View Full Version : ‘Pure’ Landscape Photography Versus Including the Human Element
This is pretty pollution
I'd rather we all tell truth
‘Pure’ Landscape Photography Versus Including the Human Element
https://petapixel.com/2022/04/08/pure-landscape-photography-versus-including-the-human-element/
Peter Lewin
9-Apr-2022, 05:14
The author of the article implies that including the human element in landscape is a fairly current trend. I would suggest that it goes back at least as far as Robert Adams, whose landscapes of the West specifically chose to include the hand of man. Personally, landscapes without a sign of human presence do not resonate with me, I always try to include the tell-tale proof that someone has been there before me in my own images.
Is Christopher Jordon still making photographs ? He was quite involved with photographing the "human element" ...
Richard Wasserman
9-Apr-2022, 07:05
The author of the article implies that including the human element in landscape is a fairly current trend. I would suggest that it goes back at least as far as Robert Adams, whose landscapes of the West specifically chose to include the hand of man. Personally, landscapes without a sign of human presence do not resonate with me, I always try to include the tell-tale proof that someone has been there before me in my own images.
I'm with Peter. While I understand the impulse to make so called "Pure" photographs, but I don't subscribe to the myth of the pure landscape and personally feel this is a genre that has been done to death. Humans have been modifying the world around them for hundreds of thousands of years and the pace has certainly accelerated more recently. I think it is important to show the world as it really is with all it's imperfections and foibles. Even Ansel Adams photographed from parking areas...
The camera club competitions with "hand of man" designations look at this stuff a lot.
Saw one that won a competition as Natural Landscape. Pointed out "hand of man" showed big time as the mountains all showed the CCC lines that had been trenched across the slopes during the Depression years in the USA. Another photographer pointed it out to them - but it apparently didn't register.
Landscapes are what the are, fenceposts - tires - roads and all.
Art or Not Art
https://www.artsy.net/artwork/atomic-bomb-experiment-atomic-test-nevada-proving-ground?utm_medium=p-shopping&utm_source=adwords&utm_campaign=MarketingBNMO_ShoppingUSOnly_1-5k&gclid=CjwKCAjw3cSSBhBGEiwAVII0Z-SuUANXLMCiqk_z7tPw29U82PrkRYeY6T8viX69kNS6zBmt6Kb_JBoCMakQAvD_BwE
What is a 'Pure' landscape? Here in the UK ALL our landscapes are a result of man's intervention. Just because they do not show a clearly obvious element made by man does not mean that the landscape is natural and therefore it is hard to define it as 'Pure'.
Drew Wiley
9-Apr-2022, 11:59
"Purity" is best embraced by headlessness. That philosophy certainly worked for Robespierre.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51152090424_61022e9893_z.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/jpir4j)Atomic Bomb (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/jpir4j) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr
What is a 'Pure' landscape? Here in the UK ALL our landscapes are a result of man's intervention...
Olaf Sztaba, who wrote the PetaPixel article, is from Poland and emigrated to Canada in the late 1990s. I'm sure that he's well aware of man's influence on the landscape in Europe. He may have in mind places where the impact of man (leaving aside climate change) is minimal to none, not hard to find in British Columbia where he lives, but I think that he's talking about landscape photography that overtly incorporates references to people and their presence.
Sztaba clarifies what he means in this sentence:
...upon studying the works of [Canadians] Ned Pratt [and] Edward Burtynsky, [Swede] Jan Töve, and [American] Chuck Kimmerle, to name a few, I became fascinated with contemporary landscape photography or landscape which includes traces of human activity. It might be Edward Burtynsky’s image of a huge copper mine or the subtle and delicate image of a simple signpost embedded in the winter landscape as seen and crafted by Jan Töve.
I think that the examples, and related comments in his piece, make his meaning fairly clear.
By the way, Mr. Sztaba publishes two magazines, Medium Format (https://mediumformat.com) and Elements (https://www.elementsphotomag.com). The latter focuses on landscape photography.
Note: Ned Pratt's website seems to focus entirely on his commercial work and portraits. In this context, that's too bad because Newfoundland and Labrador, where he lives, is a really good example of a place where a landscape photographer has a choice between untouched nature and nature with a human element.
Is Christopher Jordon still making photographs ? He was quite involved with photographing the "human element" ...
Jordan updated the About page on his website (https://www.beautyemerging.com) in 2021.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Jordan_(artist)
Read and looked at his sight
Great!
Jordan updated the About page on his website (https://www.beautyemerging.com) in 2021.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Jordan_(artist)
Humans are social animals, despite a tendency of some to be unsociable. The immediate viewer response to images with people and/or signs of humans is different from that to images without signs of the hand of man. Since my work is primarily about the light on the landscape, I tend to direct the attention of the viewer with light --- without the distraction of human elements taking the viewer into a social direction (who is that? where is this? what happened next?) instead of the visual direction I was hoping for.
And I like working alone. But it is not all one way and none of the other.
Sometime people creep into my images...or something real concrete helps to create the light I want to use.
Jordan updated the About page on his website (https://www.beautyemerging.com) in 2021.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Jordan_(artist)
he went from one extreme to the other, which is pretty amazing !
unfortunately when I clicked on the images on his splash page I got blank pages .. I read his "about " and it was pretty amazing,
he went from one extreme to the other, which is pretty amazing !
unfortunately when I clicked on the images on his splash page I got blank pages .. I read his "about " and it was pretty amazing,
I just had a look at his code. He's using Squarespace (https://www.squarespace.com/websites-start/?channel=pbr&subchannel=go&campaign=pbr-go-us-en-squarespacealone-e&subcampaign=(squarespace-alone_squarespace_e)&gclid=CjwKCAjw3cSSBhBGEiwAVII0Z6NF9VuuKUndGEJaswrA9TRWEtUZ8VZFGvRPxpPYx34DaCAxcuvMeBoC810QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds). Maybe try a different browser? On Safari, his site is working fine.
Michael R
10-Apr-2022, 04:57
Ned Pratt’s book One Wave is terrific. He’s the son of two great Canadian painters - Christopher Pratt (one of my favourites, and still working) and Mary Pratt who was a photorealist.
Olaf Sztaba, who wrote the PetaPixel article, is from Poland and emigrated to Canada in the late 1990s. I'm sure that he's well aware of man's influence on the landscape in Europe. He may have in mind places where the impact of man (leaving aside climate change) is minimal to none, not hard to find in British Columbia where he lives, but I think that he's talking about landscape photography that overtly incorporates references to people and their presence.
Sztaba clarifies what he means in this sentence:
...upon studying the works of [Canadians] Ned Pratt [and] Edward Burtynsky, [Swede] Jan Töve, and [American] Chuck Kimmerle, to name a few, I became fascinated with contemporary landscape photography or landscape which includes traces of human activity. It might be Edward Burtynsky’s image of a huge copper mine or the subtle and delicate image of a simple signpost embedded in the winter landscape as seen and crafted by Jan Töve.
I think that the examples, and related comments in his piece, make his meaning fairly clear.
By the way, Mr. Sztaba publishes two magazines, Medium Format (https://mediumformat.com) and Elements (https://www.elementsphotomag.com). The latter focuses on landscape photography.
Note: Ned Pratt's website seems to focus entirely on his commercial work and portraits. In this context, that's too bad because Newfoundland and Labrador, where he lives, is a really good example of a place where a landscape photographer has a choice between untouched nature and nature with a human element.
neil poulsen
10-Apr-2022, 05:51
Without meaning to offend, isn't this conversation kind of irrelevant? With or without elements of landscape, with or without elements of human involvement, isn't it all about what makes a worthwhile image? The "strongest way of seeing?"
What the heck does "pure," mean?
It strikes me though, what is almost totally human, is the ability to appreciate a photographic image, to see worth in an image.
Tin Can
10-Apr-2022, 06:16
Every human endeavor is fast becoming irreverent
Our Earth will heal
We will not
Cheers!
Without meaning to offend, isn't this conversation kind of irrelevant? With or without elements of landscape, with or without elements of human involvement, isn't it all about what makes a worthwhile image? The "strongest way of seeing?"
What the heck does "pure," mean?
It strikes me though, what is almost totally human, is the ability to appreciate a photographic image, to see worth in an image.
Jim Jones
10-Apr-2022, 07:35
The Japanese woodblock artist Hokusai often placed tiny humans in expansive prints, perhaps to remind us of our insignificance in the universe. His famous "Breaking Wave at Kanagawa" shows the wave towering over boatmen who may be about to die, while in the distance a stylized Mt. Fuji serenely reminds us of eternity. Perhaps Hokusai was reminding us of the Japanese saying, "Though nations may crumble, the mountains remain."
Without meaning to offend, isn't this conversation kind of irrelevant? With or without elements of landscape, with or without elements of human involvement, isn't it all about what makes a worthwhile image? The "strongest way of seeing?"
What the heck does "pure," mean?
It strikes me though, what is almost totally human, is the ability to appreciate a photographic image, to see worth in an image.
You'e essentially saying that one should regard the content of a photograph, when assessing it, as irrelevant. That's a perspective, not universally shared.
I have no interest in traditional landscape photographs. That includes Ansel Adams's work. Post #4 says "Even Ansel Adams photographed from parking areas..." That's the problem. Adams was in the business of creating a fantasy America, which is why he made photographs from the parking lot, not photographs of it. Apart from the obvious technical merit, I think that Adams's work is not ageing well, and that his reputation is largely propped up by Americans who put him on a quasi-religious pedestal. I see him as a landscape photography version of Norman Rockwell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Rockwell).
Ed Burtynsky directly challenged this fantasy portrayal of the world. Post #3 mentions Christopher Jordan, a former participant in this forum from Seattle. Jordan picked up on Burtynsky and went in the same direction with his own projects. Look at Jordan's early photographs and the influence of Burtynsky is patent. That said, Jordan has certainly gone his own way, and carved out his own identity, since. For this forum, Jordan is an exception, and note that he stopped participating here long ago. In 2022, almost all of the participants in the forum who make landscape photographs remain in the traditional mode. I see American landscape photographers going to the same exact spots at the same small list of national parks to make the same images over and over and over, like a pilgrimage. I wonder, "Why are they doing this?"
And photographers keep making the exact same head-and-shoulder images of people over and over and over and over again. What a strange compulsion.
Photographs of people on the street, over and over and over and over again.
:cool:
And photographers keep making the exact same head-and-shoulder images of people over and over and over and over again. What a strange compulsion.
Photographs of people on the street, over and over and over and over again.
:cool:
Different photographers arrange to take the same head and shoulders photograph of the same person in the same location over and over?
How do different street photographers do this? Do they hire the same actors and stage the photos with the same blocking?
I'm not surprised that you disagree with what I said in post #20, but I would have expected a substantive response, not one based on analogies that don't make any sense and that fails to address the thrust of what I'm saying.
You'e essentially saying that one should regard the content of a photograph, when assessing it, as irrelevant. That's a perspective, not universally shared.
I have no interest in traditional landscape photographs. That includes Ansel Adams's work. Post #4 says "Even Ansel Adams photographed from parking areas..." That's the problem. Adams was in the business of creating a fantasy America, which is why he made photographs from the parking lot, not photographs of it. Apart from the obvious technical merit, I think that Adams's work is not ageing well, and that his reputation is largely propped up by Americans who put him on a quasi-religious pedestal. I see him as a landscape photography version of Norman Rockwell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Rockwell).
Ed Burtynsky directly challenged this fantasy portrayal of the world. Post #3 mentions Christopher Jordan, a former participant in this forum from Seattle. Jordan picked up on Burtynsky and went in the same direction with his own projects. Look at Jordan's early photographs and the influence of Burtynsky is patent. That said, Jordan has certainly gone his own way, and carved out his own identity, since. For this forum, Jordan is an exception, and note that he stopped participating here long ago. In 2022, almost all of the participants in the forum who make landscape photographs remain in the traditional mode. I see American landscape photographers going to the same exact spots at the same small list of national parks to make the same images over and over and over, like a pilgrimage. I wonder, "Why are they doing this?"
I understand what you are saying, but I think a lot of people who do what they do, do it because it makes them happy / brings them joy like "beauty". Nothing wrong with that, we all have to do something to keep on keeping on if you know what I mean.
Doremus Scudder
10-Apr-2022, 09:33
There is not a single person in any of the photographs I make. I strive to keep them out, waiting hours at times to get a human-free view of a city street or interior. I make landscapes without any trace of human activity in them - they are one of my larger bodies of work. I make "humanscapes"; images of how humanity interacts with the land, and cityscapes - all without a single person appearing in the image.
Nevertheless, my work is all about people; their feelings, stories, histories, future and past. Even my "pure" landscapes are analogs of the human spirit.
One does not need a visible "human element" to evoke humanity.
Doremus
Adams was in the business of creating a fantasy America .....
Isn't that what most photographers do? And today's use of Photoshop is simply exacerbating the fantasy aspect of photographic imagery.
...I'm not surprised that you disagree with what I said in post #20, but I would have expected a substantive response, not one based on analogies that don't make any sense and that fails to address the thrust of what I'm saying.
Actually, my response was on the same level as your 'thrust'. Which was my response's semi-humorous point. People have been working with the landscape of nature and with the landscape of the human face since photography began, and in art in general, perhaps with the landscape of the human face much longer. You seem to have set up a false argument about a perceived importance of one subject matter over another in order to knock someone else down to prove a point.
Actually, my response was on the same level as your 'thrust'. Which was my response's semi-humorous point. People have been working with the landscape of nature and with the landscape of the human face since photography began, and in art in general, perhaps with the landscape of the human face much longer. You seem to have set up a false argument about a perceived importance of one subject matter over another in order to knock someone else down to prove a point.
No, your post #21 was simply ill-conceived. Your second sentence above states an obvious fact.
It should also be obvious from the first paragraph of my post - "That's a perspective, not universally shared." - that I'm talking about a personal view that I know not everyone shares. I certainly expected that you wouldn't agree. What's your problem with that?
If you want to express a different view, go ahead. If other people can express a coherent and interesting view of their own, which they are, surely you can to.
Or wonderfully conceived, depends on one's POV. :cool:
Edit to add;
Just went through the seven portfolios AA produced over his career. I assume he picked images that were very important to him, fit together as a group, and of course would sell.
Over the 7 portfolios, about a third of the photos have people in them or some signs of the "hand of man".
Michael R
10-Apr-2022, 10:48
Personal/opinion, of course, but almost none of my favourite photographers do “pure” anything, at least philosophically. There are a few out there, though.
I also think Ansel Adams has become a popular target over the years, which is interesting. Hard to say how that will all end up in the future. I’m not convinced the “problem” is that he took pictures from the parking lot versus of the parking lot (admittedly he did occasionally try to erase/remove the “hand of man” but I’m not sure that is relevant). He was largely uninterested in the parking lot, and deeply interested in other things. So what?
John Layton
10-Apr-2022, 15:14
Ha! Years ago in the Jumbo Rocks Campground parking lot in Joshua Tree...getting gear out of the car and eager to traipse off into the desert to photograph the usual trees and rocks - when I noticed, right at my feet in the parking lot next to the car...a tomato slice, glowing and semi-baked into the asphalt.
So instead of traipsing...I set up my 5x7 over the slice - looking straight down - and, ooh...was it perfect! Did four setups, trying out different filters - with the green winning the day. But those negatives are stunning! Hmmm...maybe someday I'll make a print - a huuuuge one! "The Parking Lot Tomato" Limited Edition...of course! :rolleyes:
Tin Can
10-Apr-2022, 15:43
Like!
God dang parking lot snuck into my photo -- and worse, two people were walking in the parking lot!
Peter Lewin
10-Apr-2022, 19:30
I understand what you are saying, but I think a lot of people who do what they do, do it because it makes them happy / brings them joy like "beauty". Nothing wrong with that, we all have to do something to keep on keeping on if you know what I mean.
Ultimately I think this is the answer. There are those in the forum who enjoy taking pictures of trees and waterfalls. We have threads for those. There are also those who enjoy taking pictures of urban scenes and historical buildings. We have threads for them too. In fact, if I go to the "landscapes" thread, I can find a number of pictures that look a heck of a lot like Ansel's view of Yosemite. I'm sure that the forum members who took all of these pictures enjoyed both being there, and the process of making the image. It still comes down to whether one enjoys making images of unvarnished, untouched nature, or whether, like myself, they prefer images that include a man-made stone wall, or telephone pole, or an entire man-made structure. Neither is better or worse, they reflect the images that we each think have value.
Merg Ross
10-Apr-2022, 20:41
It still comes down to whether one enjoys making images of unvarnished, untouched nature, or whether, like myself, they prefer images that include a man-made stone wall, or telephone pole, or an entire man-made structure. Neither is better or worse, they reflect the images that we each think have value.
Hi Peter,
Exactly; well said. Why not both?
Best,
Merg
j.e.simmons
11-Apr-2022, 03:10
Those PSA rules camera clubs use drive me crazy. A landscape cannot contain the hand of man. Tell that to Edward Weston.
fotopfw
11-Apr-2022, 03:44
In the Netherlands it's all very easy, it's not possible to find a landscape that is untouched by humans, past or present. Our country is that small, that every corner is or has been used by man.
Tin Can
11-Apr-2022, 04:06
My interpretation of the Petal Pixel title and story is some of us MUST show our actual reality
‘Pure’ Landscape Photography Versus Including the Human Element (https://petapixel.com/2022/04/08/pure-landscape-photography-versus-including-the-human-element/)
Yes, some 'art' is beautiful even photographs but our modern 'art' imaging legacy is false
I don't enjoy war images, but they are reality without the smell/sound
1970 a coworker back from Vietnam showed us all in the Post Office what he really saw
stacks of 35mm prints
bodies
not in body bags
a naked girl running in Vietnam is very clear in my memory
I copied legally WW11 art poster propaganda in ARTIC archives when exhibited
John Layton
11-Apr-2022, 04:26
I do believe that Edward Weston considered it a politically radical act, especially during wartime, to create photographs without evidence of human activity.
Here are two 'landscapes' from where I live. One shows an apparently near untouched scene of an island and shore, the other an almost totally man influenced scene with numerous obvious man made elements. As far as I'm cincerned both are perfctly valid landscapes but I am not sure that even the apparently untouched one would bear careful scrutiny if printed. There are minor man made elements and the island is not as 'natural' (whatever natural means) as it has been modified in terms of its cover by, man.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=226447&stc=1&d=1649676536
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=226448&stc=1&d=1649676567
Tin Can
11-Apr-2022, 09:10
Elon thinks we need to make off planet
Plans
I do believe that Edward Weston considered it a politically radical act, especially during wartime, to create photographs without evidence of human activity.
Sal Santamaura
11-Apr-2022, 10:51
...Post #4 says "Even Ansel Adams photographed from parking areas..." That's the problem. Adams was in the business of creating a fantasy America, which is why he made photographs from the parking lot, not photographs of it...
We are surrounded by parking lots and much other equally ugly human-created detritus. Adams, like many of us, sought to photograph beauty. You are correct: even when he was actively photographing, the small slices of earth he committed to film were essentially fantasies in the larger context of a planet polluted by and with homo sapiens. He saw, and many of us see, no reason for committing ugliness to photographs. It's everywhere to observe constantly; why bother. Fantasies are escapes from the ugliness of reality.
...Apart from the obvious technical merit, I think that Adams's work is not ageing well, and that his reputation is largely propped up by Americans who put him on a quasi-religious pedestal...
Adams' personal work documented what was in natural areas at the time he photographed them. The images, in addition to their obvious technical merit, have aged much better than many of those natural areas, which since then have suffered greatly from humanity's depredations.
...I see American landscape photographers going to the same exact spots at the same small list of national parks to make the same images over and over and over, like a pilgrimage. I wonder, "Why are they doing this?"
First of all, one cannot make "the exact same images." Many things change, most of all the combinations of weather and light. But most important, those spots have been preserved because they afford views of this country's greatest scenery. That scenery, unlike the ugliness of humanity's "works," is beautiful. Photographic avocations are motivated by those scenes.
I understand what you are saying, but I think a lot of people who do what they do, do it because it makes them happy / brings them joy like "beauty"...John's got it. Also, the two are synergistic: photographing makes happiness and photographing beauty increases it exponentially.
...we all have to do something to keep on keeping on if you know what I mean.Yes, John, I do, but suspect that those who denigrate "pure" landscape photography don't. It seems those who embrace ugliness must be content with anything the world throws at them.
...I also think Ansel Adams has become a popular target over the years, which is interesting...
It's typical. Those who aren't always take shots at those who are successful.
Elon thinks we need to make off planet..I'd be quite content if he left, especially if he took at least seven of earth's eight billion humans with him.
I derived great pleasure from making and printing the attached image, despite visibility (if one knows where to look) of the South Kaibab Trail in it. I make no apologies for excluding extensive infrastructure and numerous humans just outside the frame. When viewing at it on my wall, I fantasize about being there hundreds of years earlier before the landscape had been overrun by our species.
But most important, those spots have been preserved because they afford views of this country's greatest scenery. That scenery, unlike the ugliness of humanity's "works," is beautiful. Photographic avocations are motivated by those scenes.
I would also point out that such places were preserved partially as a reslt of the photographs of them produced by photographers like Carleton Watkins. Yosemite valley was protected as a result in 1864 I believe (by which time 'wilderness' was starting to disappear). Here in the UK we are a little behind and we didn't get National Parks until after WWII and even then they are nothing like wilderness whatsoever. Nevertheless they still motivate photographers who often holiday in them.
Tin Can
11-Apr-2022, 12:00
Well, now we know what you really think
abruzzi
11-Apr-2022, 12:46
I don't enjoy war images, but they are reality without the smell/sound
Well, except maybe the cannonballs on the road:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_the_Shadow_of_Death_(Roger_Fenton)
Ultimately I think this is the answer. There are those in the forum who enjoy taking pictures of trees and waterfalls. We have threads for those. There are also those who enjoy taking pictures of urban scenes and historical buildings. We have threads for them too. In fact, if I go to the "landscapes" thread, I can find a number of pictures that look a heck of a lot like Ansel's view of Yosemite. I'm sure that the forum members who took all of these pictures enjoyed both being there, and the process of making the image. It still comes down to whether one enjoys making images of unvarnished, untouched nature, or whether, like myself, they prefer images that include a man-made stone wall, or telephone pole, or an entire man-made structure. Neither is better or worse, they reflect the images that we each think have value.
Hi Peter,
I don't know if people think about this or not, but to me at least, it seems that people are photographing from trails or overlooks &c are not really photographing unvarnished / untouched landscapes. Maybe it's more of a philosophical thing but if someone hikes on a man made trail or sets their tripod up on a overlook or from a lot / area that was constructed by humans, isn't it touched / varnished? it's presenting a view someone wants others to see ( maybe to the left or on the other side someone might see there is a nickel mine or something else ? ) In other words it's just as much a constructed view as a telephone pole or street furniture or some run down shack. I do understand what you and Sal are talking about though, and I figure people are drawn to what they enjoy. I see a lot of these landscapes a little bit differently ..
It kind of reminds me of the eco-tour groups that bring busloads of people to the Village of Ani in eastern Anatolia. People photograph the ruins of freestanding domed churches with ornate carvings that enwrap the buildings, &c and they just see the area as an interesting archeological site set in a picturesque landscape with Mt Ararat in the distance.. when asked "who made these things" the guides tell them what they are trained to tell them, a bit of revisionist history, and then they go back to the hotel. I see the man made elements that direct people to see a specific view &c ( even if that man made element is a photograph made by someone admired, on this forum, famous &C ) as the same thing, a mechanism for viewing (interpreting with an image) a specific place. ... still, these places are quite beautiful, and I would guess very hard to not be overwhelmed by and difficult to photograph.
tgtaylor
11-Apr-2022, 14:39
Three 19th century views by the Bierstadt brothers, Albert, Charles, and Edward who traveled together during the 1860's and 1870's creating art. All were photographers with Albert making stereoscopic views during the Lander Expedition of 1859 before going on to fame as a painter of the Hudson River School. While Albert was painting, Charles and Edward photographed.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51997215067_140880338a_z.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51998222051_3be667e457_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51998272313_e99a85e902_z.jpg
Both paintings are Yosemite views and the photograph is an albumen print ~16x13".
Thomas
Drew Wiley
11-Apr-2022, 14:54
I rarely like people in my outdoor shots. Sometimes way off in the distance for sense of scale; but I prefer cattle and horses in that respect. But I like to make strong secondary references to human history and presence to add a third dimension of time itself - old dirt roads or crumbling rock walls etc - things which tell a human story worth slowly contemplating about, but not like a pie smack in your face. I like richness of detail according to understatement, things in a picture that reward the thoughtful viewer over time. I'm the Anti-Avedon. The West is about space - no need to brashly smash humanity together nose to nose to appreciate the fact of it. Often landscape metaphors do a better job of it.
As for Elon Musk, I have no objection to him leaving the planet. He's even welcome to take his self-driving cars there. Once mankind does colonize Mars, if ever, we'll just trash it a thousand times faster than we did this world anyway.
Thad Gerheim
11-Apr-2022, 15:24
I don't see what the problem is of doing both. Besides, a little dynamite can take care of those pesky human elements sneaking into your landscapes.:)
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51998632919_e66baaf016_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ndWzXM)sunbeam dam copy (https://flic.kr/p/2ndWzXM) by Thad Gerheim (https://www.flickr.com/photos/191162430@N03/), on Flickr
Drew Wiley
11-Apr-2022, 17:38
A little sick humor .... but lately the technological wonder of cell phone cameras and the fad of selfies has certainly helped reduce the numbers of cliffside gawkers in places like Yosemite and Grand Canyon.
But I like to make strong secondary references to human history and presence to add a third dimension of time itself - old dirt roads or crumbling rock walls etc - things which tell a human story worth slowly contemplating about, but not like a pie smack in your face.
I used to live in North Wales where there are a number of castles built by Edward 1st in the late 13th century. Victorian photos of them show them as crumbling ruins filled with vegetation and pandering very much to a Victorian 'romantic' view of how things should be. Today they are 'neat and tid'y ruins which have been stabilised and fitted with guard rails to make them 'safe'. There is even one with a sign 'Do not climb the walls' (armies failed so I'm not sure that the odd visitor could manage). In short they have been sanitised. The story you suggest, sadly, can no longer be told of them. But I appreciate your idea.
Three 19th century views by the Bierstadt brothers, Albert, Charles, and Edward who traveled together during the 1860's and 1870's creating art. All were photographers with Albert making stereoscopic views during the Lander Expedition of 1859 before going on to fame as a painter of the Hudson River School. While Albert was painting, Charles and Edward photographed.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51997215067_140880338a_z.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51998222051_3be667e457_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51998272313_e99a85e902_z.jpg
Both paintings are Yosemite views and the photograph is an albumen print ~16x13".
Thomas
(using the voice and mannerism of " the diceman" Andrew "Dice" Clay )
"Manifest Destiny! baby ..."
Ironage
12-Apr-2022, 08:10
Is this landscape?
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52000011334_5a7709efef_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ne4DHy)Lost Horizon (https://flic.kr/p/2ne4DHy) by Timothy Gordish (https://www.flickr.com/photos/125171332@N02/), on Flickr
Yeah, but not just landscape.
BrianShaw
12-Apr-2022, 09:37
Is this landscape?
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52000011334_5a7709efef_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ne4DHy)Lost Horizon (https://flic.kr/p/2ne4DHy) by Timothy Gordish (https://www.flickr.com/photos/125171332@N02/), on Flickr
No... it's square.
Tin Can
12-Apr-2022, 09:54
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloatsburg,_New_York#:~:text=Sloatsburg%2C%20New%20York,-From%20Wikipedia%2C%20the
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51934209945_8f08a0410d_z.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/30y0kH)DSCN4267 (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/30y0kH) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51933919519_22c8e43748_z.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/16x206)DSCN4199 (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/16x206) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr
huh?
Tin Can,
How can those be landscapes, there's no land, just other stuff..
and
Ironage, that's water behind that weird contraption that looks like it came from the Wright Brother's bike shop, that can't be a landscape it's Sea ..
Tin Can
12-Apr-2022, 10:20
That was my front yard
I prefered this before the storm
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51371586966_4135d942ea_z.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/kSwZ81)The Witch 36 X 48 inches (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/kSwZ81) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr
huh?
Tin Can,
How can those be landscapes, there's no land, just other stuff..
and
Ironage, that's water behind that weird contraption that looks like it came from the Wright Brother's bike shop, that can't be a landscape it's Sea ..
Ah, the urban landscape.
Rust never sleeps
Drew Wiley
12-Apr-2022, 12:46
I think that odd head - bicycle thing is the gurney monument to the French Revolution, representing the sacredness of the guillotine. It captures the last expression on the face of a man wondering what his selfie would look like as the blade came down. At least that thing is hypothetically capable of being pushed into the ocean out of sight, where it belongs.
Tin Can
12-Apr-2022, 15:20
Drew
Your invisible art is groundbreaking!
Drew Wiley
12-Apr-2022, 17:08
Hardly. I haven't sold any invisible digital images yet for $18,000 or whatever that was. In fact, I don't even have any digital images to show. Mine are all real and tangible, something people long long long ago happened to call prints.
I guess something different will be necessary on the walls of those survival huts on Mars. But I think they'll be tire of red and yellow ochre pretty fast, and by then even money won't be green anymore but lost somewhere in cyber bit-space just like themselves It will all be about recycling everything, so Soylent Green should be the popular hue there. But the graffiti crowd will probably beat them there, just like everywhere else. Time for some spray can painted canals on Mars.
...I don't even have any digital images to show. Mine are all real and tangible, .
You sure about that ? I thought you have a website full of images, or is that a different Drew Wiley ?
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/apr/13/all-participate-edward-burtynsky-photographing-epic-ravaging-of-earth-ukraine
This thread came to mind as soon as I saw this.
Tin Can
13-Apr-2022, 05:42
Just before I saw this post, I was thinking
We forgot
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/apr/13/all-participate-edward-burtynsky-photographing-epic-ravaging-of-earth-ukraine
This thread came to mind as soon as I saw this.
willwilson
18-Jul-2022, 19:29
Why do you care so much? Is there not room for everything?
Honestly, Merg ended the thread earlier and everyone just kept on...me included I guess.
If it's interesting to you take a photo: people, buildings, trash, trees, who cares. Do it because you love it and maybe you will make some art.
Why do you care so much? Is there not room for everything?
Honestly, Merg ended the thread earlier and everyone just kept on...me included I guess.
If it's interesting to you take a photo: people, buildings, trash, trees, who cares. Do it because you love it and maybe you will make some art.
He may be referring to the Guardian article in particular. In any event, he's in the U.K. Maybe have a look at today's news about what's happening with the weather in the U.K. and on the continent. I'd be surprised if he didn't care, and quite a lot.
I'd like to know more about the film he was involved with.
Tin Can
19-Jul-2022, 13:41
When I wrote, include the Human Element
that was an instruction to our future robot overlords
we will not be forgotten
they will study our failures
but we will not get a second chance
I have no interest in traditional landscape photographs. That includes Ansel Adams's work. Post #4 says "Even Ansel Adams photographed from parking areas..." That's the problem. Adams was in the business of creating a fantasy America, which is why he made photographs from the parking lot, not photographs of it.
This resonates with me, though I like Adam's landscapes a lot, and am drawn to traditional landscape. In recent years I have been more conscious of how much the typical Scottish landscape photography (FWIW mine included) goes into great lengths to avoid and/or eliminate any obvious signs of human activity. But landscape, as a genre, is never purely about aesthetics, implicit in the genre is the assertion that it's a depiction of a tangible place, it's always 'a photograph of' (somewhere). Obviously, a photograph always 'lies', but that doesn't mean that it cannot, and therefore doesn't, make assertions about what is out there (same as while language is always ambiguous, it remains an effective means of communication, making lying possible). The heavy collective skew of landscape photography toward the 'pure' means we have constructed a myth of a land that doesn't exist, and that myth shapes a general perception of the land as it is (not). The problem, of course, is that it's difficult to photograph those human intrusions into landscape in a way that make trully compelling photographs, Burtynsky is atypical rather than representative (and it seems to me the examples in the article that started this thread are are on the minor, tame side, not that much of a departure from the norm). But the question I am asking myself is whether there is a point at which 'pure landscape' becomes 'unethical landscape'?
We are social animals. If we see an image with a human in it, the viewer will tend to assume the image is about the human(s). They focus on the figure that is in the landscape...and the relationship between the figure and the landscape.
Thus the figure, as well as color, can be 'distractions' when I work with light. Light as the subject can take the backseat when the viewer's eye hits one's image. The viewer's first impression of the image changes dramatically, and how they then approach the image also. Rarely are my photographs specifically about humans.
The act of having a figure-less ('pure' is BS) is a conscience, valid, and wholly ethical artistic decision.
And yes, Virginia, there is no 'wilderness'.
Sal Santamaura
28-Jul-2022, 08:21
...The heavy collective skew of landscape photography toward the 'pure' means we have constructed a myth of a land that doesn't exist...
Of course it exists. It is, however, surrounded by parking lots and other crap. Nothing's changed in the three and a half months since I posted in this thread:
We are surrounded by parking lots and much other equally ugly human-created detritus. Adams, like many of us, sought to photograph beauty. You are correct: even when he was actively photographing, the small slices of earth he committed to film were essentially fantasies in the larger context of a planet polluted by and with homo sapiens. He saw, and many of us see, no reason for committing ugliness to photographs. It's everywhere to observe constantly; why bother...
Photographs are almost always viewed indoors. Many seek to "bring the outdoors inside" either via windows or by displaying landscape photographs. Bringing in humanity and its infrastructure defeats the purpose:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.