From: Kerik Kouklis (Kerik@Kerik.com)
Date: 12/21/02-05:12:52 PM Z
Blah, blah, blah...
What difference does it make? Why do you find it so important to pigeonhole
and categorize, then criticize if someone's classifiction is different than
yours??
Luckily, there's no rule book that we have to follow...
Landscape photographer, portrait photographer, street shooter, still lifes -
these are all just general terms to describe what someone does. What
matters is what you see when you look at the work, then all the labels
become unimportant and amibiguous and of little value.
I know lots of people who consider themselves 'landscape photographers'.
None of them because they belong to a cult, are trying to increase the value
of their work, or are trying to somehow 'fit in'. It's just a simple term to
give someone a general idea of what they do.
Labels are so.... superficial.
Kerik
Grand Dagor of the Cult of the Landscape
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon [mailto:fotonerd@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 2:50 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
> Subject: cheese and the moon. Re: Definition- landscape arguement
> continued
>
>
> > I think it's a combination of what's available to see and a person's
> > personal "view" of what's interesting to him/her that determine what a
> > landscape photograph is
>
> Just because I think the moon is made out of cheese doesn't mean it is.
>
> So if my personal view is that a specific image is a landscape, that
> doesn't make is so.
>
>
> > and I'm afraid I have little interest in academic arguments
> > about what is or isn't a "true" landscape photograph.
>
> You should, if you make the statement that your images are such, you need
> to be able to qualify that statement. It is like somebody saying "I'm a
> republican" or "I'm a Democrat" and never really knowing what the party
> stands for.
>
> > There are as many different kinds of landscape photographs as there are
> > combinations of views and photographers in the world. IMO. To limit
> > "landscape" to mean only a sweeping vista of kind seen in the American
> > mountain or desert west would be a very narrow view of what landscape
> > is, and would unnecessarily exclude landscape photographs from other
> > parts of the world.
>
> This seems to be somewhat critical and it appears to be the arguement of
> somebody that is trying to make something other then what it is.
>
> Landscape photographs can be made anywhere. However, if you have ever
> lived in the intermountain west and also experienced places like the
> midwest, you will realize it is more dificult to make landscape
> photographs in the midwest (just as one example). Would others not agree?
>
> Does this say that the west is just so much better then the rest of the
> world? No. Things are what they are. I didn't see Ansel Adams running
> off to Iowa to make his images. I also think that John Sexton lives where
> he does for a reason. Same with where Galen Rowell lived.
>
> This is not an arguement of one thing being better then another. It is
> simply about things that are different from each other.
>
> The term "landscape photography" appears to have somewhat of a cult
> following. Why are there so many people so quick to qualify their own
> work as landscape?
>
> It is as if there is a little bit of "landscape envy" and that people feel
> they have to have images that are landscapes to be of value and fit in.
>
> Ansel Adams did landscapes. He is known as a landscape photographer. That
> doesn't make all his images landscapes. He took portraits, still lifes,
> architecture, etc....
>
> I have said enough.
>
> Jon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:26 AM Z CST