trips we took the N Routes through so many towns and areas, each with its own style of houses, roofs and agriculture; we got to know some roads quite well and then for one reason or another, we decided to try the new Autoroutes... It was still France but not as we knew it from the first few trips. It was pleasant to be able to sit at a legal 130kph, but in the end, once used to the speed, you began to think you were still doing no more than 50 or 60; the day just crept along and with much greater opportunity for boredom. Fortunately, able to draw from earlier experience, we knew where to turn off for the evening and for some good food and comfortable beds. We never did go back to doing it the old way - then I had the first heart adventure and we didn´t do it again in any way. In November my wife died and I have toyed with the thought of going back, just to France and not to Britain, but I wonder if it would imply killing the good memories by substituting a sad, lonely experience in their place. Or not - I might find it all just different, but I don´t know if I want to risk that yet and delaying another year might make it impossible anyway.
But whether I go or remain, the truth of the European Autoroutes is there in your American story: using them you see nothing and are so many steps removed from what you know is really there that there´s a sense of pity for those who never stray from the new ways. The changes are certainly impacting many of the small hotels and villages in France, and I remember seeing the same thing happen in Scotland when the new roads opened up between Glasgow, Stirling and Perth; entire villages/small towns lost their purpose and identities...
Rob C
If you absolutely have to get from point A to point B with minimum hassle the superhighways serve a purpose, but I always hate driving on them. My wife and I are Colorado residents but nowadays we spend winters in Florida. The trip between points is roughly 2,000 miles and we have to drive it because we’re always carrying a load of stuff. What we normally do is break the trip into six days of roughly 300+ miles a day and drive the back roads, usually far off the freeways. The result is an American version of what you’ve described, with interesting lunches in small towns where all the locals look you over and size you up when you walk in, and pictures of the sort I’ve attached. If you were to go as a photographer, the requirement to look outward instead of inward might make the trip a new beginning and might even enhance the lovely memories you speak of.
Best regards,
[attachment=14092:De_Funiak_Springs.jpg] [attachment=14091:Bar.jpg]
-
We used to have a concept called National Service in Britain. It meant that for two years of your life you had to become part of the military of whichever type. This served the purpose of keeping down the unemployment figures and providing cannon fodder for military adventures in foreign parts. It was said that it made a man of you - what a cute phrase and idea! What it did was take two years out of a life at a time when you most needed to devote your mind and attention to making something of a career! Or, you devoted as much time if not longer, during those sensitive years, to finding means of avoiding such a waste of time and, in so doing, wasted even more of it. The same concept remains in place in parts of Europe today...
Let those who want a life in the Services have it; we need them and if they are a voluntary force will be much the better for it. But why pretend the life is for everyone? Far better, in my opinion, the impossible task of making everybody experience the life of the self-employed for two years; there´s something interesting about learning the concept that the world does not owe one a living and, in fact, is trying its damndest to deny you one!
Rob C
Rob,
National Service, or, as we call it in the U.S., “the draft,” did serve some useful purposes, though I tend to agree that the involuntary servitude aspect of it is a serious problem. It doesn’t “make a man of you,” but what it often does is take a callow kid, just out of high school, with no personal discipline, uncertain what he wants to do with his life, and teach him the kind of discipline that’ll turn him into a productive citizen.
I tend to think that every able bodied man owes his life to his country in time of war. The problem with that belief is that politicians usually decide what we go to war over. Certainly WW II was a war worth fighting. Korea might have been, but to believe that, you have to know a lot more than most people are willing to learn about what was happening in international relations at the time. When that war was on and I was flying fighters I tended to call the war “Truman’s war.” Since then I’ve learned more about it and I’ve revised my opinion. I believe our effort in Southeast Asia was an honorable one. I went there twice, the second time as a volunteer, but the way it was conducted by our government was an abominable exercise in political humbug.
I think one more point tends to favor the draft: I look at our current government and see that among the members of the three branches there are very few who’ve been to war or who have children in the military. To me that’s a frightening thought when I consider that these are the people who will decide where and when our volunteer forces will fight. I sometimes wish there were something in our Constitution to the effect that members of the government who haven’t seen military service must recuse themselves from decisions regarding war. But then I consider Mr. Lincoln and realize there are limits to that kind of thinking.
As with most things in life, there just aren’t any solid answers to these questions.
-
Rob,
"National Service, or, as we call it in the U.S., “the draft,” did serve some useful purposes, though I tend to agree that the involuntary servitude aspect of it is a serious problem. It doesn’t “make a man of you,” but what it often does is take a callow kid, just out of high school, with no personal discipline, uncertain what he wants to do with his life, and teach him the kind of discipline that’ll turn him into a productive citizen."
I don´t think I´d argue against that, but only confirm my belief that it might suit some but could certainly hinder the rest, those who already have a `plan´ for their lives, an ambition, however unrealistic such a notion might really be.
"I tend to think that every able bodied man owes his life to his country in time of war."
No question or doubt about that! I only wonder if it takes two years to learn how to be useful with a weapon. Flying, of course, is something quite else!
"The problem with that belief is that politicians usually decide what we go to war over. Certainly WW II was a war worth fighting. Korea might have been, but to believe that, you have to know a lot more than most people are willing to learn about what was happening in international relations at the time. When that war was on and I was flying fighters I tended to call the war “Truman’s war.” Since then I’ve learned more about it and I’ve revised my opinion. I believe our effort in Southeast Asia was an honorable one. I went there twice, the second time as a volunteer, but the way it was conducted by our government was an abominable exercise in political humbug."
Fortunately, my experience of the Korean War was the excitement of watching Grumman Panthers fly off carriers and thinking Sabre jets (F86?) were the most fantastic bit of design ever - those noses, exactly like a shark! Luckily for me, I saw it at the movies! Never thought I´d have the pleasure of chatting with somebody who flew them!
"I think one more point tends to favor the draft: I look at our current government and see that among the members of the three branches there are very few who’ve been to war or who have children in the military. To me that’s a frightening thought when I consider that these are the people who will decide where and when our volunteer forces will fight. I sometimes wish there were something in our Constitution to the effect that members of the government who haven’t seen military service must recuse themselves from decisions regarding war. But then I consider Mr. Lincoln and realize there are limits to that kind of thinking."
Your thoughts would find echoes in many hearts today!
"As with most things in life, there just aren’t any solid answers to these questions."
Or to anything, really.
Perhaps it was ever so - M.A.S.H. did a wonderful job in saying some things and I think Catch 22 was as accurate in its picture of life as anything else.
But it remains impossible to look at life from this perspective for very long; I think America and I think American Graffiti. This will kill you, but many years ago, sitting alone in my mother´s house one night during one of our trips back to Scotland, both she and my wife having long gone off to bed, I watched a re-run of that movie. You know, I found myself, literally, in tears, tears for a young life that was never lived in that manner but whose music was very much mine too. Who would have ever believed that General Motors could hit the skids? As you said, there are no solid answers. And even the questions might be flawed.
Ciao - Rob C
-
Rob C., I was in the south of France 4 years ago, rural, and the back roads are still pretty good, and every village has at least one good restaurant or bar, and being from the middle of the States, that was wonderful. You may not be able to govern a country that has nearly 400 cheeses, but you eat well while struggling. I compare the states to France; lunch out of paper plates and coke through a straw, and in France, construction guys eating off of nice table clothes, great food, and wine in a real wine glass. Love France.
RSL. The big problem with the draft was the inequity. I like the idea of universal service; one or two years after high school, or as soon as you leave. Everybody, do something, ranging from self-mobile sand bags to cleaning up inner city hoods. With a high level of discipline. A side note, I have active duty family, and a few in the cemetery's, though the draft missed me by one number. Some will know of that routine.
When I took the senior kid back to school in Gainsville, we used to take the back roads from northern Indiana, on down. Fun, but a long trip. One point in my life I was driving between Chicago and east central Illinois, Danville, about every three weeks, and ended up knowing every road north and south in about a 100 mile band.
As to the big problems of the age, as I age, I realize that I know less the answers, than I did just ten or fifteen years ago. My wife helps on that.
Bron
-
Certainly WW II was a war worth fighting.
....then I consider Mr. Lincoln and realize there are limits to that kind of thinking.
As with most things in life, there just aren’t any solid answers to these questions.
1. If WW2 was worth fighting, then so would WW3. Absurd isn't it? That's because we can't even if we want to. Better that way, yes?
2. Lincoln killed more Americans than all of America's foreign enemies combined. Some hero. Again, if they and we had the Hbomb, we could have skipped that one too. What a pity.
No solid answers? Sure there are, but you have to have imagination.
-
2. Lincoln killed more Americans than all of America's foreign enemies combined. Some hero. Again, if they and we had the Hbomb, we could have skipped that one too. What a pity.
Hmmm.
Permit me to guess you're from the South, and still refer to the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression"?
-
Never thought I´d have the pleasure of chatting with somebody who flew them!
Rob, I hate to disappoint you but I flew the F84 -- a fighter-bomber. Here's a pretty bad picture of my airplane.
[attachment=14112:392___Side_View.jpg]
-
RSL. The big problem with the draft was the inequity. I like the idea of universal service; one or two years after high school, or as soon as you leave. Everybody, do something, ranging from self-mobile sand bags to cleaning up inner city hoods. With a high level of discipline. A side note, I have active duty family, and a few in the cemetery's, though the draft missed me by one number. Some will know of that routine.
Bron, I agree with you. The big problem with the kind of universal service you're suggesting, and which I'd also like to see, is the question of how to administer it. Does the government decide which program your kid is going into or do you, or does the kid? Each answer brings its own variety of political problems that no career politician is going to touch, even with a ten-foot pole. Rob's right. The military isn't the answer for everyone. One of my best friends, a guy who flew with me in Korea, decided he disliked the military, got out when his commitment was up, and became a dentist. For him that was the right decision. For me it wouldn't have been. I thoroughly enjoyed the service, except for the shooting parts, which, unfortunately, were unavoidable.
As to the big problems of the age, as I age, I realize that I know less the answers, than I did just ten or fifteen years ago. My wife helps on that.
Bron
My wife's an expert at that too.
-
Hmmm.
Permit me to guess you're from the South, and still refer to the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression"?
No and no. But I have heard that a Civil War is one where the two parties contend for control of the central government. The so-called Civil War was a war of independence as much as the war of 1776-1783. But some people are completely blind to that, since they would have to admit to 140 years of profound ignorance.
-
The civil war wasn’t about 2 parties contenting for control of the central government. The war was about the north (ala Lincoln) advancing the force of a supreme federal control against the south (ala Jefferson Davis) fighting for the state’s power over their own choices. The southern states lost and since then the federal government has extended its will over the states repeatedly and continues to do so to today.
For most of history since the Civil War, many grade and high schools have taught that the war was about slavery. But slavery was a straw-man, and represented the state’s abilities to decide its own money making path.
The south was very deeply invested in the slave trade. It was the core element of their economy. The slave trade was a huge vast business with a long history and very far reaching influence. While it didn’t make a lot of money per capita, it made for the equivalent of powerful feudal lordships throughout the south (and many parts of the world) and a few very very wealthy merchants and related entrepreneurs. For a good summary of the slave trade use Mr. Google to lead you to info on the “south sea bubble” as one example.
The north benefited greatly from slavery also, but the north had long since turned towards a manufacturing economy. By the 1860s that made them a lot more money than the south was able to make from agriculture and slavery. The significant financial advantage the north held made it possible for the north to win.
The issue was primarily about the federal government asserting it’s will over the states, and the result established a more preferable model of profiteering. That’s why the R, despite serving to abolish slavery, has nearly always fought against both the rights of the individual and against civil rights, and has always been in favor of business ability to set its path.
-
Justan,
The history you propose is post war revisionism. There are quotes from both Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens, President and Vice-President of the confederacy, saying exactly, that slavery was the cause. Nobody disputed slavery as the cause at the start or during the war. Post war, everybody was rewriting history, culminating in the "Nashville Fugitives".
The south may have been seeking independence, but it was to maintain the slave economy, and slavery. The south had no problem with Federal control, as long as it was to their taste. Fugitive slave laws, anyone?
Bron
-
Revisionism? Not at all. But if you feel the need, go ahead and continue to make that supposition.
I agree that the south wanted to protect the slave based economy. The south did not “may have been seeking independence” as you wrote, states succeeded from the union, starting with South Carolina near the end of 1860. By the time Lincoln took office, 7 states had written articles of succesion. Every reason for succession due to expressly to the south’s economic motor force: slavery.
-
Justan,
The history you propose is post war revisionism. There are quotes from both Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens, President and Vice-President of the confederacy, saying exactly, that slavery was the cause.
Bron
What is revisionism anyway? An attempt to wrongly interpret, or an attempt to set the record straight? Both cases can be true - you can't make a blanket statement that revisionism is wrong.
Besides, it's easy to say that "slavery was the cause" and let it go at that, but that's hardly the case - the things the North fought for (pro-business control) were never in the interest of freeing the oppressed. The actual "reason" was those little pamphlets being distributed in the South by those pesky abolitionists, describing explicitly how the oppressed can throw off their oppressors, and naturally, the legislators were all having a cow, and with the unwillingness of the federal government to intervene, they withdrew from the union. Publishing and distributing such pamphlets today is highly illegal, as Paladin Press discovered in a major loss to them a few years back.
-
If you absolutely have to get from point A to point B with minimum hassle the superhighways serve a purpose, but I always hate driving on them. My wife and I are Colorado residents but nowadays we spend winters in Florida. The trip between points is roughly 2,000 miles and we have to drive it because we’re always carrying a load of stuff. What we normally do is break the trip into six days of roughly 300+ miles a day and drive the back roads, usually far off the freeways. The result is an American version of what you’ve described, with interesting lunches in small towns where all the locals look you over and size you up when you walk in, and pictures of the sort I’ve attached. If you were to go as a photographer, the requirement to look outward instead of inward might make the trip a new beginning and might even enhance the lovely memories you speak of.
Best regards,
[attachment=14092:De_Funiak_Springs.jpg] [attachment=14091:Bar.jpg]
Russ, didn´t intend to be rude, but simply missed this post!
Your last sentence has a sort of irony to it: all those trips were also attempts to build up photo stock. However, as they were done in a manner that I thought might get them into libraries, they serve no purpose for me today. Now, my interests in photography are not really part of the commercial world, but probably totally self-centred.
However, what´s also happening to me is that I am realising more and more that photography doesn´t always depend on going somewhere else; it could, if it´s a particular type of landscape or motif that is driving your search, but my own search right now is in the creation of colour patterns (with paint) which I then shoot on digital and mess about with in PS, ending up with something not always close to the original painting. But the original acts as a negative, if you will, or an outline; or even a throw of the dice, if you feel unkind!
An exciting development of this (for me), happened over the past two days. I was sitting on the terrace at home and thought I saw a butterfly having a rest. I bent down to see why it was so motionless, blew at it, and it just slid sideways. Dead. It looked so delicate lying there, so I thought I´d incorporate it into one of my paint jobs. I picked it up and put it in the office. This morning, I started to scrape the old paint off the board I use as canvas, prior to spraying on some primer. As I scraped the old away, it struck me that the mess that was making might actually provide a much better foil to the delicacy of the butterfly, so I scraped no further and, sticking the corpse onto the board, took a few shots.
These were intended to be a vertical final print. So help me, the instant that the image came up on the monitor, everything changed!
Rather than a vertical shot of a butterly sitting on swatches of distressed paint, when seen as a horizontal, the thing shrieked bayou, boat and, finally, Charon´s Ferry! So that´s how it´s going down.
Once I have it looking a bit more as I want it to, I´ll stick up a little jpeg here.
Which leads me to ask a further question of myself: is that art, photography or just divine intervention?
Referring to your other post and the pic of the aircraft; don´t feel bad, that´s a much better ´plane than my car is a car!
Rob C
-
1. If WW2 was worth fighting, then so would WW3. Absurd isn't it? That's because we can't even if we want to. Better that way, yes?
2. Lincoln killed more Americans than all of America's foreign enemies combined. Some hero. Again, if they and we had the Hbomb, we could have skipped that one too. What a pity.
No solid answers? Sure there are, but you have to have imagination.
Dale, I don´t think this Ultimate Sanction theory holds water. There have been many skirmishes since the advent of The Bomb and there seems little sign of these diminishing. The only thing that such a weapon seems to do is prevent those who have them from going too far, one against the other, but they still test each other from time to time and the usual people pay the price.
A greater worry is perhaps the lack of common sense shown in the process of buying informant information. A second´s pause would tell you that such people will sell you exactly what they think you want to buy. Did poor old Saddam actually have to die? For internecine killing, then perhaps, but not with our `help´; for WMDs, absolutely not. Yet there I was, cheering on the Invasion and buying every lying word of the Blair government, a government I would never have voted for regardless!
It is my feeling that the only folks likely to actually deploy these terminal weapons are those who have a religious conviction that elsewhere is better than here. You can´t argue or discuss with that mindset and it is a weapon more frightening than any other. Frankly, there is no solution except education but that is the first victim of such regimes. As we see so plainly.
Regarding the American Civil War: it was a little before my time, regardless of what some think, but all the theorys here are wrong. Though I managed to avoid ALL the many opportunities to see Gone With The Wind I happen to know that the A Civ W was all about sex.
Rob C
-
Dale, I don´t think this Ultimate Sanction theory holds water. There have been many skirmishes since the advent of The Bomb and there seems little sign of these diminishing. The only thing that such a weapon seems to do is prevent those who have them from going too far, one against the other, but they still test each other from time to time and the usual people pay the price.
A greater worry is perhaps the lack of common sense shown in the process of buying informant information. A second´s pause would tell you that such people will sell you exactly what they think you want to buy. Did poor old Saddam actually have to die? For internecine killing, then perhaps, but not with our `help´; for WMDs, absolutely not. Yet there I was, cheering on the Invasion and buying every lying word of the Blair government, a government I would never have voted for regardless!
It is my feeling that the only folks likely to actually deploy these terminal weapons are those who have a religious conviction that elsewhere is better than here. You can´t argue or discuss with that mindset and it is a weapon more frightening than any other. Frankly, there is no solution except education but that is the first victim of such regimes. As we see so plainly.
Regarding the American Civil War: it was a little before my time, regardless of what some think, but all the theorys here are wrong. Though I managed to avoid ALL the many opportunities to see Gone With The Wind I happen to know that the A Civ W was all about sex.
Rob C
You are obviously very astute as to the dirty little secrets of proxy war and so on. Obviously The Bomb has its limitations as the Great Equalizer (analogous to the American West), but nothing is perfect. The reason I added the comments about the little pamphlets is to offer insight that is missing in most of the armchair warriors' pronouncements.
-
Russ, didn´t intend to be rude, but simply missed this post!
Your last sentence has a sort of irony to it: all those trips were also attempts to build up photo stock. However, as they were done in a manner that I thought might get them into libraries, they serve no purpose for me today. Now, my interests in photography are not really part of the commercial world, but probably totally self-centred.
However, what´s also happening to me is that I am realising more and more that photography doesn´t always depend on going somewhere else; it could, if it´s a particular type of landscape or motif that is driving your search, but my own search right now is in the creation of colour patterns (with paint) which I then shoot on digital and mess about with in PS, ending up with something not always close to the original painting. But the original acts as a negative, if you will, or an outline; or even a throw of the dice, if you feel unkind!
An exciting development of this (for me), happened over the past two days. I was sitting on the terrace at home and thought I saw a butterfly having a rest. I bent down to see why it was so motionless, blew at it, and it just slid sideways. Dead. It looked so delicate lying there, so I thought I´d incorporate it into one of my paint jobs. I picked it up and put it in the office. This morning, I started to scrape the old paint off the board I use as canvas, prior to spraying on some primer. As I scraped the old away, it struck me that the mess that was making might actually provide a much better foil to the delicacy of the butterfly, so I scraped no further and, sticking the corpse onto the board, took a few shots.
These were intended to be a vertical final print. So help me, the instant that the image came up on the monitor, everything changed!
Rather than a vertical shot of a butterly sitting on swatches of distressed paint, when seen as a horizontal, the thing shrieked bayou, boat and, finally, Charon´s Ferry! So that´s how it´s going down.
Once I have it looking a bit more as I want it to, I´ll stick up a little jpeg here.
Which leads me to ask a further question of myself: is that art, photography or just divine intervention?
Referring to your other post and the pic of the aircraft; don´t feel bad, that´s a much better ´plane than my car is a car!
Rob C
Rob,
Afraid I've missed a few posts too.
I tend to think most art is created by divine intervention.
I don't know whether or not I'd call what you're doing "photography," but, as I said in another thread, zooming in on the definition of a word like "photography" tends to lead to semantic quibbling, so I'm not going to give an opinion on that one. I'll be looking for the .jpeg of the result.
There's nothing wrong with self-centered photography. I think you could call most really good photography self-centered. I'm using the term, "self-centered" in the sense that it's not done under the constraints imposed by commercial requirements. Elliott Erwitt provides some good examples. Elliott wasn't independently wealthy as were some of the other Magnum stars, and he had to take on a variety of commercial jobs in order to stay solvent. As a result he constantly was traveling around the world and living in hotels. But when he'd discharged the day's job requirements he'd pick up his battered M4 and shoot things that made him happy. The results are some of my favorite photographs. There's a huge book titled Personal Best with a bunch of what Elliott felt were his best shots. If I'd been selecting what went into the book I'd have left out a few and put in a few that were left out, but overall it's probably my favorite collection of photographs. The man has a wonderful sense of humor. (No, Dale, Elliott's not a "dead dude." He's two years older than I am and very much alive.)
You're right. Good photography certainly doesn't depend on going somewhere else. HCB put his finger on it with his admonition that "looking is everything!" If you look, there are good, sometimes great, pictures all around you all the time. The great ones come far too infrequently, but they don't come at all of you don't look. On the other hand, I sometimes like to do what I did a couple years ago: get in the car and spend a few days on the back roads doing nothing but looking for moving remnants of our past. Part of the attraction is being alone with my thoughts, which blend with the countryside through which I'm passing. Then, to be brought to a stop by an abandoned farmhouse, brooding on the fields over which it once presided... and, as HCB said, to approach on tiptoe with the camera... that's best of all.
Cheers,
-
RobC.
"Regarding the American Civil War: it was a little before my time, regardless of what some think, but all the theorys here are wrong. Though I managed to avoid ALL the many opportunities to see Gone With The Wind I happen to know that the A Civ W was all about sex."
You Freudians; I was thinking 42.
:-)
Russ
"I tend to think most art is created by divine intervention."
Far more than most realize.
Bron
-
Deleted
-
I tend to think most art is created by divine intervention.
"I don't know whether or not I'd call what you're doing "photography," but, as I said in another thread, zooming in on the definition of a word like "photography" tends to lead to semantic quibbling, so I'm not going to give an opinion on that one. I'll be looking for the .jpeg of the result."
Against my better judgement, I post this jpeg of the butterfly. The point of it was that when originally conceived, it was going to be a vertical of the critter dead against some distressed paint. However, as it first appeared on the monitor in horizontal format, my whole concept of it changed instantly and it became dead flutterby on raft in swamp. Or more politely, crossing from one level to the other via Charon´s Ferry. A bit harsh small, it does A3+ more gently...
That's a lovely, evocative image, Rob. You can call it whatever you want, IMHO. Perhaps "Butterflyography?"
-
Rob, I agree with Eric. It's a very interesting piece of work. To use the current vernacular, "Ya done good."
-
Well, thanks, but the thing about it is that it was meant to be a vertical, and it was a vertical until I saw it on the screen. I´m not sure how much credit I should feel for it, other than I´m sort of pleased to be able to abandon a preconception when I see something better!
Ciao - Rob C
-
Well, thanks, but the thing about it is that it was meant to be a vertical, and it was a vertical until I saw it on the screen. I´m not sure how much credit I should feel for it, other than I´m sort of pleased to be able to abandon a preconception when I see something better!
Ciao - Rob C
"...meant to be..." by whom? By God?
IMHO (and I'm not the first to say this), a mature artist is one who can accept and be thankful for the lucky accidents. You were, after all, the one who saw its potential as a horizontal.
It's nice when one's original conception works out. But it's also quite nice to notice when an improvement can be made.
Ciao - Eric M
-
Well, thanks, but the thing about it is that it was meant to be a vertical, and it was a vertical until I saw it on the screen. I´m not sure how much credit I should feel for it, other than I´m sort of pleased to be able to abandon a preconception when I see something better!
Ciao - Rob C
I'll reiterate: As HCB said, "looking is everything!" You looked.
But the preconception thing leads me to another lecture: One of the mistakes a lot of photographers (and scientists) make is to approach the world with a preconception. The burden of HCB's argument, and I agree with him, is that though you need to approach a project with some idea of what you're after, when you photograph you shouldn't be thinking. You should be reacting. The best photographs are made in a flash. That doesn't mean you have to lift the camera, frame, and shoot in a single motion, though on the street that's exactly what you have to do. With a landscape you may have to set up a tripod, mount the camera, frame the shot, load a film holder if you're shooting with a stand camera, or set your DSLR for mirror-up shooting, and then shoot. But if it's going to be a good photograph you'll already have seen it and visualized it as a print before you ever take the tripod out of the car.
In this case you couldn't do that because the elements weren't there until you set up the camera. When you looked, you saw.
-
Deleted
-
What is revisionism anyway? An attempt to wrongly interpret, or an attempt to set the record straight? Both cases can be true - you can't make a blanket statement that revisionism is wrong.
Besides, it's easy to say that "slavery was the cause" and let it go at that, but that's hardly the case - the things the North fought for (pro-business control) were never in the interest of freeing the oppressed. The actual "reason" was those little pamphlets being distributed in the South by those pesky abolitionists, describing explicitly how the oppressed can throw off their oppressors, and naturally, the legislators were all having a cow, and with the unwillingness of the federal government to intervene, they withdrew from the union. Publishing and distributing such pamphlets today is highly illegal, as Paladin Press discovered in a major loss to them a few years back.
Dale, I realize your comment was largely rhetorical. But its a fair question with perhaps an unobvious answer.
[rant]
There is a historical study called historiography. Within this study there has been a lot of discussion about what constitutes both history in general and particular to this conversation, what is considered “revisionist” history. There is no simple answer.
There was a time long ago when a somewhat arbitrary distinction existed between what was considered primary and secondary evidence. A strict interpretation of history at one point in time would include only “primary” documents or sources be used as evidence. Naturally, over time the number and types of what are considered primary documents have grown enormously and along with that has been a revision in what is considered primary documents. Anyone not asleep at this point may chuckle at the banal implication being that there were revisions in defining revisionist history.
Changes were due to the advance of historical study as a science. These changes lead to contemporary views where the term “revisionist” may generally applied when one imposes a criteria that was not considered relevant at the time. But you have to be careful how you go about it.
Here’s an example that some would consider revisionist, but which is not: As many know, many battles of the war and other scenes from the war period itself were the first examples of photo-journalism of a war period. As many know, many battles of the war and other scenes from the war period itself were the first such photo-journalism of a war period. A modern scholar may research the role of photography in advancing the public perceptions of Civil War. At the time of the war, not a lot of people thought of the camera as a political tool, rather they saw it as a means of conveying “the truth.” Based on this, using primary evidence to shed light on the photograph as a political tool may be considered revisionist.
Using the technique of statistical sampling, applied to images taken at the time and shown in newspapers and other sources, we may find out that some dominant number of the images portrayed southerners as inept losers. Now I haven’t actually seen such a study, but the point is this kind of study may be considered revisionist history, but it is not as it combines primary evidence with modern research techniques.
Now an example from this period that is considered revisionist is to discuss the war as a motor force in advancing equality. Many today may think the Civil War was all about advancing racial equality. Yet at the time, almost no-one thought that slaves were equal. Still, today, Lincoln is hailed by some as advancing the causes of racial equality. In a way he did do this, but it was coincidental and laughable to say this was part of the reasoning for the war. Stating the war was about advancing equality is a clear case of revisionist history.
[/rant]
-
... my own search right now is in the creation of colour patterns (with paint) which I then shoot on digital and mess about with in PS, ending up with something not always close to the original painting. But the original acts as a negative, if you will, or an outline; or even a throw of the dice, if you feel unkind!
Rob C
Rob, your butterfly integrated with the distressed paint makes a strong aesthetic statement, probably not expressible in words. Your artistic challenge based on color patterns which are then photographed and manipulated in PS in a way are parallel to something I have been doing for the past few years. I look for something to photograph that has strong color, strong shapes or striking lines which I can then operate on to produce abstractions of greater or lesser degree depending on the subject. I don't like to get into the arguments about what is photography so I just refer to them as images, or pictures.
The first consists of 3 segments of an old gate at the Asbury Park, NJ convention center. The second is the Queensborough Bridge next to the chimneys of a 19th century building right next to it, and the third is an abstract in which you can still make out the structure of an archway at the Cloisters, in Manhattan.
[attachment=14217:Walter_K..._Mention.jpg]
[attachment=14218:Walter_K...mneys_93.jpg]
[attachment=14219:Walter_K...uoise_89.jpg]
-
Deleted
-
Dale, I realize your comment was largely rhetorical. But its a fair question with perhaps an unobvious answer.
[rant]
There is a historical study called historiography. Within this study there has been a lot of discussion about what constitutes both history in general and particular to this conversation, what is considered “revisionist” history. There is no simple answer.
There was a time long ago when a somewhat arbitrary distinction existed between what was considered primary and secondary evidence. A strict interpretation of history at one point in time would include only “primary” documents or sources be used as evidence. Naturally, over time the number and types of what are considered primary documents have grown enormously and along with that has been a revision in what is considered primary documents. Anyone not asleep at this point may chuckle at the banal implication being that there were revisions in defining revisionist history.
Changes were due to the advance of historical study as a science. These changes lead to contemporary views where the term “revisionist” may generally applied when one imposes a criteria that was not considered relevant at the time. But you have to be careful how you go about it.
Here’s an example that some would consider revisionist, but which is not: As many know, many battles of the war and other scenes from the war period itself were the first examples of photo-journalism of a war period. As many know, many battles of the war and other scenes from the war period itself were the first such photo-journalism of a war period. A modern scholar may research the role of photography in advancing the public perceptions of Civil War. At the time of the war, not a lot of people thought of the camera as a political tool, rather they saw it as a means of conveying “the truth.” Based on this, using primary evidence to shed light on the photograph as a political tool may be considered revisionist.
Using the technique of statistical sampling, applied to images taken at the time and shown in newspapers and other sources, we may find out that some dominant number of the images portrayed southerners as inept losers. Now I haven’t actually seen such a study, but the point is this kind of study may be considered revisionist history, but it is not as it combines primary evidence with modern research techniques.
Now an example from this period that is considered revisionist is to discuss the war as a motor force in advancing equality. Many today may think the Civil War was all about advancing racial equality. Yet at the time, almost no-one thought that slaves were equal. Still, today, Lincoln is hailed by some as advancing the causes of racial equality. In a way he did do this, but it was coincidental and laughable to say this was part of the reasoning for the war. Stating the war was about advancing equality is a clear case of revisionist history.
[/rant]
It's a shame to rant like that just to expound a common academic (yawn) point of view. Lincoln is in fact *perceived* as ambivalent on slavery, yet few people seem to understand his true feelings for abolition - and he had radical feelings along that line. The master politician merely hid them well.
And to Southern == ignorance - this is widely believed in Southern California, in academia, broadcast on their radio outlets. It ignores TVA, Oak Ridge, Huntsville, Boca Raton, i.e. most of the great technology of the 20th century. One of the reasons I enjoyed working in SoCal was the lack of competition and the ease of making money.