Blog #6 Simplicity, Part 2 September 3, 2013

In my last blog I wrote on the concept of simplicity and why making an image simple but emotionally

effective is often very difficult to do. I will continue exploring this concept in this issue of the blog. First

I want to touch on a few things I've recently read or seen.

I think it important to dive into this here as I have an audience that is interested in the subject. I read

recently where a reader of a blog responded with a notion of what is and isn't art. I understand that this

was an opinion and thereby the responder was free to say whatever they might want to. I do think that

in some ways saying whatever you want can be a bit dangerous or at least antagonistic, if done so in a

way that offers no discussion, no qualifiers or is stated as it is fact, not an opinion. This follows a tenant

that is one of our most basic freedoms, and one I fear is currently starting to be eroded (yes this too is

an opinion but one shared by a great many of us) and that is freedom of speech. That freedom is not

without responsibility, one cannot of course yell "fire" in a crowded venue unless the venue is indeed on

fire.

There is also the tenant that while I may not like what one may be saying, I will defend to the death the

right of the person to say it. What is missed in a statement of "That isn't art" is respect for the artist's

attempt and effort, and respect for any other viewer to like or dislike it. There is room for the vehement

statement when very occasionally called for but all too often all such stubbornness is more about the

insecurities of the person making the statement, a call to "look at me", rather than a conscious effort to

discuss why a person likes or dislikes a work.

Another truism is that one can accomplish a hell of a lot more with sugar than vinegar, or with kind or

sensitive words than insults and blatant statements that leave no room for opposite views. There was a

story on the news the other night about an LA traffic cop; Sherriff's Deputy Elton Simmons who after

more than 25,000 traffics stops has set a record for complaints: ZERO! None! It's not that he doesn't

write tickets, it is that he doesn't start off with an attitude that creates an adversarial encounter. He

says never puts himself above people he comes into contact with, i.e. lose the attitude, lose the fear and

angst. Ask any photographer that doesn't like critiques and you'll likely find a photographer who had an

image critiqued by someone who in truth is insecure about their own work and the critique became

more about the critiquer versus the image. I feel best after making a critique, when one, the artist is left

knowing they are free to take or leave the advice, two they may

have learned from what I said in the critique and three, they

know the critique was made with respect for the maker and the

effort in mind. I use skills and experience to make a critique,

but I don't use a critique to validate my own work.

So for me, from this moment forward, the question of "is it art"

is one I will try to never state or ask directly or with an attitude

of malice, but at the same time I will feel free to make as a

stated opinion (especially when the discussion is with like-

minded participants) of whether the art under consideration is

something that I like or dislike. I would rather say: I like this, I

"High Rise Patterns" © Hank Erdmann This image required the simplified patterns of the building without building edges or background behind it.

love this, it does nothing for me or even, I can't stand this, but to make a blanket statement for all

humanity that something is or isn't art, seems a bit presumptuous to me. To say this simply and

eloquently "Beauty (art in this reference) is in the eye of the beholder", attributed to Margaret Wolfe

Hungerford (née Hamilton) first in print but also in numerous other forms to John Lyly, Shakespeare,

Benjamin Franklin and even David Hume and probably a few dozen more individuals!So how does the

above discussion fit within the context of this blog on simplicity? Beyond it being something I want say,

to propose, and to nurture, that is to say instead of us (myself included) arguing on the question of what

is or isn't art, let us take a glass of wine, a fine beer, or a non-intoxicating beverage and have a

discussion on what we like or dislike, toast the makers of all art of any kind, scale or quality for their

attempts, their efforts and what they bring to the welfare of society. That is a simple concept that I hope

we can agree on.

A generalization if you will, is that when we simplify an artistic work, we make a better art work. That

has nothing to do with the kind of paints and brushes or the kind of camera or lenses we use, but with

the strength and simplicity of statement and center of interest. I've always felt and taught that a wide

angle optic is one of the most difficult lenses to learn and to use well in photography. Why? Because the

natural tendency is to use it only to do what it is designed to, which is to "see" a wide angle of view

encompassing more of a scene.

The difficulty is using such an optic is to simplify the scene, usually a landscape, as the tendency is to put

everything in the scene in the image. If we simply shoot what the camera/lens views, we leave the

viewer searching for the intent of the image, we leave the viewer trying to discern what we are trying to

say and show, we don't do our job which is to try and make the viewer see and feel what we saw that

made want to make a photograph.

Herein lies the opportunity to put to rest once and for all a misconception that I see stated and printed

all the time, and that is the idea that an image must be "what the camera saw" to be "straight" (in the

spirit of Group f64) or "un-manipulated". Let me make here a statement of fact, a non-opinion, which is:

a camera does not see! Cameras have never seen, they cannot see now even with the digital revolution,

and never will see. A camera can record an image with the use of a lens that projects onto a recording

medium, an image that somewhat represents, but never fully represents what the human operator of

that camera and lens combination has seen and is trying to record.

"Sprague Lake Sunrise", Rocky Mountain National Park © Hank Erdmann

Simplifying this scene meant exclusion of most of the cloudless sky and it's reflection.

To talk about what the camera/lens sees and equate that to a purity or higher level of integrity in

photography is in my mind not only hogwash, but the ultimate in hypocrisy! That is akin to saying that if

painter didn't paint a picture 100% in accuracy and faithfulness to a scene, on site and in real time and

certainly not from a scene or vision created in the painter's mind, that the artwork has no value, no

validity, no artistry. I will use what is probably the most famous landscape photograph ever made as an

example and that is one I use over and over as an example of how the concept of manipulation is

maligned as something evil and something to be avoided at some level in photography.

Ansel Adams famous image "Moonrise over Hernandez, NM", so famous it is now referred to as just

"Hernandez", is a testament to "image integrity" of what the artist saw and felt and simplicity. The story

is now famous as to what was happening at the moment that the image was made, so I won't repeat it

here. I can tell you that if you saw a contact print of the negative of that image, which is a "faithful

record of the scene at the moment the shutter was tripped (albeit in black and white - the scene of

course is in reality in color)", you would be likely un-impressed if it was your first viewing, and just as

likely, terribly disappointed had you already seen one of Adams' later prints. I have seen both the

contact print and one of the later prints that became so famous. That image is an example of Adams'

real genius as an artist.

It is my understanding that the reason for the contact print was for educational purposes in some of his

workshops, regardless, it was never meant to be used for exhibit as fine art. The value of that great

image is just how Adams manipulated (there is that "evil" word again) the negative in printing it to bring

out his vision of not only what he saw but what he felt at seeing this scene unfold before his eyes and

how fleeting the image was. In his eyes he saw not only that he had very little time to record the scene,

he could see that clouds would block the late light off the crosses, but how integral the light on them

was to the image before him and to translate the impression of the scene in front of him to a print for

viewers of the image, he knew at the moment he made the exposure he would darken the sky in

printing.

Adams stated he saw the scene in his mind's eye with a darker sky that was actually there. When we

look at the finished image we see the interplay of light in the sky with the moon, and the late light of day

lighting up the cemetery crosses. When we look at the contact print we don't see that interplay as

clearly or as strong or as noticeable and we have to search for what is so striking in the final print. By

darkening up the sky, Adams simplified the essence of the scene and the viewer instantly sees what

Adams saw and felt. It is also interesting to note that as Adams grew as an artist he continually re-

interpreted that image and made the sky darker and darker through the years. One can call that

manipulation, I call it artistry at work.

So through manipulation we can simplify an image as we can simplify through composition and through

many other techniques and concepts. In his book "Beyond the Landscape", artist David Ward has a

wonderful chapter on simplification. It is from his books much of what I write about here is taken. David

takes a look at the major difference in painting and photography and that is that painting is an additive

process while photography is a subtractive one. It is said that great painters "know when to stop"

(adding to the painting that is). So it is also true in the opposite sense that great photographers know

how to subtract or extract from the overall scene, in a word; "simplify" to give their viewers just the

essence of the scene and show them not only what they, not their cameras, are seeing and by

simplifying, also showing what they are feeling. BTW, cameras only feel when you drop them (or is that

our wallets feeling pain?)

"Economy of Line" is taught in many art classes and that concept should also be taught in photography

classes. Economy of line is especially present in cartoon art (Yes, I think cartoons are an art, and a great

one at that) and in much Asian art. A Chinese proverb states: "Yi dào bi bu dào" which roughly

translates; "Idea present, brush may be spared performance". That is the ultimate in simplicity!

Words have great impact and in David's book he uses an example of a little chart of words to illustrate

how words can dictate implied meaning to the benefit or detriment of what they describe. It's all about

how we view a concept as to how or if we will use it or how we apply it. So take the words "Simplicity"

and "Complexity" and look at some meanings of the words. "Simplicity": unsophisticated, superficial,

shallow, half-truth: then "Complexity": sophisticated, serious, deep, truth. In the context of these words

"simple" can imply ignorance, lack of intelligence and a pejorative nature. Let's turn the thought process

around and use other meanings of the words. "Simplicity": easy, unadorned, elegant, essential, clear or

for "Complexity": difficult, embellished, messy, unrefined and confused. We now conceive of simplicity

in a positive context and a concept easier to understand conceptually or more importantly, more

intrinsically.

When we compose with simplicity of concept and of center of interest in mind, we make clearer images,

images that give the viewers of our work no ambiguity, but an insight into what we were seeing and

feeling at the moment of seeing a scene or subject so wonderful that we want to share it with the world.

“Prairie Sky” Nachusa Grasslands, Lee County, Illinois © Hank Erdmann

In this image the sky was the first thing I noticed as I looked at the scene. That sky and the way the hill "supported" the sky almost like a framing element in reverse. To capture showed the clouds but not in the way I remembered them and to bring the image back not only to what I saw, but felt I had to increase the contrast in just the sky to make the clouds look as menacing as they had felt to me as I looked at them.

Comments, thoughts, please feel free to share.

Allbest, Hank

HHaannkk EErrddmmaannnn PPhhoottooggrraapphhyy 990033 WWiinnddssoorr DDrriivvee,, SShhoorreewwoooodd,, IIlllliinnooiiss 6600440044 881155..774411..88227733 ((PPrreeffeerrrreedd CCoonnttaacctt)) ~~ 881155..226600..88880000 CCeellll

EEmmaaiill:: hhaannkkpphhoottoo@@ssbbccgglloobbaall..nneett WWeebb:: hhttttpp::////hhaannkkpphhoottoo..pphhoottoosshheelltteerr..ccoomm//ggaalllleerryy--lliisstt