‘Pure’ Landscape Photography Versus Including the Human Element

[Vaughn]

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.

[r.e.]

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.

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.

[jnantz]

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.

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]

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

[pgk]

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.

[Vaughn]

...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.

[r.e.]

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.

[Vaughn]

Or wonderfully conceived, depends on one's POV.

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]

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]

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!