…have I just changed?
[ Warning: Random musing ahead – May or may not be of any value! ]
As I recall, looking back it seems landscape photography used to take me somewhere, “carry me away”, as it were. When I looked at a photo I was transported in my mind to another place. I felt, at least a little bit, of what it must be like standing / sitting there, viewing the Real Thing the photographer had captured.
- Sidebar: In fact that’s always been a (currently unrealized*) goal of my photography: To somehow capture an echo of that visceral moment when “I”, the photographer, first stepped out on the crag / rock / ledge / platform / shore / whatever and took in (with all my senses) the vista in front of me. Whether high, low, big, small, narrow, wide, whatever – The goal of the photo is to somehow, in a necessarily limited fashion, at least communicate to “you”, the viewer, a bit of that punch in the chest.
* That’s actually why I don’t think I’ve (yet) made a truly successful landscape photo – I’ve not felt that impact from the image.
But back to landscape photography in general…
There’s always a gap between a final image and on-site reality. The photographer chooses what to include and what to exclude. So while, for example, Lake Louise may indeed be overrun with tourists at times, the first time any of us saw a carefully framed photo of its gorgeous water and mountain backdrop it “took us there” nonetheless. And this isn’t about strictly literal / realistic photographic rendering vs. interpretation, abstraction and the like. It’s not about old-school vs. new art. It’s about communication and presentation of a Real, Actual Place, literally or otherwise.
But in comparison to my recollections I find a lot of current (i.e., digital) landscape photography less often transports me anywhere.
The photographers themselves are highly skilled, creative and I have tremendous respect for them. Technically, the shots are very good. They’re executed very well, the compositions are solid, camera work and post-processing are of a high level and usually the subject matter is interesting. But quite often newer landscape images seem more anonymous and not as “connected” to the actual landscape as the older stuff. There are more “leaf on the forest floor”, “tree silhouette against the sunset”, “cloud over mountain” and “trees in fog” images.
For me, a valuable aspect of a landscape photo’s impact is that it’s this mountain or that river, not just a mountain or river. As a viewer I want to be taken there, not simply admire a nice anonymous image. Maybe that could be addressed by including location data (when appropriate)?
In terms of processing, for lack of a better term they sometimes have a veneer of plastic, if that makes sense. Maybe they’re too perfect? Too perfectly illuminated, too cloned and too cleaned up, too balanced and too exposed? I can certainly understand how that could happen! They are no doubt beautiful works of art and I do enjoy them. But I often don’t find much connection between them and the Real World from whence they ostensibly sprang.
Is this, at least in part, a natural byproduct of the exploding volume and availability of landscape photography? That is, the photographer thinks “There must be a gazillion shots of <iconic location>, so I need to find something else… Hey look, a strange joint on a tree limb!”?
Please note – I’m not dismissing nor minimizing any type of subject matter, images nor photography, it’s just an observation. I like literal and abstract imagery, grand vistas and intimate textures. What I’m on about is a more general thing about a natural connection. And it’s not a complaint, per se, just kinda wishful (wistful?) thinking.
Am I way off-base? Do I need to get out more and open my eyes? Anyone else feel the same way?
Anyway, just musings and pontifications on a Saturday evening… I probably need to go to bed.