Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Eric Meola article  (Read 24046 times)
HSway
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62



WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 17, 2013, 10:24:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Ray,

I think a lot will depend on how one defines the nature, artificial and natural to oneself. There is quite a scope for this.

Either way, my wife knows  Smiley cities and towns were always sort of forest to me (that term). With its colourful range of matching attributes and in most various aspects. I am strongly bent towards the non-urban one thinking of the landscape. The alternatively spirited views come natural to me, though. Things may appear material but it’s the human mind that gives them their life, meaningful existence and makes them open to experience. To me it’s about perception of the artefacts in the surrounding and that is dramatically relative to a particular mind, concept and expression. A certain sort of them seems to meet in one river for me. I guess it’s their character. And there is more stepping in between the extremes, and more and smoother transitions.
Now all this would be a separate thing to how I view questions about our civilization heading directions and related affairs. and certainly more complicated for me to talk about.

Hynek




Bullshit! Landscape is a completely natural environment as opposed to the totally arificial, congested and bustling environment of the city.

The soft shapes of clouds, and trees, and rivers and streams, sometimes contrasting with the harder edges of rocks, cliffs and mountains, create a certain peace and harmony within the human soul. A Landscape is a refuge from the turmoil of the city; a place where one can quietly contemplate, relax, and feel at-one with nature.

A photograph of such a landscape, in order for it to have a similar emotional impact of actually being there, has to capture some essence of that spiritual quality one experiences when one is in harmony with nature.

I admit there's a strong urge for artists in general to be innovative, whether they are painters, writers or musicians, but modern, serious, atonal music, for example, has not been a success because it tends to lack a recognisable melody.

Prior to the introduction of the camera, art tended to be very representational. There's strong evidence that a number of Renaissance artists used mirrors and lenses to project an image onto their canvas, so they could paint it with greater realism. They tended to keep their technique a secret, though.

When the camera was more developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a number of artists, including Picasso, saw no point in labouring for hours or days trying to compete with the realism of the camera. So they moved towards a less realistic or less representaional style that we now call Impressionism and Cubism etc, against which the camera could not compete.

I get the impression that Eric Meola is now trying to follow or imitate, with the camera, that artistic movement which headed towards abstractionism as a result of the influence of the camera.  Wink



Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892


« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2013, 11:07:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Bullshit! Landscape is a completely natural environment as opposed to the totally arificial, congested and bustling environment of the city.

A completely natural environment? I think you just excluded two thousand years worth of pastoral landscape paintings.

A completely natural environment? I think you just excluded most places on Earth for the last several thousand years (see for example, "Australia’s Original Landscape Gardeners").

However, I am struggling to understand why we would describe some image as a landscape if the intention was not to express the 'intellectual and emotional' essence of a place.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892


« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2013, 11:16:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I think the term landscape can be used in a way that has nothing to do with subject matter and more to do with the feel or scope of a photograph.

Do you mean more than a broad view rather than a narrow view?
Logged
Sharon Van Lieu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 379


Nantucket Landscape and Architectural Photographer


WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2013, 11:39:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Do you mean more than a broad view rather than a narrow view?

I think using the term "landscape" when it is not a traditional landscape photograph can be part of the artistic expression.

Sharon
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892


« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2013, 11:42:48 AM »
ReplyReply

@Eric Meola "...nearly always accompanied by tepid images of golden mesas, moss on trees, and fields of flowers—all with horizons cutting through the middle of the frame."

None of that! Luminous Landscape forums are strictly rule-of-thirds! :-)

@Eric Meola "The giraffe loping across a violet and iridescent red landscape in Pete Turner’s 1963 breakthrough image..."

Here's that image -- “The Giraffe”


Quote
"A whole world lies before us, we feel its heartbeat, it pulsates with life, beauty and strength -- we can't have people simply telling us: this is as far as art goes."   Edward Steichen

Logged
Andy Ilachinski
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23



WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 17, 2013, 11:48:44 AM »
ReplyReply

What about (as I've posted on a parallel thread) using photography to transform a decidedly "non-natural" reality - in my example, a "colored wine glass" - into an apparently "natural" one, such as a traditional landscape, or seascape, or desert, or...?

Here are some snippets from an ongoing series I call "synesthetic landscapes" (a few links below). Synesthesia refers to "crossed senses", as in "tasting" what one sees, and is a very effect, now well documented with MRI scans. I had a visual-color form when I was young, seeing numbers and letters in different hues. More recently, I've started playing with using "color abstractions" to evoke a synesthetic experience of "landscape." So it seemed quite apropos given the discussion swirling around the recent color essay.

Examples:

1: http://www.sudden-stillness.com/Portfolio/SynthWarm/index.html

2. http://www.sudden-stillness.com/Portfolio/SynthCool/index.html

Story behind the series:

http://tao-of-digital-photography.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-else-thing-is.html
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892


« Reply #26 on: January 17, 2013, 11:56:44 AM »
ReplyReply

What about...

Isn't that about "what a thing is, is-not, and may-be", rather than about some place?
Logged
Andy Ilachinski
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23



WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 17, 2013, 12:02:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Isn't that about "what a thing is, is-not, and may-be", rather than about some place?

I certainly agree, its about all three of those things, as well as just about anything else the creative mind can conjure as an alternative "interpretation." There is no more one "type of photograph" than one "reality" or one "idea." I've always believed in White's credo to *start* with finding ways to express "what else a thing..."
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892


« Reply #28 on: January 17, 2013, 12:09:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I think using the term "landscape" when it is not a traditional landscape photograph can be part of the artistic expression.

Irony?
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #29 on: January 17, 2013, 12:29:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Curator-speak. There's lots of it about. It's often much more entertaining or even, dare I say it, creative than the artwork; perhaps it is the atwork.

Without curators whispering their words of commercial magic into the ears of the half-opened chequebooks, would art survive? Would there even still be such a concept? Probably not. Cave drawings? Nobody knows why - maybe even they had curators...

Rob C
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892


« Reply #30 on: January 17, 2013, 01:00:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Curator-speak.

Which are the words you wish to say are curator-speak?
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #31 on: January 17, 2013, 02:08:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Which are the words you wish to say are curator-speak?



To quote directly would be invidious; just reread the thread.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

David S
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 135


« Reply #32 on: January 17, 2013, 02:10:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Mmm...I don't agree. I think the term landscape can be used in a way that has nothing to do with subject matter and more to do with the feel or scope of a photograph. I am working on a series of photographs of natural objects that I think of as portraits. That is the feel they have.

Sharon

Others would appear to agree with your feeling-definition.

Landscape comprises the visible features of an area of land, including the physical elements of landforms such as (ice-capped) mountains, hills, water bodies such as rivers, lakes, ponds and the sea, living elements of land cover including indigenous vegetation, human elements including different forms of land use, buildings and structures,...
-from Wikipedia.

Now one might like or not like where he is apparently going but it does seem to fall under a general use of landscape or "cityscape" if you must.

Dave S

Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892


« Reply #33 on: January 17, 2013, 02:36:18 PM »
ReplyReply

To quote directly would be invidious; just reread the thread.

Not to quote directly is invidious -- your remark may be applied more widely than you intended.

Please just be clear instead of hiding behind obscure remarks.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #34 on: January 17, 2013, 02:55:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Not to quote directly is invidious -- your remark may be applied more widely than you intended.

Please just be clear instead of hiding behind obscure remarks.


But that would then make me obvious. Hiding isn't the name of the game; observation is. If someone feels they fit the cap, then by all means, please wear it.

Rob C
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 02:57:58 PM by Rob C » Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8907


« Reply #35 on: January 17, 2013, 05:24:21 PM »
ReplyReply

A completely natural environment? I think you just excluded two thousand years worth of pastoral landscape paintings.

A completely natural environment? I think you just excluded most places on Earth for the last several thousand years (see for example, "Australia’s Original Landscape Gardeners").

However, I am struggling to understand why we would describe some image as a landscape if the intention was not to express the 'intellectual and emotional' essence of a place.

The word "completely" may not have been the best choice of words in the context. To express it another way, I'd say that for me, the completely natural elements in a landscape, that is, those elements in the scene that have not been created by man, are the elements that tend evoke the emotional essence of that place, if it is defined as a landscape.

If the main feature in a landscape is a building, for example, then there would be good reason to use the term architecture rather than landscape to describe the scene.

Words have to have agreed meanings for us to communicate, or confusion reigns.

For example, if I were to ask my wife to buy a few landscape photos or paintings to decorate the walls of our new house, and after a day's shopping she returned with a handful of works that looked like Eric Meola's abstract patterns of neon lights, I would exclaim that those were not landscapes. I would probably say, "Don't you know what a landscape is?", whereupon she would probably slap my face.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #36 on: January 18, 2013, 03:09:48 AM »
ReplyReply

For example, if I were to ask my wife to buy a few landscape photos or paintings to decorate the walls of our new house, and after a day's shopping she returned with a handful of works that looked like Eric Meola's abstract patterns of neon lights, I would exclaim that those were not landscapes. I would probably say, "Don't you know what a landscape is?", whereupon she would probably slap my face.




Brave lady! I would never slap the face of the hand that stroked the tiger!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8907


« Reply #37 on: January 18, 2013, 06:40:01 AM »
ReplyReply



Brave lady! I would never slap the face of the hand that stroked the tiger!

;-)

Rob C

But what if the lady also strokes tigers? Anyway, sometimes tigers are just like big, soft pussy cats.  Grin



Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #38 on: January 18, 2013, 07:08:58 AM »
ReplyReply

But what if the lady also strokes tigers? Anyway, sometimes tigers are just like big, soft pussy cats.  Grin






I'm thunderstruck: there is no answer that allows the retention of my dignity!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8907


« Reply #39 on: January 18, 2013, 07:29:50 AM »
ReplyReply


I'm thunderstruck: there is no answer that allows the retention of my dignity!

;-)

Rob C

Well, you could pose the question whether or not this is a landscape.  The tigers are enclosed in a small canyon with steep walls.  Wink
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad