The Grand Gallery in Horseshoe Canyon Utah [Archive]

austin granger

30-Aug-2012, 17:41

When I was there (2005 I think) you could. I will say though that it is a pretty tough trek to get there if it's a hot day and you're carrying a lot of weight and are in fairly poor shape (eh-hem). It's absolutely worth it though! Even though I didn't come home with a spectacular photograph, I look back on that day as one of my favorites spent in Utah (and that's saying a lot).

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5133/5476446547_52907f3a87_o.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/austingranger/

austin granger

30-Aug-2012, 17:42

To be clear, when I wrote "poor shape" I wasn't implying you Kirk but me.

Kirk Gittings

30-Aug-2012, 20:17

Well I "assumed" you meant me and you would have been right. Although I did some serious day hiking this spring at Canyon of the Ancients with my full 4x5 kit and survived and actually made some decent images too.

The Barrier Canyon Style rock art at the Great Gallery in Horseshoe Canyon is something I want to get to before I get much older. It is perhaps the best rock art site in the country. The BCS rock art at Buckhorn Wash just wet my appetite for Horseshoe Canyon. Some of my faaaar distant ancestors came over the Bering Strait about 11,000 years ago and I am fascinated by early man in the Americas. Some of the Barrier Canyon Style rock art is Early Archaic and perhaps as old as 8,000 years (most likely these are closer to 4,000 t0 2000 years old). But never-the-less they probably represent the first great artistic expression on this continent.

austin granger

30-Aug-2012, 23:30

While this might be odd to say on a photography forum, I have yet to see a picture that does justice to the Great Gallery. Standing beneath those giant figures (they're much larger than you think), one can't help but be overcome with a feeling of awe, of vast time and mystery and shared humanity. There were a lot of people on the day that I was there, and I think it's safe to say that all of us experienced a deep sense of wonder.

Good luck Kirk. I look forward to seeing what you bring back.

Kirk Gittings

31-Aug-2012, 06:46

Austin, Do you remember the orientation of the alcove. IE does it run north to south and get morning or afternoon light etc.?

Peter York

31-Aug-2012, 07:49

I did not have a compass with me in the canyon, but it largely faces west. Thus, it gets morning light, but I'm not sure how early. If you enter from the west rim, you can camp at the trailhead. I would advise a really early start. I think the hike is about 3.5 mi. each way, but it is primarily on sand, and takes a bit of time. Entering from the east rim, the hike is much shorter, but the roads to the trailhead are rougher.

You can download a PDF from the NPS that gives a great overview of the archaeology. http://www.nps.gov/cany/planyourvisit/horseshoecanyon.htm

I agree with Austin, I have not seen a photo that does this site justice. Good luck Kirk!

Vaughn

31-Aug-2012, 08:33

...But never-the-less they probably represent the first great artistic expression on this continent.

I don't know about that. It seems like saying that bed-sheet size photographs are the first great artistic expression of the photographic arts. They are big, they are relatively archival, but the "first great..." is ignoring song, story-telling, basket-making and pottery as important forms of art. I would love to see this someday, but have little interest in photographing them...but I do not have the more recent connection of being a descendent of those who came over to the Americas prior to the Europeans. Though of course we all are related back there in time somewhere.

I made a few photographs of rock art in Australia, but have no intention of showing them as my art...but still pretty neat stuff.

austin granger

31-Aug-2012, 08:36

Yes, like Peter said, I think the earlier the better. And then you could always hang around all day if you wanted to-it's not like you'd get bored. I didn't get there until mid-afternoon and at that time of the day (it was in October) the figures were pretty faint. For the above picture, I actually "burned" down each figure separately in photoshop! Now I have them memorized. :) Also, as Peter said, the hike is along a sandy river bed and so is slow going. It's gorgeous though. Besides those wonderful Utah-red rock walls, I remember clouds of colorful butterflies and a couple of cool cave/overhangs.

Ivan J. Eberle

31-Aug-2012, 09:24

Kirk, I can tell you that the light is nicely bounced around in the late afternoon, but the GG faces E. NOT W. There were ropes 3 years ago. A 135mm on 4x5 can get the GG all in. Color film rather than B+W is needed for separating tones as the contrast is low.
That hike into and especially out of the GG seemed a lot farther than 7 mi to me, maybe die to the sand, but also due to the heat in Oct and the climb out in the dark. There may be no water along the route, I'd suggest taking several quarts.
There are also other galleries on the way in, one high up on a W facing wall that'd work well only with a long tele straight on from the opposite side.
Much easier to get to and perhaps even stranger is Book Cliffs(Sego) near Thompson Springs.

Peter York

31-Aug-2012, 09:54

My bad, Ivan is right, the gallery faces East. Its been a long week.

Peter York

31-Aug-2012, 09:59

Kirk Gittings

31-Aug-2012, 11:52

I don't know about that. It seems like saying that bed-sheet size photographs are the first great artistic expression of the photographic arts. They are big, they are relatively archival, but the "first great..." is ignoring song, story-telling, basket-making and pottery as important forms of art. I would love to see this someday, but have little interest in photographing them...but I do not have the more recent connection of being a descendent of those who came over to the Americas prior to the Europeans. Though of course we all are related back there in time somewhere.

I made a few photographs of rock art in Australia, but have no intention of showing them as my art...but still pretty neat stuff.

If it wasn't totally obvious that I was talking about the visual arts let me state it. Visual Arts. By the way this is not my personal revelation-it came from Pre-Columbian art historians. The only thing early that is comparable is Olmec in Mexico but it at most is 2000 years ago-no where near as old as this work might be. Most of this work is pre-pottery and pottery did not flourish graphically till much later and basketry was pretty utilitarian then too. So if this work is as old as as many experts think, it pretty much stands alone in the mid to late archaic period. Mayan, Aztec, Mimbres, Chaco, Hohokam, Casas Grandes, Cahokian-all with great art traditions-all came much later.

Kirk Gittings

31-Aug-2012, 12:01

Kirk, I've mentioned to Chauncey Walden about trying to put together a trip to Coomb Ridge, maybe even Cedar Mesa, sometime. There are some amazing sites to see there, all relatively short hikes (2-6 mi.). I could guide a group, and since I'm 37 I can mule some equip. for folks, if we have enough 4x4's. Let me know if you are interested.

I'd be up for it in the abstract-no idea for a given time. Work is so scarce that I'd have to take it if it came along. I also have another artist residency in the spring too-though I don't have a firm date yet.

Kirk Gittings

31-Aug-2012, 12:14

I made a few photographs of rock art in Australia, but have no intention of showing them as my art...but still pretty neat stuff.

Pardon me if I am reading too much into this statement. What are you trying to say here? That they are not great images or that one can't photograph others art work and make it their own? Could be an interesting discussion. From my point of view photographing architecture commercially and personally, I am always photographing someone else's art work one way or another regardless of whether it is pre-historic, historic or contemporary. I am never really documenting anything, but interpreting others art work and it is in that interpretation where my art oftentimes lies.

Kirk Gittings

31-Aug-2012, 12:23

Here I am while doing my residency at Canyon of the Ancients (like a pig in shit!). Photo courtesy of the Bureau of Land Management, Wayne Rice photographer. If I could make enough of a living shooting archeology, I woud do little else.

austin granger

31-Aug-2012, 13:53

If I could make enough of a living shooting archeology, I woud do little else. I like to nominate myself as your assistant if you get that gig. Seriously, if you are reading this and you are a Wealthy Patron/Archeologist/Adventurer, I want you to know that I'm available for assignment-send me somewhere! Anywhere!

It seems to me that in some sense, everything we photograph is someone/something else's work.

Vaughn

31-Aug-2012, 15:10

Kirk, no it was not clear you were referring to only visual art, and I believe the utility of basket weaving and pottery does not change its value as 'art'. Perhaps present art historians are captivated by the size and magnificance of the GG, but in the end we do not have the proper perspective to make such judgements.

My viewpoint is totally personal. What others do is up to them. Most images I have seen of the work of rock art tend to be more documentary than personal expression or interpretation, and I see the attempts pretty much like I see images
of street people...stolen goods. There are notable exceptions -- some of John Pfahl's work comes to mind:

http://johnpfahl.com/pages/newwmissileglyphs/01missileglyphmenu.html

And your work and interpretation, Kirk, I have always liked. Primarily, I have no 'why' to photograph rock art. I use the light reflecting off the landscape to explore my relationship to a place. Perhaps someday that "why' will intersect with rock art and you might see some images with rock art by me. Whenever I say "I don't", I tend to ask myself, "Why not?"

Keeps me on my toes.

Drew Wiley

31-Aug-2012, 15:17

Most archaeology photography is pretty boring. It helps to have a view camera, but you're
mostly taking shots of grids in the ground. If you want something creative, you might try
shots of Bigfoot splattered on windshields. But taking personal images of things like petroglyphs is indeed fun. Interpreting them is a bit more difficult. Imagine trying to decipher gang graffiti a thousand years from now!

Kirk Gittings

31-Aug-2012, 16:25

And your work and interpretation, Kirk, I have always liked. Primarily, I have no 'why' to photograph rock art. I use the light reflecting off the landscape to explore my relationship to a place. Perhaps someday that "why' will intersect with rock art and you might see some images with rock art by me. Whenever I say "I don't", I tend to ask myself, "Why not?"

Keeps me on my toes.

Thank you and I yours-for many years. For me personally the ubiquitous "natural" landscape has no real meaning as I don't believe there is such a thing-there are only degrees of man-altered landscapes. Once I acknowledged that I found human history and cultures as it is manifested or mentally layered on the landscape to be the most personally interesting thing to photograph.

As per "but in the end we do not have the proper perspective to make such judgements". I whole heartedly disagree-the evidence is there and everything is not equal.

Vaughn

31-Aug-2012, 17:01

Art taken out of its original context is slippery. Intellectualizing about ancient "prehistoric" art is interesting and gives us a handle to discuss it by, but I am wary about making judgements about it based on modern thought processes and ways of seeing the world.

'Everything is natural' and 'Nothing is natural' are pretty much the same statement.

Pretty amazing stuff coming from the use of radar to 'see' under the jungles of South America...radically changing what we thought was the level and intensity of civilization down there before the Europeans first arrived. And I suppose the much higher population levels might change how we look at possible interactions with peoples of the North American continent.

Kirk Gittings

31-Aug-2012, 17:27

Sure knowledge grows as more is discovered. Mayan influence up the Mississippi into Cahokia Illinois is well documented (probably via trade routes), but again this is long after the archaic period. Mesoamerican influence into New Mexico is well documented too but again long after the earliest of this rock art style-so it doesn't impact my point. Neither the Mayan civilization or the Aztec existed at this point. While I am no expert I have studied this both as an undergraduate and in graduate school and informally continually since I was in junior high school. I keep up with these subjects because new world archeology fascinates me. I just read through two doctoral dissertations on this subject in the last two weeks (not read in depth of course-I'm not that nutty).

I guess I don't understand your point? No one is to make generalizations till all the evidence is in? When exactly is that?

Vaughn

31-Aug-2012, 17:46

...I guess I don't understand your point? No one is to make generalizations till all the evidence is in? When exactly is that?

Not even close to my point, I am afraid. Sorry that I am not making myself very clear. There is no evidence to come in since there probably will never be any physical evidence of what a pre-history people's thought process was like...just speculation. Examples of their art do help. But as Drew mentioned, impossible to interpret...tho that was not the way you mean by 'interpreting' the rock art.