| Photography Forum: Philosophy Of Photography Forum: |
 |
Q. How much damage do beautiful photographs do to the photographed?
Asked by Alan Gibson
(K=2734) on 1/21/1999
|
A question has arisen in another forum regarding 'eco-porn', which I think means the depiction of a beautiful landscape in a (misleadingly) beautiful way. This can lead us to conclude that it is a place worth visiting, so we all trek down there to plant our tripods, and we need more car parks, and roads, and generally wreck the beauty.
And this is allied to depictions of idealised women.
So, as a photographer, I am in a dilemma. If I find something beautiful, and photograph it, and show the beauty to the world, how far am I responsible for the subsequent over-tourism of the area? Or how much am I responsible for anorexia nervosa? Or for making women (or men) feel inadequate with their bodies?
Yes, I know my personal impact must be extremely slight, I'm no Ansel Adams or David Bailey, but collectively what should we do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony Gorell
(K=47) - Comment Date 1/21/1999
|
Its not just photography that can cause this problem. Any place of natural beauty or appeal will ultimately be exploited by someone. Whether its by bushwalking, four-wheel drives, or hundreds of tripods, someone will find a way to abuse it. When we find that "special place", we want to share it. But unfortunately, most people do not really "care". They say they do, but is reality, they selfishly abuse it for their own ends. We need to help educate - but I really worry that most people just don't care - bulldoze a new highway through the wilderness, build a gigantic five-star resort (with all its attendant amenities, housing, etc.) to let the tourists enjoy their virtual reality Disneyland fantasies. Why don't they just do it at home? Take photographs for your own pleasure, share them with your friends who do care, and be an individual - don't just conform. Thanks Alan for the site - it looks good so far - and is a welcome addition to my ongoing education.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Greenberg
(K=25) - Comment Date 1/21/1999
|
If you're smart enough to make a photo that causes a problem, then you're smart enough to make a photo that solves it.
|
|
|
|
Oleg Boldyrev
(K=15) - Comment Date 1/21/1999
|
I don't think you are to be held responsible just for showing what the place look(ed) like. The world expands with a much a greater rate than any of the photographic skills allow. If anything, photographers (those who take tripods) tend to care a bit more about what they're doing. We are going to go round this Earth until there's no unseen places left. Then we'll start over again. Having a beautiful picture made will make the more thoughtful visitors to look around for beauty. Morons will go and complain anyway.
|
|
|
|
Derick Miller
(K=15) - Comment Date 1/21/1999
|
Wow, is this a fascinating question.
I will give my opinions in the realm of people, since I don't take landscapes. The words in the original posting I will attempt to address are:
"And this is allied to depictions of idealised women. "
" Or how much am I responsible for anorexia nervosa? Or for making women (or men) feel inadequate with their bodies?"
I think that the idealized depiction of women in, for example, magazines at the newsstand does cause some serious problems. There have been a number of studies about the impact looking at these images has on women and they also, no doubt, influence men and our expectations of women we interact with.
Does that mean as individual photographers we should not try to take flattering pictures of the people we photograph? Actually, I think the opposite is the case. I think that taking flattering pictures of those we photograph is a good antidote to these media images. In a sense, these pictures declare:
"Yes, those people on the magazine covers do look beautiful in their pictures, and so do I in my pictures. It doesn't mean that I look that way all the time--it is the effect of favorable lighting, favorable posing, favorable mood (interaction with the photographer), favorable makeup and selection of the best image produced. I don't need to feel inadequate looking at those pictures. They probably have a bunch of airbrushing, too. The models in those pictures can't stand up to them in real life, either, and it isn't reasonable to expect it."
So even though we may not be famous photographers, we can have a positive impact on individuals we photograph and their families and friends and, in that way, improve the situation. We may not get rid of a double-chin, but we can certainly minimize it and express that a person is beautiful in our pictures. And we should!
Derick
|
|
|
|
David Parrish
(K=30) - Comment Date 1/21/1999
|
Hello folks; I have just found this forum and think it will be interesting, Thanks Allan! This question has no good answer, but it does need to be asked by each one of us. I have always thought of photography as trying to "catch a special moment of reality", however we each have our distinct, seperate realities. This makes it impossible to satisfy all the observers of any photograph, no matter how you handle a subject. Just read the comments to any photo critique forum and you'll find folks who love any picture but there will allways be other folks who don't, or want to crop it, move the subject to the center/top/left/right etc. This is not bad but inevitable. If you take a spectacular one-of-a-kind picture of a landscape etc., do it because it satisfies you first, and it will most likely satisfy others. If I take photos of a deer in summer with ticks all over its' face or a scrawny half starved wolf, many people will not want to look at them because in their reality these things do not exist. They may also not sell well. But in my reality, these things speak to me, and who knows they may also speak to someone else. This is the way I see photography.
All the best, David.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 1/21/1999
|
Here's a variant on this question.
What about paying indigenous people for their photographs? A job category has been created in some places that exploits people for their looks, sometimes to the detriment of a culture. What does this do to self-image of these people?
