Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 58

Thread: what IS it about nature photography?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    633

    what IS it about nature photography?

    hey guys, here's a serious question that i'll probably overstate because i overs tate everything (including that) but here goes: i have this judgment that there are WAYYY too many people out there taking the same photos over and over and ov er again, convincing themselves that they're "artists" but fundamentally missing the whole point of art. in short, a huge part of America's photographic scene is in a serious rut.

    sure, shots of aspens and canyon country at sunrise are pretty, but that is ALL they are, and if this were any other art medium (painting, jazz, literature) the people who think that kind of work is "art" would be laughed right out of the g ame because what they do is so transparently formulaic, un-creative and derivati ve. All they're really doing is showing that they can competently and precisely copy the work of others. Where is the art in that?

    Painters learn to copy the work of others as an exercise in technique, but in mu ch of photography, copying the work of others seems to be the final goal. It's absurd! Imagine if there were thousands of writers out there who aspired to wri te books that read exactly like Kurt Vonnegut's novels, or thousands of jazz mus icians whose sole goal was to sound exactly like Paul Desmond, or thousands of p ainters whose work looked EXACTLY like Andrew Wyeth's, so you couldn't even tell whose was what. it's hard to imagine such a scenario in the other art forms, a nd yet, i believe that's exactly what's going on in photography. You could borr ow ten photos from each of a thousand nature photographers, and mix them all up, and you'd have NO IDEA which photographer took which picture because they're al l exactly the same.

    what will it take to get the photography community THINKING, working on new, dif ficult, challenging projects that involve introspection and sophistication, risk , experimentation and failure? there's a wild-ass beautiful universe out there, right in our own cities and backyards, and yet most photographers think they ha ve to go to these few "special" pristine natural places at just the right time t o take an artistic photograph. it's the saddest and most ironic thing to see th e same old crap year after year being called "art"-- the same hackneyed photos t aken at sunrise from the same worn-in tripod holes from the same places in the s ame national parks, all without an ounce of any of the ingredients that artists from other media would say are the foundations of meaningful art.

    where is the satisfaction in doing that kind of work? why is the photographic c ommunity so stuck in this furrow? i think the current situation is worse than t he pictorialist movement at the turn of last century, which in retrospect we all look at with a smirk because everyone was doing the same tacky-looking work and no one realized how bad it all was. a hundred years later, here we are repeati ng history, just with better technology.

    please respond sincerely with whatever thoughts you have to offer, so long as th ey're well-considered (one-liners from the shooting gallery will not help anyone ).

    ~chris jordan (Seattle)

    www.chrisjordanphoto.com

  2. #2

    what IS it about nature photography?

    Chris: Several points: The landscapes I create are mine. The light, the time of year, the decision when to press the cable release, the particular scene, and the impulse to set up are my personal decisions.

    I also have a wonderful reason to place myself in areas I consider beautiful(with all the definitions that can be ascribed to the word)

    Whats wrong with pretty?

    Barry.

  3. #3

    what IS it about nature photography?

    Chris:

    Here are my 2 cents.

    In any artistic medium artists operate at different levels. When learning a musical instrument, the first pieces are hardly fine art, but they are to the student. And the simplest melody or photograph, when well executed, can be appreciated.

    I think we all suffer from failure to appreciate fully that with which they are most familiar. So the beauty in our backyard goes un- photographed, while the national park we visit on a trip is new, exciting, and gets photographed, often, as you imply, from the same vantage point as every other tourist.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    633

    what IS it about nature photography?

    Dan, what really got me to thinking about this was the recent threads where people ask "where should i go in New York to take photos?" Jeez, I wanted to grab them and shake them and say "in your own freaking house!!!!!"

    I suppose you're right that it won't change; i just have the sense that it COULD. Other artistic media, such as jazz (which i am familiar with because i am a jazz pianist), operate at a higher level of excellence than photography, I think because there is a general creative drive and energy in the jazz community that seems to be lacking in much of photography. I don't know why though; or maybe i'm just wrong.

    ~cj

  5. #5
    Founder QT Luong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1997
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,337

    what IS it about nature photography?

    I do exactly the kind of photography you describe. For me the satisfaction is in being in a variety of beautiful places, totally surrounded by the sights, smells and sounds of nature, and to create a pretty image which reminds me, and possibly arouses in the viewer, some of the emotions that the place gave me. It is to capture as much as possible of this visual excitement. Incidentally, if the same photograph has been made a million of times (see my Delicate Arch image), it is somewhat satifying for me to believe that my image might be among one of the hundreds better ones, for factors such as composition, perspective, timing, light, and the mere information density of the 5x7 format. Why is the community stuck in this furrow ? I suppose a lot of photographers are out there to please themselves (and apparently the viewers as well), rather than to create "art", whatever it is.

  6. #6

    what IS it about nature photography?

    Chris:

    Simple answer... people like such images.

    I am looking at retirement communities for my mother, and yesterday visited an art center at one community where a painting class was held. Of approximately 30 paintings in the room, about 25 were scenics of forest paths, lakes, mountains, etc. Not a one was of an urban street or city scape. And people can paint anything they like.

    For me, I enjoy being in such places, and the photography is the hobby that gets me there. But people who view and buy my works like what I capture. People see their own backyards, vacant lots, buildings, sidewalks, etc everyday. They have to look at that stuff but they don't have to like it. Ask 100 city dwellers if they would rather live in Jackson Hole and see what they say.

    I think, experiment and take risks in my job everyday. I shoot scenics for a hobby, but I think, experiment and take risks there as well. For me, my LF photography is defined by the shots I don't take. Many times I will work with a scene for an hour or more, and finally decide there is nothing new or worthwhile there. So don't assume that every scenic was some thoughtless snap of the shutter just because you don't like it.

    I am happy for you to stay in the city and experiment, and leave the wilderness to the rest of us.

  7. #7

    what IS it about nature photography?

    Same photo can NOT be taken over and over again, unless you are using an auto 35mm shooting out of the window of your tour bus. First and foremost, photography as an art is a very intense creative process and experience. It's a form of personal expression. If somebody happens to like my photo, that's fine. I care less if somebody say that my photos are just like others' photos. I know that's not true. Nature is infinite, thus the way to express it.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Culver City
    Posts
    169

    what IS it about nature photography?

    On the other hand:

    Let's say I take a blue dog teddy bear to all of my locations, and place it in every shot (ie. blue dog in "The Wave"). Then I make up a "profound statement" about it.

    Now, I definitely have a "signature style". If anyone else does the same thing, it is very obvious copying.

    Is it art? Is it just a gimmick?

    It is difficult to develop a unique, recognizable landscape style, and not make it a gimmick.

    Maybe I should just insist that the prints be hung upside-down.

    This all leads me to another question: is there any landscape photographer whose work is immediately recognizable, based on style, content, location, etc? (If there is, then we can all start copying her/him ;-)

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    10

    what IS it about nature photography?

    convincing themselves that they're "artists" but fundamentally missing the whole point of art.

    You're off to a bad start. There is no point of art. There are as many points of art as there are artists. I should stop here because the rest of your question rests on this one issue, but, like you, I like to overstate things.

    are pretty, but that is ALL they are

    To you (and many others, I admit) perhaps. But I love seeing a well captured landscape--that's my business. Many are more that pretty to me. This is because I like being in a beautiful landscape. I love hiking to distant locations to find something beautiful, but I never think that I am the first one down the path. That doesn't stop me from going, however.

    Imagine if there were thousands of writers out there who aspired to write books that read exactly like Kurt Vonnegut's novels

    There are

    or thousands of jazz musicians whose sole goal was to sound exactly like Paul Desmond

    There are. Vonnegut, Desmond, and Wyeth are called geniuses for a reason. You can't expect that from everyone. There will always be those who forge ahead and those that follow. Sometimes those that follow end up outperforming the inovators. J.S. Bach was considered old fashioned in his day. Fugues were out, but he kept on writing them and transcended the entire genre. It doesn't happen every day, but it happens

    You could borrow ten photos from each of a thousand nature photographers, and mix them all up, and you'd have NO IDEA which photographer took which picture because they're all exactly the same Speaking of Bach, how would you do if we played the same game with trio-sonatas written by baroque composers. Could you tell ten apart? (most serious musicians couldn't) Does this mean they are exactly the same? No. They are different but it is subtle. Does it make them bad art? No. They've lasted centuries and people still listen to them. If you listen enough you will be able to tell Handel from Bach, but you will still have trouble with ten different composers. The same is true in photography--even nature photography. David Meunch's work looks like David Muench's work. You can usually pick it out of a line up.

    What will it take to get the photography community THINKING, working on new, difficult, challenging projects that involve introspection and sophistication, risk, experimentation and failure? A community does not do ANY of this. Individuals do. They are out there doing it as you read. If you look hard enough you will find inovators in every field. If you don't see good photographers doing the kind of work you value either you are not looking hard enough, or you have a unique vision in which case you should stop complaining and show us.

    This subject has been beaten to death. If you don't like the work others are doing don't look at it and shoot the kind of work you like.

  10. #10

    what IS it about nature photography?

    Michael: As to whether there is a landscape photographer whose work is immediately recognizable, the answer is yes. Adams, Weston, Brett Weston, John Sexton, Clyde Butcher, and others. As photographers, we all see things in a different way. Everyone on this forum could go to the same site, shoot from the same place, and the pictures will look different. That is the individual artist, not duplicating because we are all different mentally.

    Regards,

Similar Threads

  1. photography
    By alissa in forum On Photography
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 1-Nov-2006, 08:07
  2. What is '"Art Photography"
    By Kirk Gittings in forum On Photography
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 16-Feb-2005, 23:14
  3. Lenses for nature and landscape LF photography?
    By Ted Stoddard in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 23-Apr-2004, 08:08
  4. Tenba PBL 264 or Lowe Nature Trekker?
    By Frank Petronio in forum Gear
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 24-Feb-2004, 02:06
  5. A New Nature Photography Web Site
    By Scott Squires in forum On Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 8-Dec-2000, 22:24

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •