Mental machinations as viewer vs photographer

[MTGseattle]

Just don’t get him mixed up with Paul Reubens!

Ha ha.

 

[MTGseattle]

@Chuck1 The class is Landscape specific. We've had a few discussions in class, and it seems we all allow a pretty wide latitude as far as what subject matter can be "allowed" as landscape. There are a few split opinions as to be expected.
I tend to like the small details and parts of a whole. I can get the required 6-10 prints together for my final with my current negatives, but I'll be reaching a bit.
I've been thinking of "indicators" of the human in the landscape. Trying to isolate 1 definitely man-made thing in an otherwise "natural" composition. That's my current idea for a theme anyway. The trouble with that in the near term is that the class is over in 2 weeks. My idea might not carry through my whole final body of work for the class but it's something I feel good enough about to keep working on after the class.
This will not be crushed beer cans left in the woods. In my head, the images need a bit more consideration than simply photographing refuse.

@snusmumriken I agree. I can see a "trend" if you will when I look through all of my negative binders. I guess I should be happy with that.
I attended a talk given by Michael Kenna back in August. He exhibited evidence of what you are saying. He has "collected" (his term) a lot of bridges and a ton of trees among other things throughout his career.

 

[BrianShaw]

The challenge with classes is often clear identification of the goal. The goal is to get through it with a good grade, not necessarily to have fun or be expressive. Those are bonuses and not necessarily the baseline. In fact, sometimes learning isn’t even the greatest goal. One often has to submit to the program and coddle the whim of the instructor to get through it… and later do one’s own thing.

I, also, prefer small details to wide-angle cast landscapes but perhaps that predilection isn’t consistent with playing the game right. I like your theme!

 

[MTGseattle]

I'm not on a certificate or degree path, my inspiration for the class was simply to force myself back into the darkroom again. I just hope the instructor feels like my presence in the class wasn't a waste of his time. I actually wish he had placed a few more limits on what would be allowed as subjects. Sometimes I need a line to not color outside of or I start wandering into the realm of the conceptual when I should be trying to reign in my technique. A negative that's over exposed and over developed doesn't do me much good.

 

[Pieter12]

@Chuck1 The class is Landscape specific. We've had a few discussions in class, and it seems we all allow a pretty wide latitude as far as what subject matter can be "allowed" as landscape. There are a few split opinions as to be expected.
I tend to like the small details and parts of a whole. I can get the required 6-10 prints together for my final with my current negatives, but I'll be reaching a bit.
I've been thinking of "indicators" of the human in the landscape. Trying to isolate 1 definitely man-made thing in an otherwise "natural" composition. That's my current idea for a theme anyway. The trouble with that in the near term is that the class is over in 2 weeks. My idea might not carry through my whole final body of work for the class but it's something I feel good enough about to keep working on after the class.
This will not be crushed beer cans left in the woods. In my head, the images need a bit more consideration than simply photographing refuse.

@snusmumriken I agree. I can see a "trend" if you will when I look through all of my negative binders. I guess I should be happy with that.
I attended a talk given by Michael Kenna back in August. He exhibited evidence of what you are saying. He has "collected" (his term) a lot of bridges and a ton of trees among other things throughout his career.

Look at the New Topographics movement, particularly Robert Adams, Richard Baltz and Richard Misrach.

 

[VinceInMT]

Perhaps for some inspiration:

Natural Landscape Photography Awards 2023

 

[MTGseattle]

I think I cited the "New Topographics" exhibition in an above post didn't I? It may have been in my other thread which centers more on general mistakes and folly.

I looked back, and I didn't cite that group specifically but distilled it back to the decades involved. I am watching for a copy of that exhibition's book to come up for sale at a "reasonable" price.

@VinceInMT Thank you for the link. In the abstracts and details link that Matt Redfern image really jumps out at me. He got some Van Gogh "Starry Night" into a photograph that if I hazard a guess is a reflection in near-shore ice.

 

[VinceInMT]

I think I cited the "New Topographics" exhibition in an above post didn't I?

You may have but at my age I can’t tell if a memory is real or a deja vu. ;-)

 

[Pieter12]

I am watching for a copy of that exhibition's book to come up for sale at a "reasonable" price.

Good luck. rare as hen's teeth. I thought Steidl might be reprinting it, but I may be mistaken.

Meanwhile, Robert Adams' American Silence is an excellent overview of his work.

 

[ntenny]

[on the New Topographics book]

Good luck. rare as hen's teeth. I thought Steidl might be reprinting it, but I may be mistaken.

They have a page on it, but as far as I can tell there’s no way to order it yet: https://steidl.de/Books/New-Topographics-0537384042.html

At 45 euros, I’d be all over that reprint.

-NT

 

[MTGseattle]

I've been checking the Steidl page every other week for a while now.

 

[MTGseattle]

I have another slightly philosophical query for the group.
I was in a group critique situation recently and I was dealt the comment "if you don't feel strongly about the image your're displaying how can you expect the viewer to feel anything?"

While I understand and somewhat agree, I also question whether a photograph that contains zero people can really influence a viewer that much?

We could backtrack a bit and wonder why I would submit an image I wasn't necessarily jazzed about for critique anyway. I needed to submit 8-10 images and I struggled to get them all done.

If we limit ourselves to a more traditional interpretation of "landscape" as subject, can I make an image that is designed to anger the viewer? to make the viewer happy? I'm just not sure we have that much latitude without taking into account that one person's happy might be another person's sad and so forth.

 

[MattKing]

If we limit ourselves to a more traditional interpretation of "landscape" as subject, can I make an image that is designed to anger the viewer? to make the viewer happy?

Take a look at Edward Burtynsky's work to see if there are answers to your questions there.

 

[MTGseattle]

I'm pretty familiar with most of his work. As a "fresh" audience I was initially struck by the beauty in the imagery and then dismayed by the elements causing the "beauty." (Manufactured Landscapes)
It took me knowing what was happening within the images to arrive at the stance of an "informed" viewer.

 

[awty]

While I understand and somewhat agree, I also question whether a photograph that contains zero people can really influence a viewer that much?

Of course you can, but you have to have a passion for your picture. If you have no passion for what you are doing then you can't expect anyone else does either.

 

[Don_ih]

I was in a group critique situation recently and I was dealt the comment "if you don't feel strongly about the image your're displaying how can you expect the viewer to feel anything?"

The answer to that is a question: "What about my photo indicates I don't feel strongly about it?"

There's no magical conduit between the experience of the viewer and the feelings of the photographer. The photo may or may not be an attempt to be a connection - success is not a necessary outcome of trying.

 

[Bill Burk]

I live in Appalachia…

It's a totally different thing to approach one's own culture and history and root around for photographic meaning. I don't think it should be avoided if this is indeed your situation: in fact, I think it should be celebrated! I am far more interested in your nostalgia about the place you know, than I would be of an outsider's.
…
I did a documentary project a few years back about letterpress printing. I started it because I love printing…

I’d just found out the Scottish immigrants settled Appalachia because the range is geographically the same as Scotland. It’d be interesting to see some of the “evidence” of that culture.
…
I’m seeing people “give away” Heidelburg Windmills and Kluge’s and it bothers me that I don’t have room to take them in.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have another slightly philosophical query for the group.
I was in a group critique situation recently and I was dealt the comment "if you don't feel strongly about the image your're displaying how can you expect the viewer to feel anything?"

While I understand and somewhat agree, I also question whether a photograph that contains zero people can really influence a viewer that much?

We could backtrack a bit and wonder why I would submit an image I wasn't necessarily jazzed about for critique anyway. I needed to submit 8-10 images and I struggled to get them all done.

If we limit ourselves to a more traditional interpretation of "landscape" as subject, can I make an image that is designed to anger the viewer? to make the viewer happy? I'm just not sure we have that much latitude without taking into account that one person's happy might be another person's sad and so forth.

Since everyone is unique and has their own unique experiences, I cannot see any fact, reason or research to justify the basis for the comment in bold. I have some large prints on my walls that I really like and yet other people go absolutely wild about them and wax eloquent, is a counter example of that.

 

[grain elevator]

I have another slightly philosophical query for the group.
I was in a group critique situation recently and I was dealt the comment "if you don't feel strongly about the image your're displaying how can you expect the viewer to feel anything?"

While I understand and somewhat agree, I also question whether a photograph that contains zero people can really influence a viewer that much?

We could backtrack a bit and wonder why I would submit an image I wasn't necessarily jazzed about for critique anyway. I needed to submit 8-10 images and I struggled to get them all done.

If we limit ourselves to a more traditional interpretation of "landscape" as subject, can I make an image that is designed to anger the viewer? to make the viewer happy? I'm just not sure we have that much latitude without taking into account that one person's happy might be another person's sad and so forth.

I'm afraid I don't have a comprehensive answer, but... highlight one: To me, whether or not people are in a picture is not a criterion for emotional response per se, although something like compassion might only be evoked by a depiction of a person. I just saw an exhibit of portraits yesterday, where the written stories did move me, but the pictures didn't. I personally attach or even project a lot of emotion (on)to place, so landscapes certainly can do something for me.
Now whether these emotions can or should be planned by the photographer (highlight two) is a difficult question and my two thoughts about this are that the way you phrased it, it could border on the manipulative, and that I'm pessimistic about any visual universalism. We can probably only "talk" to others who understand the same visual language to a degree, and that includes reading landscapes, which is a cultural phenomenon on its own. Many things play into it, beside cultural/art history with certain meanings ascribed to landscapes, this is probably influenced by stuff like history of agriculture in one's area and culture (fertility and beauty probably have a connection not only in perception of bodies), nostalgia - the landscapes one grew up with and personal experiences, superstitions (fear of the dark, forests...). And then one can speculate that maybe there are deep-seated, perhaps even genetic, evolutionary things that might be universal-ish, such as that certain landscape forms feel safe because one can see danger approaching from afar or is protected by natural obstacles, certain landscape features indicate availability of water or shelter etc. and thus being attracted to these features might have been an evolutionary advantage.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I purposely do not include people in landscape photographs to keep the photograph timeless. If a person in a photograph can be seen with enough detail to see the clothes, the clothes date the photograph. That means that sometimes I have to wait a long while to get the photograph without people. I do not have an equivalent preference for animals.

 

[MTGseattle]

I appreciate the new comments so far. Let me back up a bit and revisit the comment I received in the critique. In hindsight, as photographers we should be able to at least stand confidently behind an image we offer up to an audience. I did not express confidence and in fact I stated that I had no feeling one way or another about the specific image. We (the class) then fell into a brief discussion about a different printing style that would have "influenced" certain feelings from a couple of classmates. I can infer that the image would have been more successful with those changes, but then we're into the shady realm of manipulation.

@awty I was going to cite a couple examples from your gallery offerings here, but didn't want to throw you under the bus. Since you entered the fray though... Some of your offerings I would call dark, foreboding and mysterious. Is that a feeling you are trying to elicit from viewers?

@grain elevator That was good.

@Sirius Glass to echo what you said; Our own experiences inform how we react to or "read" any art form. We can do all sorts of shenanigans in the darkroom or in our editing software to lead a viewer in a specific direction but ultimately, they will feel how they feel.

We could distill things a bit more and ask whether it is our job as artists(induldge me) to guide the viewers response? I think that boils down solely to subject matter and whether one is working on a photo essay or simply making images. Does a nice pretty image of Half Dome inspire activism? Probably not. Steering back towards my initial question, does a mediocre image of a clear-cut hillside inspire anything?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I appreciate the new comments so far. Let me back up a bit and revisit the comment I received in the critique. In hindsight, as photographers we should be able to at least stand confidently behind an image we offer up to an audience. I did not express confidence and in fact I stated that I had no feeling one way or another about the specific image. We (the class) then fell into a brief discussion about a different printing style that would have "influenced" certain feelings from a couple of classmates. I can infer that the image would have been more successful with those changes, but then we're into the shady realm of manipulation.

@awty I was going to cite a couple examples from your gallery offerings here, but didn't want to throw you under the bus. Since you entered the fray though... Some of your offerings I would call dark, foreboding and mysterious. Is that a feeling you are trying to elicit from viewers?

@grain elevator That was good.

@Sirius Glass to echo what you said; Our own experiences inform how we react to or "read" any art form. We can do all sorts of shenanigans in the darkroom or in our editing software to lead a viewer in a specific direction but ultimately, they will feel how they feel.

We could distill things a bit more and ask whether it is our job as artists(induldge me) to guide the viewers response? I think that boils down solely to subject matter and whether one is working on a photo essay or simply making images. Does a nice pretty image of Half Dome inspire activism? Probably not. Steering back towards my initial question, does a mediocre image of a clear-cut hillside inspire anything?

My shenanigans are limited to split grade printing, dodging, burning, and darkening the edges. I will not add or remove significant objects period. I will remove small blemishes, but I will not replace skies for example. So with my prints "What you see is what was there. Nothing more nor less."

 

[Pieter12]

I purposely do not include people in landscape photographs to keep the photograph timeless. If a person in a photograph can be seen with enough detail to see the clothes, the clothes date the photograph. That means that sometimes I have to wait a long while to get the photograph without people. I do not have an equivalent preference for animals.

Hairsyles and make-up on women will date an image, too. And automobiles, signage and even buildings. So what?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hairsyles and make-up on women will date an image, too. And automobiles, signage and even buildings. So what?

I am talking about photographing landscapes and getting natural beauty. When I am photographing architecture, then any people come along for the ride and so do vehicles because the subjects are all man made. It is a choice, but of course, my choices are always the correct ones. And while I am at it: I have only made one mistake in my life. That is when I thought I had made a mistake but it later turned out that I had been correct the whole time.

 

[Don_ih]

We could distill things a bit more and ask whether it is our job as artists(induldge me) to guide the viewers response?

An artist should foremost be interested in whatever he or she is doing and not give a f&$k about what an audience thinks ... or at least that's what some people want to believe. An artist, in order to be successful, needs to generate art that resonates in some way or other with an audience. So, keeping an eye to how people will interpret your image is always necessary, if you want to make something that will actually be appreciated by anyone other than you wife and mother. But, as you should be able to understand from @grain elevator 's post above, you therefore need to perform your artistic activity within the scope of what is understandable to the audience, almost without exception. Go too far out, and no one will get even an inkling of what you were trying to convey. That might mean engaging in reproducing tropes and cliches as well as you can. Or it might come natural to you. Or, if you take photos of naked women, you're guaranteed at least some level of appreciation from the hungry horde.

The fact is, 99.99999999% of photos are looked at and assumed to "mean" nothing more than "show what I took a picture of". With landscapes, that is sometimes enough.