Cattails

[Matthew Kuchta]

Cattail Marsh, Wisconsin
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~mk/photos/cattails_3995.jpg
10D, 28-135IS

More of these small, chaotic scenes that seemed to ask me for further investigation.
-matt

[Robert Amoruso]

Matthew,

I have given this image a lot of thought, examining it closely. I have also been thinking about our discourse regarding your previous discourse.

For me one of the hardest things to do is to go into a landscape and make a cohesive image out of chaos. One of my ways to do that is the simplify the subject and go for details as I mentioned. I look to identify interesting patterns, juxtapositions or contrasts (both in tone and physical) when trying to make sense of it.

None of this is easy and even less easier to explain. I have been looking for some resources to consider. A favorite photographer of mine is Eliot Porter whose intimate studies of making sense out of chaos is demonstrated in much of his work but see the book Nature's Chaos by James Gleick, Eliot Porter

An interesting article is http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/locations/north-america/a-new-look-at-the-landscape.html about Rodney Lough.

Robert Glenn Ketchum's (another favorite of mine) Order from Chaos explores this subject and further examines it in Regarding the Land: Robert Glenn Ketchum And the Legacy of Eliot Porter by John Rohrbach.

After examining and thinking about your image I am not able to conclude I find it visually interesting. Perhaps going lower to change the perspective or accentuate the backlighting may have helped. I tried a B&W conversion and amping up the contrast to make it more graphic but without a visually strong statement, it does not work.

Please keep them coming and posting more, we are interested in helping you explore your vision.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hi Matthew,
I also took a while to study this. After debating this for a while.......and studying the response to the previous post...........I have questions for you. Why do you find this image exciting? What makes this an interesting abstract or composition in your opinion? Is it for "rule breaking"/experimentation......... to not make a picture postcard....... or is it the attachment to the place and time and what specific element interests you? What was your thought process that went into this image?
I think if you explain this like you did in the previous post........I will be better suited to tailor my reply.

[Dave Mills]

Hi Matthew
I agree with Robert's comments but would like to add a few of my own.In my opinion there are a number of attributes that contribute to a strong and appealing image.
1. IMPACT Does the image grab the viewers attention and make them want to stay and explore the image' I don't feel impact from the image.
2. CENTER OF INTEREST In this image the only marginal center of interest that I perceive is the small dark area in the center of the image.However I do not feel it is dominant enough to make the viewer wonder.
3 LIGHTING Lighting can effect an image radically and most landscape photographers pursue appealing or dramatic light. In this image the lighting was not early or late but somewhere in between
These are only some points which contribute to a strong image...there are others. In this image I don't feel any of the 3 points I mentioned were met
I realize this image has appeal to you but in order to give a critique(which is what your asking for) I need to explain my rationale.At times it is very difficult for someone to get into a photographers head and think the way they do. One can explain their reasons for liking an image but in order to justify it's overall appeal one must understand that a critic will use their own criteria.
The old saying rules are made to be broken is valid as long as the image works.
I like the fact that you are trying to see compositions from simple subjects and thats an area which is neat to pursue. I've seen amazing images over the years using that approach

[Matthew Kuchta]

Hi everyone,
First, thanks for your thoughts and input. I enjoy feedback, so hearing from other photographers - even if they don't get the same reaction as I do - is much better than just having these pictures drift off the forum with no comment. I'm glad you spent some time investigating the picture. For me, I like Gary Winogrand's comment: "I photograph things to see what they look like as a photograph."

This image is not about "drama" or "simplicity." In many ways, I like to take pictures of things that we may otherwise pass over because there is something more dramatic nearby. The combination of the textures in the cattails along with the changes in light from the illuminated stalks to the shaded space in between was as interesting as anything. Could a more dramatic picture been had if I tilted the camera up and got backlit cattail heads? Perhaps. But I was drawn visually to the "hint" of something interesting going on in the shadows.

I see this as more of a study - an in-camera "sketch" of where I was. It's by no means easy to chew on, but I feel it is more "true" to the place than something that only takes the prettiest, most dramatic elements into consideration. I guess it's partly an attempt to fill in the gaps. With good music, you have quiet measures that sit between the loud, percussive ones. With food, you have subtle savory flavors connecting the spiciest, sweetest parts of the meal. In photography, there are these little scenes - the sublime moments in time and space - that connect the candy-colored sunsets and make it part of the whole. This picture is only but a part of a continuum. By eliminating much of what grabs our attention in a photograph, we are left with that bit of connective tissue that is beautiful because it is.

I like this picture precisely because of what it lacks - as the three of you have pointed out. It does not have a strong center of interest, the interplay of light and shadow does not reach out and poke you in the eye, and the textures are competing with each other. It's a busy, easily overlooked little spot. Kind of like a New York City street. Bustle and hustle, noise, dirt, shadow, light - the everyday drama played out between the towering skyscrapers.

Anyway, thanks for looking. :)
-matt

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hi Matthew,
It's funny that you mention NYC........as I went to art school there many years ago and I actually live 30 minutes away and get to visit it often.