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 1/22/1999
|
I had a nice book going and lost it...something about extemporaneous philosophising being dangerous.
When we show the rare and delicate landscape, we must not give the impression that it's a good place to park the Winnebago. When we celebrate the beauty of women, we must not imply that only women who look like Kate Moss are worthy of our love.
My favorite quote of Mr Ansel Adams is (loosely) "infatuation with subject or self is insufficient cause for the making and exhibition of photographs". There must be an underlying philosophical and moral context as well as the technical ability to be lyric and astute.
If you can't accomplish this visually, then use whatever means necessary to assure clarity. Photographers have an advantage over other visual artists. Our work is frequently used in conjuction with other media. Purists who feel their picture must "stand on their own merit" frequently find their work completely misunderstood. Many don't care and feel no responsibility, any response is fine with them.
As artists able to disseminate their work to a degree far beyond what the quality of the work may deserve, we have a responsibility to, at least, speak clearly to our intended audience, least we cause harm to that which we intend to praise...t
|
|
|
|
Russell Edwards
(K=329) - Comment Date 1/22/1999
|
Wow, this forum is popular!
Getting back to Alan's question, there are two pet rants of mine applicable :)
Regarding "eco-porn" -- this would have to be the most disappointing aspect of the internet critique forums. If I see one more picture of Yosemite, Monument Valley at sunset/rise, or a sand dune, I think I'm going to puke! Similarly, the hoards of visitors to the wilderness, particularly the more insular varieties such as most non-walking non-campers, sicken me. They seem to buy the message that it's good to visit places of natural beauty, yet they do not really experience it at all. They may as well stay at home and watch it on TV.
Regarding "depictions of idealised women" -- I think the media have a pretty distorted idea of "ideal". The modern image of female beauty is entirely created by the fashion industry and the media as a means of exploiting women. It astounds me the degree to which many women are obsessed with their appearance, and the resultant compulsion they feel to spend spend spend on beauty products. Many people blame "men" for expecting women to look "nice", or even "women" for being so "vain", but in reality the compulsion comes about from very powerful and deliberate campaign from those who benefit financially. It really disgusts me that the lives of so many women have become hollow and unfullfilling due to the consuming desire to conform to an unattainable image of "ideal", through no fault of their own. It is such a pervasive thing that some women I've spoken to who think they aren't affected by the images still think that Barbie is beautiful and an appropriate toy to give their three--year-old daughters for Christmas. The film "Preta Porter" (sp?) was quite interesting. To paraphrase the famous fashion photographer character when asked by a tabloid reporter how he reached such success : "by exploiting the insecurities of other people, like all of us!"
But I digress. :-)
|
|
|
|
michael f.h. moon
(K=90) - Comment Date 1/22/1999
|
Photography, to state the obvious, popularizes places. Photography as a whole, the medium that makes this possible, is no more to blame for the resultant over-use of beautiful places than the human want to be in such places. Our culture draws people to them, and, fortunately, tends to apply some measure of protection to them. Not in all cases of course, but the heavily-used places tend to be protected from overuse. To believe that we are incapable of self-regulation is not an option.
Just as the herd goes to the hot spots, so do photographers, and they repeat those famous original images, and even in looking for new treatments of the same old sites they find little new.
But fortunately there are those who don't follow the herd, and find ways of enjoying natural beauty with as few other humans as possible (and that's getting to be a tall order). Among them are photographers, who face the challenge of imaging the less photogenic. Those photographers are more likely to be non-commercial, and seek satisfaction in their work, not in sales or acclaim.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 1/22/1999
|
Or photographers who do commercial work, but still have a conscience, passion and vision... a a slot in the schedule...t
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 1/22/1999
|
that's supposed to be "and a slot in the schedule".
And right on target Russell, it's the love of money, removed from any other responsibility...t
|
|
|
|
mike rosenlof
(K=150) - Comment Date 1/22/1999
|
On the subject of idealized women:
Take a look around the net at the photography of nudes. I mean the "art photography" of nudes. It's mostly women, and most of them are young, slim, and fit. Beautiful. Yes, young, thin, athletic women are often beautiful. I strongly believe that representing beauty is a wonderful thing that photographers can do, but I find it much more interesting, maybe more "artistic", to find that beauty in unexpected places. Here is a web exhibit that I think does just that.
So, do depictions of idealized people damage the rest of us? How many of us have heard "don't take my picture now, I look awful"? Probably all of us have. And how often was it from a truly awful looking person? Not often, I'd guess.
What can we do? I don't know. We can keep looking for that beauty in the ordinary. But it's going to be a long time before people are as accepting of the nudes in the Century exhibit (link 2 paragraphs back) as they are of nudes of (pick your favorite starving supermodel here). Similarly, more people are going to hang photos of Yosemite Valley in their home than those who choose photos of suburban sprawl.
|
|
|
|
Russell Edwards
(K=329) - Comment Date 1/22/1999
|
Right on, Mike. After I had my little tantrum I came upon a forum for black and white photography, which has a lot of nudes posted to it. Peter Hughes had the courage to point out that most of the nudes there were skinny little clones presented in a stiff manner lacking in any depth of feeling. An interesting discussion ensued, including several followup discussions about "eco-porn" which Peter rightly points out are related to the issue of female body image (this is a major tenet of ecofeminism). Anyway, if you're interested, his web site contains some far from conventional nudes.
By the way, I reject the description of the modern depiction of women in art and the media as 'idealized'. There is nothing ideal about their figure, or any figure for that matter. In fact if we must rank women's bodies as something to look at, most people do prefer a fuller figure than we are usually presented with, and a few diversions from the stereotype to tell us something unusual about the person. And if one can get past the entire idea of beauty as a fixed standard to which beautiful women must come as close as possible, you begin to recognize the beauty of every woman's body.
I'm yet to find many male bodies beautiful, though :-)
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 1/23/1999
|
Hey Russ, check out the workof a guy named Michelangelo. ..t
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 1/24/1999
|
I think it all comes down to intent. If you look at the photographs of Shelby Lee Adams...you won't visit Kentucky (my home state) but you might understand the dynamics of a single source economy on the inhabitants of any given area. If you read about Patagonia (say Bruce Chatwin) or Nepal (say Pico Iyer) you will have at least some understanding of those places...if on the other hand your visions of Patagonia and Nepal are based on the photographs of Galen Rowell...you might feel the need to visit and contribute to the problem....or you can check out the photography of W. Eugene Smith, which is beautiful, yet shows the ugliness too...in the final analysis...each of us must try and show the beauty that see around us, but we must not shy from what is ugly...the truth is hidden in a balance of the two views...but revealed to those who search for it.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
Hey, I also am originally from Kentucky! (Hi Howard)
I was also a very active participant in the conversation from the other forum that everyone is talking about (Hi Russell)
I feel that we obsess with subject matter too much, should I photograph this, should I photograph that? I photograph and interpret what moves me to do so, the subject matter is incidental, and I make no excuses for it (Tom, I think that this is more along the lines of what Mr. Adams was talking about). My subject matter may be in my back yard (or even in the house itself), across the street, or even at a national park. (I see the idea of people trying to recreate certain more famous photographs as a different subject and/or problem). I photograph what inspires me, not what inspires society.
I dont see that women are anymore pressured to look or act a certain way than men (think: Rambo, Arnold, baldness, weight etc, etc.), so I dont think that it is as simple a problem as some would suggest. What anyone does to their own body is their decision and responsibility alone.
It is not my job to bring reality to anyone (I am not a photojournalist). My job is to create an image which shows how the scene affected me. I think it is very dangerous to try to tell artists what and how they should create, or what type of vision they should have.
Mr. Ansel Adams did enormous good for the National parks with the use of his photographs and his reputation. He was instrumental in the preservation of untold amounts of wilderness. Yes, there are many problems with the number of visitors that frequent these same parks, but many solutions are underway to solve them (just look at the steps being taken at Yosemite). This whole concept of shunning beauty in photography (i.e. art) is very puzzling to me; if no one knew of the beauty of the lush forests of the country or world, would anyone fight to protect them? How do you work to preserve beauty if you do not know of its existence?
Mark Lindsey
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 1/28/1999
|
People were "flocking to the Grand Canyon and Yosemite" long before most photographers today were born. My impression is that because of photography more has been saved than would have been without it. How many more starving Ethiopian children would have died had it not been for photo-journalists bringing us the gory details of their heart rending stories? How many more whales would have been slaughtered by the whalers had it not been for the few who risked their lives to tell the story through pictures. I live by the wonderful San Diego Zoo and were it not for the zoo, how many animals would be extinct today. Whether you like the way the animals are kept or not the truth is that far fewer animals would be around today were it not for these zoos and the photographs taken of the animals. Photography makes people aware of things that are going on in this world and it is paid attention to a lot more than the printed word. And photographers being the cause of sick, skinny women? I happen to like thin georgeous women. Most men do. If I had my choice between Kate Moss and that overwait female comedian on TV I and 99% of the other guys would take Kate any day. Women buy the clothes, not men and they dress for other women not men. And no one can tell me that women starve themselves to please men and photographers. Men don't drive this crazy, skinny world. Women do and photographers don't coerce young girls into starving themselves. Young girls do it to themselves. Rich guys can pretty much have anyone they want. Who do they pick? Slender women by and large. Not because they are visually skinny but because they feel better. A womans choice. Decaprio or all 230 lbs of you. Duhhh. Photographers don't cause it they only record it. They give the customers what they want. Politically incorrect? As the Eagles song says- "get over it". James
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 1/28/1999
|
And while I'm on this rickety soap box, I have something else to say. I and most photogs I talk with at these "over photographed" places do so because we like the pictures. They're beautiful places to photograph. I for one would love to have as exquisite a photograph as "Moonrise" or "clearing Storm". I just don't happen to have $30K to purchase a copy. But I have some that are just as nice. Delicate Arch, Redwoods, the Golden Gate from Hunters Point? What's wronng with those? So 10 million pictures exist of these and every other spot on earth. So do pictures of derelicts and old ladies and guys looking hangdog in laundermats and out of focus pictures of women with two sets of eyes and guys jumping over puddles even if they were staged. Get the point. James
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 1/30/1999
|
Collectively, we should not register reality as such. Yosemite, Delicate Arch or Half Dome should be unrecognizable on our photographs. 'Subsequent over-tourism' will not appear if we do not show reality, but show photographic compositions. Tourists should come to your exposition, not to the thing photographed.
Let's do a research on how many people decided to visit Yosemite after seeing Adams' pictures in a magazine, instead of visiting one of his expositions.
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 1/30/1999
|
To summarize my last contribution: Bill Brandt was a photographer, Ansel Adams did the PR for a travel agency.
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 1/30/1999
|
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 1/31/1999
|
Hey Lot, thanks for letting us know what we should be photographing, I guess we were pretty lost up to now. You must be quite the master to be able to tell us that and to also be able to sum up Ansel's lifetime of work with such insults. I would hope that people realize that Ansel's landscapes (a very small part of his 40,000+ images) are seen as cliches simply because everyone else has copied him so much. You cant be the shooter of cliches when you are one of the pioneers, but you can massage your ego by insulting the masters.
Instead of looking at just the calenders why don't you dig a little deeper and find out what Adams is all about.
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 1/31/1999
|
Dear Mark, There was a question what we should collectively do to prevent eco-porn or overtourism. So I take it this question is about landscape-photography. I do not prescribe you what to do, I just answered the question. I perfectly agree with your statement about the cliches, I just meant to say: don't copy reality (Adams is part of the existing reality) and stop copying Adams. I tried to give an argument to be able to see Adams' shortcomings also. I digged deep in Adams' oeuvre, with much pleasure also, and I learned a lot about the importance of tonal values. There was one thing I did not learn from this: photographic composition. Adams must have been travelling a lot and encountered many impressing spots/moments. I can't see this as an artistic merit, although I can admire his B&W technique and his ability of 'being there'.
|
|
|
|
Jeff White
(K=154) - Comment Date 1/31/1999
|
To associate Ansel Adams with eco-porn and overtourism is forgetting or never knowing that he has been one of the driving forces in the enviromental movement, not through his photographs but through his actions.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 1/31/1999
|
Lot, you say that you do not prescribe what I should do? This is what you said,
Collectively, we should not register reality as such. Yosemite, Delicate Arch or Half Dome should be unrecognizable on our photographs. 'Subsequent over-tourism' will not appear if we do not show reality, but show photographic compositions
If this isnt plain enough as instruction to everyone as to what and how we should photograph, then I dont know what would be?
You seem to equate the illusion of reality in a photograph as disqualification for it to be art. Many of Adams images may contain recognizable objects, but to say that the image is simply a recording of reality is laughable, more so it is proof of his abilities. Do you think that Moonrise actually looked like that in real life? How about the aspen trees, both horizontal and vertical? The actual scene looked nothing like the image produced by Adams and for you to just see it as completely natural shows that he had succeeded in creating the illusion of reality, but in truth, he showed you how he saw it in his mind. Bill Brandt seems to have many images that show reality to its fullest, should you not disregard him also? (Careful Lot, your prejudice is showing)
I think it hilarious when people question the compositional skills of Adams. Usually it comes from those with a very basic knowledge of such things. An overwhelming amount of artists, past and present, have proclaimed Adams compositional skills to be nothing but perfection, not to mention all of the art historians, teachers etc., etc., who also agree.
If Adams was so incapable why did Brandt admire him so? Or how about Stieglitz, Weston, Okeefe, Cunningham,Uelsmann or White? I suppose their opinions mean nothing.
Please show us some samples of your work that allows you to so easily discard the work of someone like Adams.
mark
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 2/1/1999
|
Dear Mark, 1. Please read back Alan's question at the start of this thread. 2. What I said about Adams was hilarious, you're quite right. Let us stop this quarrel about my profane utterance here. 3. Alan wrote: "we all trek down there to plant our tripods, we need more car parks, and roads, and wreck the beauty." What's your solution to that? 4. What do you think moves these people (us - if you like) to do this? I think I know what it is: playing Ansel Adams.
The judgement of Adams itself should be another thread.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/1/1999
|
Playing Ansel Adams? Hmmm, and I thought that I went there because it was such a wonderful place to photograph. I suppose I am to avoid photographing at any place that a more famous photographer has been known to frequent? If you can't go to Yosemite and create for a lifetime without ever recreating an Adams, then you do not have your eyes open.
I notice that you haven't really answered any of the points from my last posting, why is this? I also have noticed that when I claimed that you told us all how and what to shoot that you denied saying it, although I showed that your statement is plainly clear in its intentions. Do you not have some factual claims to back up your views, or do you feel the way you do because this is seen by many as the "modern" way of thinking, or maybe it is more "artistic"? You can believe what you want but if you do not have any type of factual knowledge to back up your claims then perhaps you should rethink and redefine your views?
The facts of history are: Adams did a world of good in his lifetime quest to preserve and protect the wilderness. If you would like for me to retrieve specifics I can. His images inspired many, including politicians, to help to protect, and even create some, national parks, forests etc. So to say that his images caused harm to nature is a fallacy, borne of flawed thinking based on ego. These are facts, not opinions.
To blame all of the national park woes on Adams is to simplify these problems to absurdity. Adams photographed many of the National parks, are they all in trouble of overcrowding like Yosemite? No. Yosemite has problems due to the mismanagement of the resources, a problem which is being corrected (or at least attempted to be) at the present. Just to let you know, 94.45% of Yosemite park is pure wilderness (704,624 acres) the overcrowding occurs partially in the remainder. I would say that the problem is being well taken care of.
Lastly let me say this, I photograph what inspires me to do so I do not allow my way of seeing to be clouded by the contemporary views of society. As a photographer I can only be loyal to my way of seeing and offer no excuses (none are necessary). I have my causes that I fight for, but not in any way are these views an influence on what I do as a citizen. When I create, I create for the sake of creating and nothing else.
I will not be a lapdog to societys whims.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/2/1999
|
I have my causes that I fight for, but not in any way are these views an influence on what I do as a citizen.
should say,"what I do as a photographer".
|
|
|
|
Joe Stephenson
(K=377) - Comment Date 2/4/1999
|
Not to worry. I try to photograph everyday places in interesting ways, so to the degree that I am successful I am drawing people away from the popular areas. Actually, I find the kind of eco anguishing that underlies this question tiresome and pointlsss. I'm an artist. I do what I like and photograph the things that interest me in ways that I hope express my vision and concern and caring for the world and its inhabitants. Other's are, and should be fee to do the same. After all, is there any evidence that AA increased the number visitors to Yesomite or other areas that he loved and photographed? I feel that censorship and prior restraint are much greater dangers than taking pictures that may attract louts or other visitors that we may deem unworthy. One respondent mentioned those who do not walk about in beautiful areas. I once scorned such people, but age and infirmity appear to be consipiring to make me increasingly unable to walk. If I can't walk, should I be barred from seeing and photographing some places? Sincerely, Joe Stephenson
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 2/6/1999
|
"I have my causes that I fight for, but not in any way are these views an influence on what I do as a photographer".
Are you sure about this? If so, it leads me to think that you either do not actually believe in these "causes" or that you have no moral integrity as an artist.
Otherwise, how can your beliefs have no influence on your actions? ...Dr. Laura would have a fit!
I think people emulate or imitate Adams or Elvis Presley, or whoever because they are lacking in sufficient confidence and/or ability to put their reputation,ego and abilities on the line.
Why make the effort to find your own veiw when itt's so easy to appropriate the genius of "fill-in-the-blank-great-artist" and amuse all your friends with monkey see monkey do cleverness....t
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/6/1999
|
Tom,
I photograph what moves or inspires me to photograph. I make art for art's sake. I prefer to keep my creativity as pure and honest as I can, and therefore try to keep the mind numbing everyday way of life out of it.
I don't think that, in my opinion, the definition of being an artist (or for that matter to have the moral integrity of an artist) is dependent on causes or social structures that can dilute ones own vision. In my mind, the highest failing of moral integrity for an artist is to let the outside influences, causes or beliefs interfere with clear and honest vision.
As for the insulting insinuations of, "having no view", "lacking insufficient confidence and/or ability to put their reputation, ego and abilities on the line", and "monkey see, monkey do", I am sure that this refers to my defending Adams and of course through simplistic thinking, you think that I am nothing but a "wannabe". Just because I appreciate Adams's work and share some of his views does not mean that I am a no talent "wannabe", with this logic everyone who shoots black and white, landscapes, or fights for conservation must be a "wannabe". Perhaps I shoot what I like to shoot, and appreciate the artists that I wish to appreciate because I will not be (as I said before) an obedient lapdog to society or to other so called "modern" photographers who wish to punish those of us who photograph things of beauty.
So why do any of us photograph? Is it to simply create out of a need to create? Or is it to serve someone elses agenda?
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 2/6/1999
|
Mark, first I must say, I was not accusing you of fitting the description in those last two paragraphs... My first questtion:
"Are you sure about this? If so, it leads me to think that you either do not actually believe in these "causes" or that you have no moral integrity as an artist."
Is a request for further discussion..."Are you sure?"...evidently you are quite sure.
And if I feel compelled to make remarks about your photographic abilities, I'll ask to see some photographs first! And be advised when attacking you, I will use the more suitable pronoun "you" as opposed to "they" .
You and I share a great admiration for Ansel Adams, his photographic and social contributions.
However, if you DO imitate Adams or Elvis, (how could I know?), then those last two paragraphs may apply to you.... However, I intended them to be relevant to the ongoing discussion of this thread.
That the constant reinterpretation of historically relevant landscape photography, that adds nothing to the critical issues surrounding the actual landscape in question, may be destructive to it.
By way of illustrating how exact duplication of historically significant images can have its own merit in landscape photography, consider works by a fellow named, I think, Mark Klempt, that was called the Rephotographic Project. In which the landscapes of William Henry Jackson and others of his era, were duplicated as nearly as possible in modern times. So that what was a magnificent river gourge is now shown to be an Interstate highway and a WallMart, The river long ago diverted to L.A. swimming pools.
But for me, your response to my (mis)perceived insults, is much more interesting. " I prefer to keep my creativity as pure and honest as I can". Do you create in a vaccum? from where comes your inspiration? What if Ansel had had this attitude? All the good work you attribute to him (rightly so!) would not have happened!
"to let the outside influences, causes or beliefs interfere with clear and honest vision." Vision of what? if not SOME sort of "outside influences"
This is NOT intended as an insult, it IS intended as a challenge to support your personal "Philosophy of Photography"...t
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 2/6/1999
|
I photograph what moves or inspires me to photograph. I make art for art's sake. I prefer to keep my creativity as pure and honest as I can, and therefore try to keep the mind numbing everyday way of life out of it.
This is an absurd view that can only occur if one completely ignores what makes us who we are.
Probably the easiest example is photographer Gordon Parks. How could Parks not be influenced by his life when he couldn't go to the same places that most other photographers (and most of the population) could go, had to use the back door instead of the front, and was continually challenged by the "authorities" on his right to do what he was doing. Only a mindless person could continue to photograph without any effect.
Photographers always, always, always impart their own life into their images because they are people and as people our senses are conditioned by our environment and everything that surrounds it. If it was just some "pure" thing un-influenced by the rest of our lives, we would all take exactly the same photographs.
I did not realize how intensely political some of my photographs were until other people started pointing it out to me. I never knowingly looked at things that way, but I live, like many Americans and many other places around the world, in a polarized society, and that can only change the way I see things, including what I see as "beautiful."
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/7/1999
|
Tom, sorry if I jumped the gun and overreacted.
Lets clarify the conversation by going back to the beginning of the argument, which I believe has been lost. This began with my own quote from an earlier post----
"Lastly let me say this, I photograph what inspires me to do so I do not allow my way of seeing to be clouded by the contemporary views of society. As a photographer I can only be loyal to my way of seeing and offer no excuses (none are necessary). I have my causes that I fight for, but not in any way are these views an influence on what I do as a citizen. When I create, I create for the sake of creating and nothing else.
I will not be a lapdog to societys whims. "--------
This has gone from my original intent,"I will not be influenced by what is considered to be the "modern" or "artistic" way of seeing as laid down by society and its values, to, "I am not influenced by anything when creating an image".
I would hope that you can see the difference between the two.
I try not to let political or social agendas enter into the picture (bad unintended pun) when creating an image. I of course am likely to have certain types of subject matter in my images more than others (I truly love nature and being in it, so naturally I have more nature type images than of anything else. I also feel that I must photograph what inspires me rather than be concerned with what society thinks that I should photograph, I must be true to myself.
This is what my message was about and I think could be understood when not taken out of context.
So to wrap it up, Tom and Jeff, this was not about not having any influences from my lifetime experiences, this was about being true to those lifetime experiences and not letting the latest fad or contemporary view of society affect what I feel I should or shouldnt be photographing.
As for Adams, he stated that he never made a photograph with the intention of using is for conservation purposes, even though he was a strong proponent of that cause, to do so, I think, just starts to bring in all types of variables which begin to cloud the original vision or intent.
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 2/7/1999
|
I think photographers should have the decency, the guts and the selfrespect to ask themselves: why am I shooting this scene, for whom am I doing this and for what purposes? I bet that in many, many cases there is no more reason or result than vain self-centeredness and that there would be more contribution to the world in going home and loving your wife or some-one elses. An example of such highly unnecessary shooting and killing landscapes is Shayoks web-page (the anxious author) about Niagara Falls. Or visit the Compuserve Photo Forum and load the tons and tons of pictures there smacked on the Net by anonymous narcists which give you a feeling of the uselessness of our existence and which is an environmental pollution in itself. This all is not meant as an insult, but as an invitation to be critical of what we are doing.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 2/7/1999
|
"The unexamined life" is no life...we are a part of life...how could we really expect to remain detached? Jeff & Lot...amen
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 2/7/1999
|
I understand your point, Mark, and I, too, am drawn to occasionally make the straight photo of a glorious landscape if only because I was ready just when, as our boy A.A. said, "God wanted someone to make a picture" .
But times have changed, and as much as we'd like to think that "landscape photographers (have) saved the redwoods", the redwood forests of the Pacific Northwest are still in jeopardy. The context of our most sublime images has changed whether we are aware of it or not. We are members of what the Dalai Lama and others have called the "Pivotal Generation". During our lives, the world will be recreated either through apocolyptic collapse or intelligent choices and actions. Those who follow us will either live in sewers or green meadows and it's up to us to turn it around, because we're headed for the sewer!
And I do not intend to create art for arts sake, or make any choice based solely on satisfying self oriented requirements.
At the risk of overstating a point, the second part of that quote about infatuation, that it is insufficient reason for the "making and displaying of photographic images", is the critical part! We can no longer contribute to the toxic overload of the systems of this world, JUST because we want to make pretty pictures. Everyone must start to assume some responsibility, either by contributing to the awareness of our veiwing audience or by reducing our own "excrement", photographic or otherwise. We don't live in a vaccum, we are all downstream from each other AND ourselves, metaphorically and actually.
Mark, if you truely love nature, as I believe you do, then I imagine you contribute to The Nature Consevancy, The Sierra Club, Green Peace or EarthFirst. Perhaps your photographs could be displayed in a context you deem appropriate AFTER the image making process is over, after your clear vision has hit the Mark (bad pun intended), free from the political influence of the "Art Critics" or the Industrial Terra-formers that redesign the natural order you find so engaging.
But I urge you to use your passion for the power of nature, free of human influence, to secure that world for yourself and future generations,. Otherwise, it might be much harder to find, 30 years from now....t
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 2/7/1999
|
I love it. Go ahead and don't shoot anymore pictures of beautiful natural scenes. Makes more room for me. You sound great. Very self-important. Maybe you are. But if you never shoot another picture of say Yosemite, it won't make a bit of difference. 99.9999999999999% of the people who come to this most wonderous of places do so not because A.A. or anyone else shot pictures there but because it's beautiful. And because of all the stores and restaurants and lodges that advertise their existance. And let's not forget the bus companies and the towns at the front door and everyone who has ever visited the valley. I'm not trying to be critical of you personally but critical of the eco-speak I hear so often.You are 1/6billionth of the world. You think you make a difference? Don't blame photographers, blame government and bussiness. Your picture and my many, many beautiful pictures and all the pictures of all the photographers you know could be destroyed and it wouldn't put a miniscule dent in the hoards coming from all over the world to see it. nI for one will continue to go wherever I want and can get to before it is all gone. And it is going at an ever accelerating rate. Not because of a few pictures but because of the ever burgeoning population of the world. I fought for the redwoods long ago chaining myself to trees and going to jail, and I fought for the coastal commission, which has been completely corrupted, and I fought for civil rights.I recycle, ect. ect. ect. We just finished getting beaten trying to save the last coastal mesa in southern california from developers.The Sierra Club sold out for a tiny piece of land that couldn't be built on anyway. Anyway. Keep recycling and riding a bicycle to work and walking whenever you can. But don't think declining to take pictures saves the world. It doesn't. The damage is done by so many others. And I for one think that America saves more than it uses and destroys. Indiginous people destroy more than big bussiness ever will. And don't buy seashells or fish.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 2/8/1999
|
James...just to clarify a couple of points...the seven industrial powers on the planet use more than 25 per cent of the worlds resources output each year. It costs 13 times as much to raise a child in the U.S.A. as it does in Brazil. The U.S. generates more toxic refuse than the rest of the planet combined. Each and every individual who contributes to the easing of these problems, makes a difference (granted it is a very small difference) What can each of us do? Buy a car that is small, gets good gas milage, and pollutes less than larger cars, SUV's, and trucks...drive it at least 10 years. Contribute to environmental causes (both time, and money), consume at a reasonable level (buy used, don't buy things you aren't going to use or don't need, recycle as much as you can, avoid packaging whenever possible, and support/demand political candidates who have a pro-environmental agenda. I couldn't agree with you more that over population is a major problem...however in a free market world economy....output must grow every year...hence more customers must be born...support voluntary limits on family size...worldwide. A simple 5 per cent annual reduction in population growth worldwide would swing the environmental balance in just 10 years.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 2/8/1999
|
Lumberjack, huh?
Speak for yourself, that's what this forum is for, But do not attempt to speak for me, or change my words. I make photographs of pristine landscapes as well, Mr Jack. Here's the quote since you missed it the first time : "I, too, am drawn to occasionally make the straight photo of a glorious landscape ". And you ARE being critical of me personally, here's THAT quote:" You sound great. Very self-important." I can't speak for you, but being described as "Self-important" doesn't fit my idea of a desireable characteristic. Mark Twain called sarcasm "a weak mans' criticism" so if you want to call me a self aggrandizing sactimonious, holier than thou twit, go right ahead, but don't hide it in sarcasm.
Do you really believe that "Indiginous people destroy more than big bussiness ever will." ? There's 17 million people living in Cairo, there's probably not that many indigenous people left alive in the whole world. Add the populations of Sao Paulo, Singapore, New York and Tokyo on top of that and the mathematics ought to be convincing enough. Hello? Are we having fun yet? Is this philosophical?
Sorry Alan, it's just unbelieveable...t
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 2/12/1999
|
Just for you Tom. Go to Brazil and watch the rain forest disappear before your eyes. And go to Brazil and watch the fish float down the river from mercury poisoning. And go to Indonesia and watch the rain forest burn and go to Madagascar and watch the land being cleared at an ever accelerating rate. All because of America? All because of the seven first world contries? Try again. Try explaining Rwanda and what was Yugoslavia and Mexico. And calling you a yada yada yada? No I won't. But if you think we individually make a hill of beans difference, go to these contries and tell the "indiginous" people to stop clearing off the rainforest to feed their families and do the same in Indonesia. If you make it back alive you western bussibody I'll be glad. I have been in the enviro movement probably longer than you've been alive. Yes, all of those actions can and do save resources but the intent was to let you know that the people down in the third world are not motivated by your ideals. And you don't limit the production of cars by buying only every ten years. The other side of the enviro coin has people starving because they are put out of work. When I was chained to a tree in Oregon a few years back, I had people threaten me with great physical harm because I was threatening their families welfare. And no they couldn't just up and leave to find some other type of work. And I can debate this forever. Sorry Alan. AnywayTom, Look through both eyes. And don't ever think your 1/6 billionth opinion matters a great deal. James to you!
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 2/14/1999
|
James, don't hold back...just let it out. I don't choose to go to Brazil (that would just make me another ecco-tourist) And yes I do think that my small contributions are worthy (if for no other reason that to pat myself on the back for my lack of greed and wastefulness) As regards Rwanda, Burundi, and most of Africa...the tribal problems there were created by artificial boundaries drawn by (guess who) the same major industrial powers that consume a full quarter of the planets resource output each year...Yugoslavia was created by (guess who) those same industrial powers from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire at the close of WW1...once again combining ethnic and religious groups that hated one another...Mexico...Spanish Imperialism and Native American conflict. I doubt seriously that you have been in the environmental movement longer than I have been alive (born 1947) Myself I became environmentally involved in 1971...and will remain so as long as I live. Yes there will be adjustments to make if we try to more fairly distribute the planets wealth...each of us will have to settle for a bit less...so that others may have more...population growth can be controlled...when and if there is the will to stop seeking "new markets" and new customers" Finally, I love the U. S., but it is clear to me that we are the most self centered, selfish, and greedy children on the planet...we have the lifestyle that is the envy of those in Brazil, Madagascar, Indonesia, and many other third world countries....nowhere else in the world will you see millionaires walking around in jeans, running shoes, and ball caps...so if you don't agree with my point of view that is fine, and your right...but don't presume to speak for me...or think that you know anything about me from a few lines scribbled on an obscure net BB, I will continue to say what I think and feel...if it conflicts with with your opinion....then just say what you have to say, back it up with the facts and experience at your disposal and don't take it personally.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 2/15/1999
|
How can such assumptions be made with so little data. This fellow has been "enviro" for over 47 years, (all bow low).
The rain forest is disappearing... we all agree. What's the point you're making?
Rwanda? Yugoslavia? My examples (Sao Paulo, Singapor, Cairo) are not in (The G7) Industrialized countries, but we don't pollute OUR countries, we export! American business is still making DDT, which is illegal to use in this country, and selling it to Mexican and Chilean Farmers which come back to poisen us (those grapes look good this time of year, don't they?). We are the worlds largest Arms Dealers (Yugoslavia, Rwanda... I DID fit it in!). We are the worlds largest consumer of narcotics and other illegal drugs (Mexico, Afganistan (you left them out), and you can get a Big Mac in The People's Republic of China and Moscow, it seems poisen IS our business. It's not our only business, I'm not that damn simple.
I didn't say my existence made any difference to tribal people in Indonesia or anywhere else...what are you talking about? You gotta stop makin' up stuff or nobody will want to play. And I'm hardly declining to make photographs, I snapshoot, too, but will you have me do nothing to compensate for this activity? Just throw my hands up and just keep dumping fixer down the tubes? Can't I take it to a lab to add to their reclamation system without you sneering about it. Can't I talk with others about doing this without your approval? Why are you so bitter and jaded?
Howard and I have both indicated that we beleive overpopulation is at the root of these problems. If we could reduce the population of the planet by 60%, then we could all drive semi trucks to the grocery store and bleach our shirts in the creek! But when there's 6 billion of us, we just get in each others rinse water a little too easily.
And that's my whole point. Do what you can, there's plenty of opportunity, and don't sweat the small stuff.
Some may consider themselves of no consequence, I choose otherwise.
have a nice day...t
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/16/1999
|
what's this forum about? :)
lets look at it this way---we abuse, destroy, and consume all in our path simply because we have the power to do so. Others don't do these things (or maybe to such a small degree that we don't notice) because they haven't the technology or the power to do so, and they would if they could.
There are no innocents in this situation.
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 2/16/1999
|
I'd like to describe the tenor of this discussion with a quote: "One attraction of any view of the photographer as ideal observer (...) is that it implicitly denies that picture-taking is in any way an aggressive act. That it can be so described makes most professionals extremely defensive." Susan Sontag (1977).
|
|
|
|
Joe Stephenson
(K=377) - Comment Date 2/16/1999
|
Dear Lot, Kudos for using the word "photograph" in your last post. It's been a while since anyone addressing this topic actually mentioned photography. Thanks, Joe Stephenson
|
|
|
|
|
