what IS it about nature photography?

[Wes_2428]

I used to work with a guy that thought it was stupid of me to enjoy photography. He claimed that all the pictures had already been taken. There was nothing left! He then went on to tell me he had always wanted to be a writer. I didn't tell him to forget it because all the words had been used before. I have been published quite a few times. He hasn't. If what we are doing isn't art, it sure is enjoyable. I enjoy being alone, appreciating nature. Photography just gives me an excuse to go roaming in the forest by myself. No, not everything I photograph turns into a great piece of art. I enjoy it, what is wrong with that? Chris, a lot what I feel are my best photographs have never been published. A lot of my run of the mill photographs have been. Publishers don't seem to want anything different from what is and has been successful in the past. I'll admit it, I have been guilty of not making a photograph I felt I wanted to. I'd tell myself that it wouldn't sell anyway so why bother. I had forgotten why I had gotten involved in photography in the first place. Due to the annoyance of dealing with publishers and everyone else that seemed to want something for nothing, I gave up on photography completely for several years. I have started again just recently. This time, it is just for me. I may never try to sell anything again. Chris, don't judge others if we don't meet your standards of what you feel a photographer should be. If it makes us happy, isn't that what matters? Some people enjoy climbing mountains. Is that wrong because they don't come away from a mountain as an artist? They had fun doing it!

[Jonathan Brewer]

Walter....For years I had listened to the 'Girl from Ipanema', and had loved 'Black Orpheous' the first time I saw it, but for years I said, I don't know anything about Brazil, and its 5,600 miles away. One particular year I just said to myself, I don't know anybody there, but I'm going. One of the best decisions of my life, once you go, you never stop going.

I've gotten into these 'to be or not to be' discussions around here, and some 'butt ugly' discussions which I thouroughly dislike, but what I like about Brazil is what I really like about life, living simply, doing what you'd like to do, and having as many laughs as you can while you're.

There is love and hate and poverty in Brazil, but not a lot of mean spiritness, deviousness, or peoples with chips on their shoulders. Most Brazilians are looking for a smile, a joke, a laugh, and they just live life without a lot of 'moodyness', 'depression', and 'soul searching'. Most Brazilians are good natured, friendly, and will split their last beer with you.

They smile and laugh and 'good nature' their way through life, and its infectous. I know people who went to Brazil and didn't come back, they were so mind blown by the place. There certainly is poverty, it isn't club med, but there is a spirit there strength there despite what they don't have. People will make do with whatever they have.

There is only the rich and the poor, and not really a middle class in Brazil, which is why Carnaval is so big in Brazil, because during Carnaval you are equal with everyone else no matter what you do or have. During Carnaval you're judged on whether you can smile or laugh, and after being around all the high spirits you feel your feet lifting a couple of inches off the ground.

But don't ge me wrong, anytime you go is the right time, and I'm suggesting that it's a good destination for anybody to check out how to really live no matter what your problems or dilemmas. Life is so simple in Brazil, and that's its attraction, it's too hot to go around grumpy, mean, hating yourself or others.

It's just not good for the soul, it's photo-op heavan. There are Afro-Brazilians who are as black as the ace of spades with blue and green and hazel eyes, blonde hair, every type of shade and color and mix you can imagine. There is a large German community, the biggest population of Japanese outside of Japan are located in Brazil. Classic cars that have been long gone here, are still put-putting around some parts of Brazil.

Here in the west coast of the states a lot of people walk around with that 'leave me the hell alone' look, you don't have that in South America and Brazil, people will walk up to and start talking to you like they've known you for twenty years. If you're lost, have trouble making change, need help, a brazilian will likely show up with asking, and help you.

I love the place, because people there know how to live and enjoy life, period. I go every chance I get, because of how good it makes me feel, and because its exotic and photogenic everywhere. I just think you can get too serious about life, myself included, and I recommend traveling to South America on how to get back in touch with just enjoying life.

Walter...I hope I can live long enough to see all of South America and it's people and places.

[John P. Ginneyheister]

There is a difference between stealing beauty and creating it. When photographers learn to create beauty rather than steal it, they become true artists. Until then, they are just a bunch of wannabes.

