Aperture Magazine just set me an e-mail

[paulr]

Apologies. I didn't recognize it out of context.

Rick, why don't you clarify which uses of the word "culture" you're talking about. I don't want to sit here and put words in your mouth. I had a pretty good idea I knew what you meant and that I agreed with you ...

[rdenney]

Apologies. I didn't recognize it out of context.

Rick, why don't you clarify which uses of the word "culture" you're talking about. I don't want to sit here and put words in your mouth. I had a pretty good idea I knew what you meant and that I agreed with you ...

Again, when people complain about culture as being something to be shunned, they are usually talking about what other people think of as culture; people with whom they disagree. Based on the quote below, that's how I interpreted what he said--a complaint about those who would define (and discuss in threads like this) their own refined tastes as Culture while defining the taste of others otherwise.

Where is the culture in pretty rocks?

I'm thinking they are an escape from culture.

Jack "not everyone loves culture" Dahlgren

I took this to mean Jack was opposed to culture as an establishment, and had confused that with culture as the context of artistic interaction, which is how we have been discussing it.

Jack might have meant that because rocks are utterly non-human, they cannot be cultural as subjects. That was your interpretation, as I understand it. You rightly countered that the culture is not a subject, but rather the context of both the artist and the viewer in determining what subjects are worthy as art (and what those subjects mean).

So, maybe both of us were putting words into Jack's mouth. In our defense, he wasn't making it easy, heh.

But on rereading Jack's comment (and with the benefit of his subsequent comments, even the uncharitable ones), I think he was defining culture as the context of human interaction, and pretty rocks are an antidote for human interaction. This was my second interpretation, and I would agree except for the desire to photograph them, which can only have the purpose of sharing them with others. And that sharing is as much a matter of culture as is the context within which the artist and viewer might interpret that subject.

Rick "figuring Jack probably really meant we just talk too much" Denney

[paulr]

Ok, got it. So the passage of yours that Jack quoted was basically caricature.

You were saying, in a sense, that those who use rock photos as anti-culture are themselves a culture.

This is a little different from what I was saying (you pretty much nailed it in your last post) ... I think these are just different perspectives on the same set of issues, and are perfectly compatible. But I was definitely putting some words in your mouth, so sorry for that.

I don't think we put words in Jack's mouth (not counting the quote I misatributed to him) ... I'm still honestly don't understand his objection is to your original idea. Or to my variation on your idea.

If it's that we talk too much, maybe it's because this isn't a good forum for dancing.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Again, when people complain about culture as being something to be shunned, they are usually talking about what other people think of as culture; people with whom they disagree. Based on the quote below, that's how I interpreted what he said--a complaint about those who would define (and discuss in threads like this) their own refined tastes as Culture while defining the taste of others otherwise.



I took this to mean Jack was opposed to culture as an establishment, and had confused that with culture as the context of artistic interaction, which is how we have been discussing it.

Jack might have meant that because rocks are utterly non-human, they cannot be cultural as subjects. That was your interpretation, as I understand it. You rightly countered that the culture is not a subject, but rather the context of both the artist and the viewer in determining what subjects are worthy as art (and what those subjects mean).

So, maybe both of us were putting words into Jack's mouth. In our defense, he wasn't making it easy, heh.

But on rereading Jack's comment (and with the benefit of his subsequent comments, even the uncharitable ones), I think he was defining culture as the context of human interaction, and pretty rocks are an antidote for human interaction. This was my second interpretation, and I would agree except for the desire to photograph them, which can only have the purpose of sharing them with others. And that sharing is as much a matter of culture as is the context within which the artist and viewer might interpret that subject.

Rick "figuring Jack probably really meant we just talk too much" Denney

Now I have to figure out what I meant...

I generally agree with both of you. There is definitely a culture of pretty rock photography and before then a culture of pretty rocks which goes back centuries in China and in Japanese gardens. Of course there are a bunch of rules for those pretty rocks, but I think that perhaps the impulse behind them is not far removed from photos of pretty rocks (or vice versa).

I would also agree that without some understanding of culture, art is often not fully enjoyed. Sir Bannister Fletcher when confronted with architecture from Asian countries dubbed it "ahistorical" and devoted a chapter or so out of his "History of Architecture" to it. Apparently those traditions were too far out of his culture for him to recognize or appreciate.

Culture can be native to the extent that it is unnoticed or it can be established and shared and as you have noted codified and elevated to a ridiculous degree. It is something that makes us human. Of course at times (the extremes) it makes humans look incredibly stupid as well. Faced with unfamiliar culture there are those, who like Bannister Fletcher ignore what they don't understand, or malign it, or retreat from it. I would hardly put either you or Paul in that category.

The pretty rocks phenomenon (or worse, hot air balloons over a reflecting lake) does have some elements of escapism. But it is completely reasonable to argue that contemporary culture IS escapist to a tremendous degree. I'm more of a pretty leaves guy though so I'm not 100% certain about the motivation of pretty rock photographers. I do have some strong suspicions about long exposure waterfall people though.

There is also a culture of dry humor - sometimes too dry in that it stings the eyes like blowing dust - which is not always appreciated or recognized, but is irresistible to its practitioners. So if you think I'm uncharitable, please understand it is not really meant that way. Or maybe it is.

So... I think that is sort of what I meant to say. I'll argue against myself if it keeps the discussion going.

Jack "putting phrases in my sig since the last millennium" Dahlgren

[rdenney]

Jack "putting phrases in my sig since the last millennium" Dahlgren

As was I. I learned it from two practitioners more expert than myself: Maddy Page (RIP), Terror Queen of Alt.folklore.urban, the online horror movie for those who drew conclusions without having done even minimal research, and Sheldon Brown (also RIP), bicycle guru who learned machine work from--small world--S. K. Grimes.

Rick "internym goes here" Denney

[Jack Dahlgren]

As was I. I learned it from two practitioners more expert than myself: Maddy Page (RIP), Terror Queen of Alt.folklore.urban, the online horror movie for those who drew conclusions without having done even minimal research, and Sheldon Brown (also RIP), bicycle guru who learned machine work from--small world--S. K. Grimes.

Rick "internym goes here" Denney

Usenet RIP.

[paulr]

Culture can be native to the extent that it is unnoticed or it can be established and shared and as you have noted codified and elevated to a ridiculous degree. It is something that makes us human. Of course at times (the extremes) it makes humans look incredibly stupid as well.

I like the idea that both extreme self consciouness and extreme lack of it make us stupid!

The pretty rocks phenomenon (or worse, hot air balloons over a reflecting lake) does have some elements of escapism. But it is completely reasonable to argue that contemporary culture IS escapist to a tremendous degree.

I'm not convinced that escapism is always bad. I think it's questionable if the only art (or activity, or relationship ...) that a person is drawn to is escapist, but we all need our escapes.

For me it's more a question of where the escape leads us—someplace so familiar that we are immersed in thoughts and feelings we've had a hundred times before, or someplace revelatory? Pictures of rocks can do either; contrast Weston with Weston-clone #6 million on Flickr.

I think it's just much harder to do something interesting (escapist or otherwise) while working inside the bounds of a very old and familiar genre.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I like the idea that both extreme self consciouness and extreme lack of it make us stupid!




I'm not convinced that escapism is always bad. I think it's questionable if the only art (or activity, or relationship ...) that a person is drawn to is escapist, but we all need our escapes.

For me it's more a question of where the escape leads us—someplace so familiar that we are immersed in thoughts and feelings we've had a hundred times before, or someplace revelatory? Pictures of rocks can do either; contrast Weston with Weston-clone #6 million on Flickr.

I think it's just much harder to do something interesting (escapist or otherwise) while working inside the bounds of a very old and familiar genre.

I don't think escapism is all bad either. As you say it depends where the escape leads us.

For me, getting out and taking photographs leads me to interesting places. It is enough for me most of the time. Most of my photographs don't "say" all that much. This one for example might fit in the pretty rock school:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4079/...7c7ebfed_b.jpg
except that it is a bit messy. It is more about texture than line or form, so I think I'm the only one who likes it, and likely because it reminds me of the sunny late afternoon when I took it.

I could style it as the death mask of millions of bivalves. Those clam's were someone's great-grandmothers. Or perhaps it is just a precursor to some future photographer's portrait of a limestone crag.

[John NYC]

I could style it as the death mask of millions of bivalves. Those clam's were someone's great-grandmothers. Or perhaps it is just a precursor to some future photographer's portrait of a limestone crag.

Just like there is bad and good of any kind of representational art, there is bad and good conceptual art. I do not believe the best artists would do what you are implying -- that is, take a picture of something and decide post facto how they could sell it as conceptual art.

There is plenty of bad conceptual art. The trick is -- if you are interested in looking at it at all -- trying to find the things that move you and that you admire and respect. And, in that, it is no different than any other kind of art.

[Garry Madlung]

Having an MFA in painting and having observed the art industry, I can understand their motivation.

The theory of art has eclipsed art. Or perhaps art history has eclipsed art. We've raced along trying to compete with history - trying to mimic and become history. Or perhaps we've tried to interpret it as inadequate so that we can demonstrate how we are superior. (The use of "we" is directed towards the art industry.)

This has created a need to market/package/sell the idea, and art is being generated according to shtick. There is a perception that it must be explained before it is produced. Artists are becoming theoreticians rather than practitioners. Your brain runs in circles following the logic. ("ok, I get it now")

(There is a line in a Woody Allen movie where two artist are talking. One says, "If I can get some money, I'll work on a concept. Then if I can get some more money, I'll turn that concept into an idea.")

It's not about artistic passion or some kind of exploration or learning to see (imagine using our eyes!!), and if your packaging doesn't suit an agenda, you are ignored. Art has to somehow fit into a 'current' or 'discourse'. Once an artist gains acceptance from a critic/writer, their work is suddenly 'relevant'.

As more traditional photographers, we don't dismissed contemporary art. There is a lot of worthwhile work being done. I am actually fascinated by some conceptual art, but it's logic can't be too deliberate. Like too much Stephen Wright, the brain can run into overload (I'm relieved that he doesn't do encores).

I'm also not making a critique on the work of the artist referred to in the link in the original post - just the art industry in general . It seems apparent that some theory is based on positioning our large format work as being dated and irrelevant.

I still make photo-based abstracts that have a slight conceptual angle, but I consider them to be a visual experience not a mental exercise. An instructor of mine once said that I have a "way of making things look good". I took that as a compliment though he might not have meant it as such.

When on a backpacking trip photographing landscapes, I am dealing directly with my environment, not the art world. Whatever theory I could apply to my work is pointless. If I don't watch my step, I might roll an ankle, and if I don't hang my food in a tree a bear will steal it.

Oh yes, there is some physical effort involved.