You mention that you were going for subtlety.......for me, there is neither in the presented image as the mid day light makes it quite harsh. I find the composition also quite loud as there is nothing quiet about the chaos of the stalks. This more resembles the streets of NY during rush hour........than the quiet moments that one finds in between the chaos.

You also compare this to the quiet pauses in music.......as a classically trained piano player.........you forget that the pauses in music can be subtle........but also some can be quite powerful.......like holding ones breath...........no big deal until you have to exhale! The pauses are dependent on the loud percussion and vice versa.......both equal in value.........and striving for one without the other just leads to blandness.

Finally.......you mention that you do not look for pretty or prettiest.......I will always question people when they make those comments as I often find that they are doing things just to not fit in and try to justify their mediocrity. Judging by your comments, I do not perceive this in you. If anything I have learned while at school and at the galleries.........art is quite sujective. I remember looking at a "priceless" painting at a gallery......and I hated it.......but it was thought provoking.......and if anything.......you have achieved this with your post and I am happy that you enjoy it even if I don't share your views.

This is what makes life interesting and I look forward to more posts!

[Matthew Kuchta]

Roman,
I guess in the end the question is: "does it work?" It works for me. I understand your comment regarding mediocrity. It's easy to mask a weak image with fancy jargon. Is this image a mediocre one? I don't think so, but I also think that it is unrefined. Consider it one part of a whole - either as a body of work, or as a sketch, or scribbled outline of something more.

Perhaps the real value for me is in the space this image defines. Not necessarily the physical space, but the conceptual as well. I suppose if I had a gallery wall and printed this out, slapped a frame on it and put an "artist's statement" next to it I could call it ART. But in reality, it's an image of a place and it gets me thinking. The real value is probably more in the process - this image being but one point that marks the path. Heck, just talking about it to others give me ideas and that's probably where the real value lies.
thanks for your thoughts,
-matt

[Dave Mills]

Hi Matt

I must say if words were photographs you would be Ansel Adams. All kidding aside you mentioned a continuing flow using music and food as examples. I don't feel that argument is valid based on the fact those examples are pieces in the part of a whole. Those pieces compliment the whole experience. Your statement might have some validity if we were talking about a movie but we are talking about a simple moment in time with no beginning or end.
You are sharing a vision with others when you present your work. It can be accepted or rejected. They will be the final arbiters of opinion rather than you since you have stated your reasons for the images value and feel it has worth. Your the creator and not the opinion maker.
Don't get me wrong...you are always entitled to your opinion and justifications of it but as you have studied the examples on this board you realize your that your approach has been contrarian and not generally accepted as a strong image by the vocal majority for a variety of reasons.
I realize that you can counter that statement by saying how long it took for many artistic masters to be recognized. But remember,,,your in a landscape forum which is a specialized area. Your not in a creative section where your arguments might have more substance.
All things aside it will be the viewers job to understand the subtlties your expressing and will that image relay your message!!!

[Matthew Kuchta]

Hi Matt
Your statement might have some validity if we were talking about a movie but we are talking about a simple moment in time with no beginning or end.

I guess I'm unclear as to your analogy, as I see a photo as part of a continuum. There is an implied "before" and "after" with a photograph, since we're just sampling it at one interval. Separating the scene from that continuum would appear to me as removing much of what photography can do best.



You are sharing a vision with others when you present your work. It can be accepted or rejected. They will be the final arbiters of opinion rather than you since you have stated your reasons for the images value and feel it has worth. Your the creator and not the opinion maker.


...but as you have studied the examples on this board you realize your that your approach has been contrarian and not generally accepted as a strong image by the vocal majority for a variety of reasons.

True, I can't make anyone see what I see, or think what I think. But my opinions, I hope, make it easier for people to understand what's going on behind the camera - why I felt that clicking the shutter was worth the investment. I suppose it may appear "contrarian," but I'm not trying to be that way. Rather, I'm interested to know how people perceive my images - and, for that matter, their own. Different from many other examples here, yes. Better? Probably not. Stronger? Doubtful. But, I think there is value in both seeing the landscape differently and thinking about why it is different. Don't think of this image as the thesis of my argument, but rather one detail in a larger dissertation.



I realize that you can counter that statement by saying how long it took for many artistic masters to be recognized. But remember,,,your in a landscape forum which is a specialized area.

I guess there might be an assumption here that my verbosity is intended to imply I perceive myself as an as-yet unrecognized savant. Far from it - I enjoy talking about pictures and our motivations behind image-making, but I want to be clear that I do not see myself as anything more than someone who likes to think about the WHY as much as the WHAT.


Your not in a creative section where your arguments might have more substance.

I'm not sure what you mean - I don't think I'm trying to "argue" anything. I'm providing context for an image that many people have thought of as lacking something. I could take your statement as saying creativity is a separate issue from taking pictures of sunsets and mountains. Or, I suppose I could interpret that as saying that all my writing won't turn an admittedly simple image into a timeless scene. I do find it interesting that "being creative" is many times perceived as being separate from nature photography.

I guess that brings me to the larger question I have about landscape photography: are we more concerned about craft? What aspects of the total sum of a photograph do we wish to spend our time on?