-John

[Brian Ellis]

One of my favorite comments about photography, which I think could be said in response to your statements, was made by John Szarkowski. "The simplicity of photography lies in the fact that it is very easy to make a picture. The staggering complexity of it lies in the fact that a thousand other pictures of the same subject would have been equally easy." I've always liked that. As applied to your statements about everyone doing the same thing, what Mr. Szarkowski's statement means to me is that everyone isn't doing the same thing and in factit's virtually impossible for everyone to do the same thing even if he or she tried. I could plant my tripod exactly where Ansel Adams planted his for one of his great photographs and I could make literally thousands of photographs that were different from his and from each other, just from that one spot.

[Jim Chinn]

In response to Wes, I am lucky, for I still make photographs of the things that interest me and then see if any of them are worth something to others.

For Chirs, I understand what you are saying, nature photography seems to be the overwhelming use for "artistic" phtography. But if we look close at that premise, I think that seems to be the case because most photo publications dedicate a large portion of content to the genre. The general public excepts landscape and nature as the most popular use of the medium because of the packaging of Ansel Adams and to a lesser extent Weston. If you want a reproduction of a photograph in poster form what do people see? Adam's Moonrise, Half Dome, Clearing Winter Storm, Aspens etc. I don't see to many Ralph Gibson, Robert Frank, Eugene Smith, Brett Weston, Robert Adams, Winnogard, Evans, White, Siskind, Clark, Bullock, Heinecken, Brandt posters and calanders.

There are those who are pushing the boundries or at least exploring other genres. Most of it goes on with other formats, I think Large Format has become synonomous with landscape for a lot of people. That is why I first purchased a LF. But I think those who are dedicated to improving thier craft explore many other avenues of expression. To Steve Simmons credit, he presents quite a few in View Camera. But I know people upon learning that a print I made of old cars from the 40s placed along a river bank for erosion control was made with an 8x10 change the conversation from the content and compostion of the print to "why waste an 8x10 tranny, couldn't you have gotten it with 35mm?"

[Keith Laban]

Photography or Art?

Although I am a painter and photographer I have great difficulty defining what is, and what is not 'Art'. The following are my personal observations and definately not a difinitive answer to the question.

When I am wearing my photographer's hat (not wide brimmed or literally you understand!) most of my work is nature and horticulture and although I take great pains to achieve a pleasing composition, with good lighting and a technically competent photograph, I would not describe the result as 'Art'. They are photographs pure and simple.

When wearing my artist's smock (again not literally, please believe me!) the paintings I produce are very personal statements exhibited in art galleries and as such I would not argue if they were described as 'Art'. "Works of Art" suggest that they are of great importance which thank God is not for me to decide!

However, if still wearing the smock I decide not to use oil or water colours and choose to use photographic media to produce an artwork and subsequently exhibit the result in an art gallery, again I would have no objection if the result was described as 'Art'.

When I do a search on the web, for 'Art Photography' most of the results turn out to be large format scenic or nude photographs, a lot of which are in black and white.

Is a photograph taken with a large format camera 'Art'?

Is a photograph of a nude 'Art'?

Is a scenic photograph 'Art'?

Is a black and white photograph 'Art'?

My answer to all the above.... probably not.

However, I have seen photographs taken on various formats, in colour and in black in white, of scenes, nudes and all manner of subjects that I would not hesitate to describe as 'Works of Art'! Photographs of great importance.

[Saulius]

Chris, I feel you were trying to bring forth a sincere discussion in regards to the landscape as art and subject matter in photography. I will try to keep my comments brief as I could ramble on and on about this since it is a topic close to my heart. Firstly, you seem to have come to the conclusion (if I understand your statements correctly) that many individuals are photographing pristine landscapes in a similar fashion, style, technique etc. Because so many are out there doing it, and have done it for years and years it should no longer be considered as an artistic subject. You seem to think this somehow invalidates such images as having artistic value and can only be thought of as "pretty" pictures. I do agree with you that there are many seemingly similar and repetitive images of landscapes, but the same can be said of most any photographic subject, be it portraits, still life, nudes, street photography etc. I personally don't seek out the exact same places other photographers have been to but even if I do wind up in Yosemite, which is A. Adams territory it does not mean I can not and should not photograph there. Chris, you state that people are missing the whole point of art but I disagree. Just because a photographic image does not break some new ground showing us the world in a new light in which hasn't been done before does not invalidate it as art. Personally, I do differentiate the various landscape images out there, for I don't view everyone as a successful one. But when I see landscape images which employ good composition, interesting lighting, color if not b/w and is skillfully crafted I am often finding myself drawn into it. Part of the reason is because I think art is in the eye of the beholder. What one sees as art, another may see as garbage. Art can be pretty or gritty, it can be of familiar subjects or seldom seen ones, it can come in all sorts of shapes and forms. If you find these landscape images as inartistic, it might be because you just don't relate to the subject. When I lived in the city of Chicago and attended college there I took some photography courses and found my choice of subject matter, the landscape, in the minority. I felt I wasn't taken seriously because I wasn't trying to "push the envelope" in my choice of subject. I truly believe these individuals who looked down on me simply couldn?t relate to the images I took because they were so distant from the subject. They were city dwellers who were only interested in the doings of other people in the city. This is fine, but it doesn't mean anything outside that couldn't and shouldn't be considered as art. The natural landscape has become a lifelong love for me. I found myself taking vacations to various national parks and wilderness areas, going to state parks and driving for hours on the weekends trying to find places that haven't become farmland or paved over with most of the natural processes and other living things being wiped out. (Although I did and do at times photograph such things.) This love of the natural world has brought me to the Pacific Northwest so I can live closer to such places and have more access to them. I did try photographing in my "back yard", for Chicago is a large city with much to offer. But over and over I found myself going back to the more natural landscape as subject matter. I can't speak for other photographers but for me it is simply a love of the land and a connection I feel in my inner core to the land when out there photographing away from the noise and fast pace of urban life. It satisfies a yearn to try to be more in tune with this planet we call home. Chris, instead of telling people that they should abandon landscapes as subject matter, maybe start a discussion on how to make it more relevant to others, how to expand on it's interpretation photographically and how to keep it a serious subject matter which I think it is and really deserves. And for those interested in this one place to start, if you can find a copy is with a book called Between Home and Heaven. Contemporary American Landscape Photography. published in 1992. Best regards, Saulius Eidukas (Portland, OR)

[kaphotography]

Really their is a old saying...

"there is nothing new under the sun"

If you look into such things as Jazz they still play the same old things these days as when they started out many years ago. Nothing really has changed except the gear they play it on.

I'm from Australia and yes we have the same thing happening here, 1,000,000 pics of Ayres Rock. but theior is still a sense of calmness around that rock, the light is different everytime, the seasons bring different looks, eg Spring with lots of rain bring the wildflowers etc etc.

And the general public still like looking at the same well know areas.

If I ever get to America i'll be in those well known spots not to copy someone elses image but to create my own and really that is art. It maybe the same scene but we all see it different. And that's what makes one artist different than the next

[Rob Pietri]

I would just like to THANKS all the contributors and Chris for this excellent discussion. No nuts and bolts, just good creative input. Though I think the gentleman with the new Ebony camera should not wait until he becomes proficient before exploring his favorite location. Photographers should just go out and quite beating around the bush. Either just take your new camera right out into the field and work with it, or take what you are proficient at go work with that equipment. DOn't waste time! Photography is time.

For me, photogaphy is proactive, get out there and expose film, you see something that strikes you, don't stand there and try to do a self Freudian analization as to why. Just shot the damn thing the best way you can. Then develope it and print what you want. If you accomplish what you set out to do, GREAT, analyze why! If you failed, so what, analyze why. No one has to see your failures but you, and only as long as they stay out of the garbage can. Or maybe you do have something good and you just do not realize it yet. Then file it away and look at it in a month or a year or two. You may then discover you do have something worth while to print.

My feeling is, if you cannot find interesting subject matter to inturpret in your own backyard, then chances are you will have trouble in somebody elses.

[Marcus Leonard]

I have the impression that many large format photographers are in fact in love with their equipment, and that taking photographs is merely a celebration of this love. Which easily leads to calendar photography.