: Welcome BACK to my humble show, !
Do you enjoy RETURNING here?
: But of course. You are such a fine host and all.
: So, where did we stop the last time…?
: You had asked me to illustrate, with examples, some things I had learned about photography.
And I talked a bit about
(Neha has a print of the last one hanging in her cube.)
: What role does NEHA actually play in your photographic quest?
: Neha is pretty and full of life, she's a co-worker, she likes being in front of the lens, and my wife and I like showing her around the area. It just wouldn't be right for someone to travel here from India and not get to see the beauty of the Finger Lake region of New York.
: So would this lake also be an example of a place you might visit over and over again, but each time still find something new in it, photographically spoken?
If so, share some examples for that with us, please!
: The fascination of photographing the same places again is that it is always different. Places and seasons change. The camera changes. I change.
There was one old dead tree by Irondequoit Creek that it seemed that I would never get quite right. It's been gone some time now, so what I have is what I have.
A set with a much wider date span (52 years!) is this from Taughannock Falls State Park in New York. My wife and I visited there this summer for the first time in years, about the same time as I dug up an old set of negatives from 1962. Seeing how well that 12-year-old kid did with his no-name camera makes me wish I had kept up my photography in the intervening years.
One of my friends at work told me to check out the line at the top of the falls as there was a major rock fall a few years ago. The land changes, it does.
I have taken _many_ photographs over the years at Letchworth State Park, especially of the three main waterfalls. Folks can cruise my Letchworth folder to see those -> pearwood.deviantart.com/galler…
(Since I do keep going back to the same places, I created a "Places" subgallery with a collection of place names under it. It makes cross-checking a lot easier.)
I have two named galleries "Around our house" and "Around work" that rate special mentions. For gallery purposes, "around" is defined as "within walking distance". Some of the shots there end up being quite similar in composition, but the light keeps changing.
And I do enjoy the roll of the seasons.
: Tell us more about your friendship with trees, please!
: Trees. Yes, trees.
Photographs are make by fools like me, but only God can make a tree.
Trees are my friends and often my nemeses. My landscape photos are so often focused on trees that I named the gallery Landscapes and Trees.
I headed out for a walk from work on day last month with ten frames remaining on the roll of twelve in the Yashica-D. I decided to use those ten shots to take portraits of the solo trees along the way. As I walked along the old tracks I some groups insisted on posing for me, too.
One days with a mix of clouds and sunshine I generally shoot with a filter to bring out the contrast, a yellow filter for this one.
Trees, like people, are constantly changing. These two were shot minutes apart as the clouds shifted in front of the sun, both with the Argus C3 and a green filter.
The view changes drastically in the winter.
So there you have it. I like trees.
: "Only God can make a tree."
What's the message behind that one...?
: Think of it this way. Suppose your local art gallery is exhibiting the work of some great sculptor and you have been asked to do a photographic essay on the exhibit. Your photography would in a very real sense be a collaboration between you and the sculptor, whether living or dead, (and, or course, the museum curators who set the sculptures in place and set up the lighting and all). That's just the way it is when photographing someone else's artwork. If the sculpture has been marred by time, accident or malice, you are going to have to decide how to deal with that, too. Or if you think the sculpture is hideous.
As a Christian and a photographer, I believe I am photographing the artwork of Another. My photographs are a collaboration between myself and a creator who spent billions of years forming this earth and, specifically, this tree.
I suppose an atheist might say similar things about Nature; I can only speak for myself.
(This also applies, in much more complicated ways, to a photojournalist photographing truly evil things, whether slave trade or terrorist attack or state-sponsored massacres. Again, that's a discussion I will have to leave to others.)
: Do I sense a certain amount of PANTHEISM here, in your christianity...?
: Not at all. God remains God and the tree and I and you remain creatures, but creatures created by God, and therefore intrinsically valuable. I don't love the earth because she is my Mother or something like that, but because the Creator has placed us here as earthkeepers and gardeners, which we have been notoriously bad at. (Thankfully, Christians are finally figuring out that being earth-keepers means being environmentalists. But that another topic in its own right.)
: I don't know if you remember, but I was just asking about your religion here because we once had a very short, but very interesting discussion about being (non-)religious and that phenomenon that could be called SYNCHRONICITY...
Unfortunately, of course I have forgotten by now where exactly that was.
But, does it ring a bell...?
: I don't remember the conversation, but I could see how it could apply to both (non)religion and photography. Our friends at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchron… quote Roderick Main thusly,
The culmination of Jung's lifelong engagement with the paranormal is his theory of synchronicity, the view that the structure of reality includes a principle of acausal connection which manifests itself most conspicuously in the form of meaningful coincidences. Difficult, flawed, prone to misrepresentation, this theory none the less remains one of the most suggestive attempts yet made to bring the paranormal within the bounds of intelligibility. It has been found relevant by psychotherapists, parapsychologists, researchers of spiritual experience and a growing number of non-specialists. Indeed, Jung's writings in this area form an excellent general introduction to the whole field of the paranormal.
Even aside from the paranormal trappings, there is a lot more going than meets the eye. The relationship between a photograph and the person and place of which it was taken can be like that, though in a more metaphorical sense, I think, than the connections Jung was talking about.
: Well I'm not even sure if I was actually referring to JUNG here...
But anyway, since we're already here now: What do you think, are DREAMS?
: I'm going to keep this one simple - dreams are our minds staying busy processing and rehashing stuff while the rest of us is asleep.
: As my humble audience knows, I frequently do dream about dA stuff and members... Today it was your turn. (Although that man didn't look anyway like you.) You were holding an inflammatory, very emotional anti-war speech directed against and the 9/11 faction, in which after (--> for "patriotic" reasons) clearing up that you only care for AMERICAN lives on AMERICAN soil, you ended with the words: "They just destroyed our country! Let's kill them!"
: Not terribly realistic. I try not to be inflammatory under any circumstances; it's quite counterproductive as a rule. It's the verbal equivalent of tossing missiles back and forth.
Lives matter, black, white, or otherwise, both here and there. And the moral and ethical questions about whether and how to intervene in the face of unspeakable evil are not trivial. I can conceive of things worse than war -- though not many.
Though I would differ with him on a number of issues, I do think Pope Francis is on the right track, and more so than any or the national leaders who come to mind. Obama does pretty well, but he has to deal with what is actually doable. No US
president has ever had a completely free hand.
It's a nasty, complicated world.
: Still, what do you think that this dream, for example, is able to tell you in one way or another?
: That while dreams should not be taken altogether seriously, they can provide marvelous topics for conversation by the awake.
: Who are THOSE?
: You and I, though I suppose we may only be semi-awake.
: But who are the ones FULLY awake?
: Who are the fully awake? The ones with eyes and heart open to see the beauty and wholeness in a world full of ugliness and brokenness.I take photographs in order to stay awake.
: Well, I think these are quite beautiful final words…
Or do you have some others left, for our noble audience?
: Yes, a good place to end, methinks. I thank you, Sir Ghul.Steve the Knave
: Ladies and gentlemen, the second appearance of !
And btw: By now I found again, where we had this humble, but in my opinion quite fundamental "discussion" that I mentioned:
Comments are always welcome!
Last 3 previous episodes: