Posted in 06 Surveys, Coursework, Part Two ~ Landscape as journey

Exercise 2.1: ‘Territorial Photography’ – Part Two

Next, find and evaluate two photographs by any of the photographers Snyder mentions, but not specific examples that he addresses in the essay. Your evaluation (up to 250 words for each) should reflect some of the points that Snyder makes, as well as any other references.

 My opinion towards Carleton Watkins was initially rather severe, in my eyes I saw him visualising the land as a place to conquer and humanise with utter disregard of any inhabitants of the land and wildlife. And whilst this is true, I have learned that there was also a different side to him his images inspired a huge Environmental revolution in America. When he first visited Yosemite in the late 1800’s he was blown away by the beauty of the landscape. His resulting images were shown to President Abraham Lincoln who signed the Yosemite Grant Act in turn inspiring John Muir to see Yosemite as a protected National Park who motivated President Theodore Roosevelt to create the National Park which is known and loved today.

“The radiance in some places is so great as to be fairly dazzling. Every crystal, every flower, a window opening into heaven. A mirror reflecting the creators.” John Muir describing Yosemite. 

CARLETON WATKINS

Man and nature are juxtaposed against one another in an eternal battle. This limestone slide created by nature and captured by man is a result of layers of sediment piling up on one another. There is such a contrast of nature and man here, while Timothy O’ Sullivan would have approached this shot to show the power of nature, Carleton Watkins shows the road to the future, the train passing across the foreground, a poignant memorial of the landscape that was savaged to set down such tracks. Highlighting the power of Progress and how it will continue.

b1fed7e2caa1345e6ff1dae43a72f176.jpg

 

Such images inspired and appealed to the nation, their ideal of an American Eden, yet compare this image with the truth of the matter. As Synder discussed in his essay, the ‘American Eden’ was only half of the picture, the other half was more brutal. To create the Central Pacific Railroad (which Carleton Watkins was one of the ‘big four'(owners of the railroad) something innocent must be destroyed and thus followed the devastating slaughter of the tens of millions of herds of Buffalo that had once roamed the lands as well as the homes and lives of the Native Americans and anyone who was caught in the vicious crossfire.

“Maybe Progress should lose for once” Owen – Jurassic World.

Bison_skull_pile_1870s.jpg

This pile of Bison skulls makes me feel physically sick, they look so proud to have slaughtered such innocent creatures! Whilst I am not at all insinuating that Carleton Watkins is entirely to blame for this, I am merely saying that he appealed to citizens by showing how man has a right to dominate the planet through his photography, spinning a lie and he was an owner of the railroad.

 “The great Pacific Railway is commenced.… Immigration will soon pour into these valleys. Ten millions of emigrants will settle in this golden land in twenty years.… This is the grandest enterprise under God!”George Francis Train – Railroad financier

On the positive side, photographs such as these were able to show the nation the truth behind the ‘American Eden’ and images such as this gave rise to Conservational Photography.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Timothy O’Sullivan.

O’Sullivans images show the harsh brutality of nature, showing the insignificance of man in the face of nature. Perhaps this stems from his first-hand encounter in the war seeing the terrible loss of life.

I was drawn in by the power of this image of the Shoshone falls, the still waters contrast with the raging water in the backgrounds, though the movement is not visible, our imagination fills in the gaps of this roaring natural wonder and picks out the tiny figure at the edge of the water. Watching.  One thing I was struck by when I was viewing O’Sullivan’s images was his inclusion of people; perhaps I had read it incorrectly, but I thought that Synder implied that O’Sullivan used footprints, or man-made objects to highlight human occupancy, yet I found many images with tiny figures (such as this image of the Shoshone Falls) in vast landscapes to highlight the power of nature.  Synder wrote of how O’Sullivan showed how diminutive we are which is captured with the sole figure here, yet I also feel something else from O’Sullivan’s images, a search for solitude. I feel an aching sense of loneliness looking at the pictures, the places he photographs such as the Shoshone falls are so. A sole figure stands watching, swept up, almost undefinable in this magnificent vista. It is reminiscent of Caspar Friedrich’s works and makes me feel that compared to nature we are just passing echoes. We are visitors to this wonderful planet, blown by the wind in new directions. This landscape will remain forever yet we will not. Screen Shot 2017-06-26 at 10.13.54.jpg

 

 

Posted in 06 Surveys, Coursework, Part Two ~ Landscape as journey

Exercise 2.1: ‘Territorial Photography’ Part One

Synder’s essay starts at the beginning where photography was just starting to climb to its feet in a very opinionated world, kind of like starting at a school one week late when everyone already has their friends; photography was pushed out of every genre it tried to settle in. Artists had set ideas about what photography was. It was mechanical and therefore there was nothing human about it, it couldn’t evoke emotion, the photographer played no artistic part in it, therefore, it could not possibly be considered art. As every detail was captured there was nothing left for the imagination (where they believed art resides) For them photography was a harbinger of doom, photography was a cheat, like tracing a picture. Science also argued that whilst a mechanical creation it had no place with Science either.

There was a great deal of confusion as to where photography belonged so naturally if you’re different, you don’t belong and photography drifted in a void, an entire level of its own. Photography was also seen as a symbolism of industrialisation. People such as Charles Baudelaire saw photography as almost an alien species, they could see it taking over, shifting the limelight! Did they see photography brainwashing the world!

What confuses me is why photography went along with it. Instead of fighting back and arguing that “Actually, we are something different and that’s ok, essentially we are creating magic.” They accepted their fate and ensured their images went along with the stereotypical view, mechanical. They strove hard to create fine definition and machine looking photos despite offering something the art industry couldn’t. I suppose just like in wildlife conservation, you don’t fight against the farmers you work with them so they are inspired to help your cause. The prejudice against photographers is slightly ironic as, mechanically, it took a great deal more skill then than now where the digital camera provides us with the perfect blueprint for photography. Anyone can click a camera shutter but not every photo is a good photo.

Landscape photography was targeted and perhaps artists felt most threatened by nature and landscape was a common subject.

Despite negative associations of it today, tourism guided Landscape photography to the place it occupies today. Scenic photos were sold at Publishing houses which bought photos from other thus spreading photos of the world available in all locations. Photographic supply houses started to ship out to other countries around the world. They had created their own market.

The ongoing debate of where photography stood continued. A photography was essentially a self-portrait in that it ‘implicates the maker…expresses his or her sensibility…how a scene was experienced” Franco Fontane described this too! But Lady Elizabeth Eastlake, wrote how photography was a mechanical process, therefore, had no human aspect. She believed it failed to show experience and therefore could not be considered as an art. It must have been so frustrating to the photographers being met by this wall of criticism. It astonishes me that everyone can be so snobby about it when only a few years ago the thought of photography could have been seen as impossible as seeing a dragon! Charles Baudelaire wrote, “It has ruined whatever might remind of the divine in the French Mind.”

However, there was a new generation of photographers. They knew what Landscape composition was but they were bound by no conventions, they were “free to record what they saw” As they adapted to creating exact depictions they, in turn, appealed to the market. The photos themselves were disinterested. And surprisingly, arts blatant opinions began to change. The photographers stepped back and created scenes true to reality yet were admired ‘artistically’ for the skill and technique of the photographer. People had their own opinions of photography and the photographer had to be careful to ensure they met that criteria, reality, factual. They had to be different from expected, avoid any landscape conventions so they could not be compared, employ fact to appraise skill both in a technical and factual way. Be attractive and scientific.

Enter, Carleton Watkins a San Francisco photographer. His images were beautiful of sublime views. Even Ansel Adams emulated his works. His images of Yosemite reflected in the water drew the ugly heads of the prejudiced art industry once more. It was argued that (whilst beautiful) the image was not art as it was something that anyone could see were they standing there. Yet, of course, it is art, because it is the artistic vision! Photography created one reality of another reality. Artists began to use their photos as references for their art. Photography had become a doorway for artists.

The art industry welcomed it and photographers were congratulated for creating scientific and detached images with features found in paintings and other media. Images of far off landscapes were being brought to the masses through Watkins photographs in images that were familiar yet sublime.

His images were not appraising nature though. In a dark twist for the environment, he became almost like a travel rep, he saw the landscape as a real estate and edited the ragged landscape and man-made structures to appear almost harmonious. That man was meant to be there and had a right to plunder, maim and destroy. This was a lie and almost like cloning out bruises on someone’s face to conceal the truth. The scenes pleased the eye, yet unbeknown to the viewers, the actual landscape was not their stereotypical view of beauty. He edited it to suit his idea and mislead those drawn in by his illusion, his illusion of an American Eden. Photography had only been accepted when it captured reality, but this was no longer a reality.

He ignored all former land owners and thought only of his vision. Charles Baudelaire had seen photography disillusioning the public yet now this was exactly what was happening. American Eden. Watkins was the leader and the viewers his loyal followers, brainwashed by lies. Fed the American dream idea which appealed to their romantic nature.

His vista of a new world would be created by slaughtering the present. Creating unspoilt innocence by destroying innocence, therefore, leaving nothing innocent. Train tracks were created across the area connecting places yet causing the slaughter of thousands of bison and animals. (Ironically, photography may have given rise to this but it also gave rise to conservation as photos captured the brutality behind the scenes and brought it to a halt.

Before the military had mapped the Western land yet now it was argued they didn’t have the scientific training to do this justice. Onto the scene came Clarence King and Geologist, “”Driven by a desire first to understand the vast contents of American and then to put whatever knowledge he gained into the hands of those who could best use it 0 scientists, land management experts and mining company engineers.”

Timothy O Sullivan, a war photographer was hired to join one such expedition. Synder asks why did they hire photographers like O’Sullivan if the images weren’t used in the official reports, they weren’t of a scientific nature, you couldn’t make accurate readings from them. He was asked merely to provide ‘generally descriptive photographs” to “give a sense of the area.” His images didn’t disillusion people like Watkins, he didn’t depict the land as habitable, theirs for the plunger, instead he used light and scale to depict the true enormity and brutality of this “magnificent desolation (as Buzz Aldrin described the Moon) He realised this place was heartless and cruel and that humankind was as diminutive as the grains of sand that ravaged the skin hurled by the bitter wind. He showed viewers the sublime with the message, we are not as powerful as we might think. He rarely included people in landscapes merely the echoes of humanity, footprints in the sand, a waggon on a desolate plain. While the images show the truth, they are also slightly manipulated yet only in the sense of moving the waggon to the best position. Yet at the end of the day photography is not about science, nowadays photos see a lot of their beauty being created in post processing so I think Watkin’s can be ‘forgiven’ for creating his own composition. It is, after all, Ansel Adams himself saw them and they were published in in the histories of Beamont Hewahll, a curator of photography at the New York, Museum of Modern Art.

His use of extreme contrasts of light from the blinding open spaces to the dark impenetrable shadows remind me of Plato;s analogy of the Cave, where the prisoner escapes the darkness then is faced with the blinding light and the dark is now painful.

Such images would have shocked the viewers and perhaps put an end to the illusion of Watkin’s photos. His images feel uncanny, they are known in terms of a landscape but they are unknown, and as they are only faintly known they become uncanny beyond uncanny.