From: epona (acolyta@napc.com)
Date: 04/11/02-10:26:58 AM Z
Katharine Thayer wrote:
> shannon stoney wrote:
> >
> >
> > I guess it depends on where you live. In Tennessee, where I live
> > most of the time, when I can escape from Houston, there are more
> > trees than media. The tv doesn't come in too good, and I don't watch
> > it anyway. I don't read newspapers because then i have to recycle
> > them. I don't listen to NPR much because I would rather listen to
> > the people that live with me. So, trees are a more relevant topic to
> > me than media.
>
> I try to stay out of these discussions any more and haven't read most of
> this one, but the subject line on this post pulled me in.
>
> I've always found it interesting that those who set themselves up as
> arbiters of what subject matter is permissible for photography and what
> isn't, say out of one side of their mouths that we should photograph
> what's around us, while out of the other side of their mouths comes some
> version of the idea that landscape is passe' and no one should be
> photographing nature any more. In other words, only those who live in
> cities or suburbs and who breathe popular culture have permission to
> photograph what's around them (or in other other words, only what
> surrounds ME should be a permissible subject matter for YOU). Those of
> us who have long since tossed out our TVs, who live as far from housing
> developments, malls and skyscrapers as we can get, who arrange our days
> by the tides and the weather, who know trees and how the ocean moves and
> where the osprey lives in the same way city dwellers might know the
> sound of the el or the way the sun glints off a particular building at a
> particular time of day, are told that what we see isn't worth
> photographing and what we know isn't worth knowing. This is just
> nonsense, and I hope Shannon or anyone else will pay it little mind.
>
> Katharine Thayer
This post really rings true for me. I'd much rather photograph the beauty
of nature and the life she creates, than the cheap, ugly, concrete of our
man-made world. Every time I go to the woods, when I return to the city I
am shocked at how ugly everything we have created is. There is beautiful
architecture, yes, but I find earth, water and all things green more
resonant for me than concrete and steel.
When I was in art school, it was "bad" to photograph nature. Only the
people photographing the city got the class and teachers excited. If you
brought in a landscape that didn't have any man-made items in it, the
reaction was, "Why are you doing this?" Your photograph must have a
purpose, and a picture of a tree doesn't have a purpose or a concept. The
answer "Because it is beautiful" was not valid, and I think that's
ridiculous. The theme "man vs. nature" also got real old.
On that note, I love the body of work done by Virginia Beahan and Laura
McPhee.
Yes, trees rule!
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed." -Albert Einstein
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:29 AM Z CST