May I suggest to you, that for many of us posting to this forum, photography is not a "hobby"; in particular, Kirk Gittings and Drew Wiley. For sure, they disagree on the work of an individual photographer, David Muench, who is the topic of this thread. However, they do so with years of commitment and passion for what they are doing, and have done. Perhaps for you, photography is a hobby.Originally Posted by tgtaylor
I've been following this thread with some interest as Drew seems to be articulating my own sense of disquiet. I've come to think of this style or genre as `photography in denial'. While it is clearly the result of significant skill and application I find that there is a definite sense in which it falls short. Possibly this is because I'm a New Zealander and have no experience of the North American wilderness. But I think it is more fundamental than this. The absence of people -- especially the *negative* influence of people -- bothers me. Strange, but I never feel this way when I'm going through the work of Eliot Porter. Possibly it is because I find his subject matter more balanced and less idealised. If I had to name someone else who I find satisfying, though also deeply disturbing, it would be Simon Norfolk, notably his series `Bosnia: Bleed' and `Afghanistan: chronotopia'.
Simon Norfolk
http://simonnorfolk.com/
Kind regards,
Richard
That is great work Richard. Thanks for that link.
I just think there is more than one valid way to photograph landscape. Different approaches satisfy different needs. For example there is a guy who photographed Monument Valley (I am drawing a blank on his name) in LF from a Navajo school basketball court in the foreground? The work is stunning, real and insightful. Or-this will make some people scream-I am as fond of Robert Adams as Ansel Adams.
In landscape art I don't see any conflict between the real and the idealized. If it is well done, my soul and my intellect needs both.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
I am preparing a **Canadians invade Kentucky ** proposal for my friend Paul and his associates in Louisville.
Over thirty photographers , different work , genres, emerging and established artists.
They all have their place.
As Kirk says ** my soul needs both**
Whoa, get your guns folks! Hey let me know, maybe I will fly in. I could use a fresh dance with the Dumonte!
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Some distinctions can be articulated, for better or worse, and some things are a lot more subjective. I've got a repro of a print made by Brett Weston of the Mittens in
Monument Valley taken from exactly the same turnout, with exactly the same perspective, as dozens of shots I've seen published over the years, and probably the
same as millions of shots taken by tourists. On one level, you could say its a picture of
just the same scenery. But when I look at the thing I think, no one on earth but BW
could have taken that picture and visualized/printed it that way. Sure, someone could
copy the technique, but to see it that way in the first place, and turn a totally typical
scene into a dynamic abstraction without making it "abstract" at all, well, that takes
a master. Now I have no interest in critisizing anyone who feels no compulsion to make
composition an obsession like I do. Just having fun is totally legit as far as I'm concerned. Tomorrow I'll be out on a hike with another photographer doing just that,
while I'll be subconsciously tormenting myself about the metaphysical and whether or
not there will be a dust spot on the negative in a critical place. But once someone
invades the abominable concept of art (whatever that means), the discussion is open
to a lot of tug of war. And one thing I personally despise is the pigeonholing of everything, i.e.,if you're an "fine" artist you have to be visually and off-the-wall, but as
an outdoor photographer you must follow a well-worn predictable groove in the earth.
The fact is, a number of folks are ignoring this nonsense, and I see no reason why
even stock photographers can't stick their neck out from time to time. Even the damn
Geographic is beginning to take mild risks, at least in the endsheets, if not in the
main articles. At lot of progress has been made from the days way back where
every shot had to have someone in a red sweater in the middle of the scene!
Dumonte did us both in last time, we got to know our sensitive sides.
There's a right tool for each job. I have to say that the Canon G11 or G10 (or G9 that I have) is a pretty good camera, digitally-speaking (I keep it in my pocket as a backup) It shoots RAW, and if you don't need higher ISO or a really fast lens, then it is the right tool for the job. Sure it isn't an LF camera, but not every shot requires using an LF camera.
am I convinced to like this guy yet..?
ell no!
guy would benefit from having a conservative narrow mind... or maybe thats just what he displays
Robert Adams work often really depresses me, but at the same time there is something I find beautiful and entrancing in many of his images. I just looked at some of his work on pbs.org, and even over the web, the power of his images came through.
--
Rick
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks