>I've felt I've responded to you enough before. I will only do it one more >time. > >I am NOT trying to evoke emotions in all the photos. Some I want to be >just >documentation. I will intersperse some editorial shots between those that >are > documentation. Shooting just a good documentary shot isn't necessarily >easy, > BTW. > >snip > >Do I have to have one theme? As a dyslexia, nope, I usually don't have one >theme or one point. I usually have more than one. > >But you invited a rant, so you'll get one. > ><rant on> > >snip > >I hope to show even more open space stuff as I go along. > >So part of my theme I guess could simply be, stop and smell the flowers. >Too >many think nature is "out there" instead of right here. In this area, at >least, not everything is paved over. We don't have to make special trips >to >Yosemite to see nature, we can see it right by the freeway. We can see >mustard >and poppies right by the freeway. Let's appreciate what is here. Why do we >have >to feel that nature is always over there? Yes, some people I think see it >that way, that nature is not here, it is over there. > >So I am showing it is right here. And I may call my series "Here and Here" >(rather than Here and There). Because I feel it captures it as well as >anything. > >snip > >So "Here and Here" sums that up. And by showing nature in context, right >next to man-made stuff, I am showing it is HERE, not THERE. > >The other aspect is, well, I do get darn tired that a landscape shot must >have all evidence of man erased. Clone out that telephone pole, move the >camera >over two inches to not show the house right next to the undeveloped hill >with the lovely Oak. Is this reality? Nope. > >We've all talked before about how photography lies. Well, sometimes >landscape and nature photography really, really lies. Sure, I like pretty >nature/landscape photography as well as the next person, and I have tried >to produce >some good stuff that way myself. But WHY must all evidence of man be >erased? WHY >do we always have to lie about it? Some of the best "nature/landscape" >shots >in this area are right next to something man-made. If I JUST show the >nature >stuff I am implying that it is existing out there all by itself in some >fairly pristine state. That it is "out there" somewhere, but not HERE. > >Well, practically nothing is in a pristine state anymore. And I get to >feeling more and more that landscape/nature shots are promoting a belief >system >that there is a lot of pristine nature left out there when there isn't. If >we >value what we have right here, if we value some stuff that IS >disappearing, >then we work harder at preserving and having more to shoot and enjoy. It >helps >no one to pretend there is lots and lots of pristine nature in the US. >There >is a great deal yes, but it also does disappear. And why not value what is >here and now? What isn't in some great park, but right next door? Right by >the >freeway? Right by a development? All the birds that visit the century Oak >off >my patio? A century Oak that was not uprooted when this senior community >of >7,000, one of the largest and best in the US, was built? The birds come >and >go, a fantastic variety. They are yuppie suburban birds now. :-) > >I would say, in conclusion, Tom, you ARE having an emotional reaction to >my >shots. It seems you want me to shoot my nature pristine. I would question >why? Do you think we HAVE to be ashamed of ourselves? That if we show >nature >next to man it always means something bad about man? That somehow we are >separate and apart from nature? Are all man's works totally ugly compared >to nature? > >snip ><rant off> > >snip > >However, I feel I am becoming a better photographer though the process of >focusing on a theme (no matter how unclear it may be to anyone else :-)) >and >also in working harder at it, so that is good. > >Like it or not, this is what I am doing right now, anyway. > >Marnie aka Doe ;-) > > >--------------------------------------------- >Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. > > >
Marnie, Well! You've felt you've responded to me enough before??? OK, I realize this was my LAST chance. :-) Truthfully it was not my intent to irritate you, just give you feedback on the photos. >So part of my theme I guess could simply be, stop and smell the flowers. >Too >many think nature is "out there" instead of right here. In this area, at >least, not everything is paved over. We don't have to make special trips >to >Yosemite to see nature, we can see it right by the freeway. We can see >mustard >and poppies right by the freeway. Let's appreciate what is here. Why do we >have >to feel that nature is always over there? Yes, some people I think see it >that way, that nature is not here, it is over there. You're free to choose whatever theme you like. I agree with the sentiment of 'stop and smell the flowers', where ever they are. National Parks, etc., limit our impact on the landscape to some degree, and while not being pristine, there are elements of them that are, or at least appear to be. That's why they and like images, are generally so popular, as opposed to flowers along the highway with buildings in the background (not condescending here). That pristine beauty is something we don't see EVERY day, making it special. Contrary to your expressed sentiments, I don't believe 'pristine landscape photos' promote a belief system that there's a lot of pristine nature left, or that there's not environmental problems. To the contrary it can move people to want to protect those places. Photography lies - I disagree. By it's very nature, a photograph is a small piece of what is seen. I don't believe anyone looks at a photograph without implicity knowing there is something outside the frame that is unseen. We needn't agree on this. I think it's a given that each of us enjoys nature in it's pristine state, and at the same time enjoys little bits and pieces that are near us wherever we may be, hence garden centers and parks, right? Even flowers along the highway. Back to photography... >I am NOT trying to evoke emotions in all the photos. Some I want to be >just >documentation. I will intersperse some editorial shots between those that >are >documentation. Shooting just a good documentary shot isn't necessarily >easy. If you're not trying to evoke emotion then those shots have achieved your goal, at least with me. Personally I thought that was the main point of photography, usually, when photos are shown in some halfway serious venue. If you're not attempting to evoke an emotion, i.e., get a reaction from your photos, then I must ask in all honesty, why show them anticipating a response? I'm not being a rude jackass when asking that, I'm thinking about what the point of "Art" is. Does someone paint a picture, sculpt a figure, compose a melody and share it because they are not trying to evoke a reaction? Do they do so with the thought, "I'm just documenting the way this series of notes and chords sounds"? If a documentary shot is not supposed to evoke a reaction then why put much thought into it? Make sure the scene is in focus and snap the shutter. >I would say, in conclusion, Tom, you ARE having an emotional reaction to >my >shots. It seems you want me to shoot my nature pristine. I would question >why? Do you think we HAVE to be ashamed of ourselves? That if we show >nature >next to man it always means something bad about man? That somehow we are >separate and apart from nature? Are all man's works totally ugly compared >to nature? I guess if you want to classify my not caring for a particular shot as an emotional reaction you may be right. But there's a distinction between feeling indifferent towards a shot and having the shot move a person, generating an emotional response. I don't tire of nature/landscape shots showing no trace of man's footprint because 1) I like it that way and 2) that's one aspect of photography, cropping out what we don't WANT to see in the photograph (as is including those elements we wish to see). I can appreciate (even though it may not be your expressed theme) the juxtaposition/intertwining of man and his natural surroundings. I guess what your photos don't do for me, is emphasize that enough. The shots are possibly too regular, too normal, too everyday vantage, that they fail to move me. There is no impact. Out of those you shared, the only other one besides "Stop", that has an impact for me is the oak under the power lines. There is a fair amount of contrast (not light/dark photographically speaking) in the two main components of the photo, that it has meaning. I don't really like the shot, but it does have some meaning. >Do I have to have one theme? As a dyslexia, nope, I usually don't have one >theme or one point. I usually have more than one. So maybe I don't understand your theme. Or maybe you don't have a clear one, or maybe it's TOO multi-faceted for me to get it. As a suggestion though, any presentation whether oral or visual that has a theme should have a clear theme so that the audience gets the point of it and each component of the presentation should reemphasize the theme. Otherwise, the point, if there is one, can get lost. One scene from a movie that has always stuck with me is the opening moments of Joe vs. The Volcano. There's a beautiful tiny flower growing in a crack in the pavement in front of the hideous Anal Probe factory. It's survived for days or weeks, then get's trampled under foot, gone in an instant. Anyway I didn't mean to get you upset, and my reactions were not a criticism of you, so please don't take them that way, if you did. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
