It's interesting to me that the author spent years looking at these photos and wrote a very long article about them and still doesn't seem to understand the photographs. I think I spent less than a minute before I at least I think I got something more out of it than what the author saw. I could be totally misunderstanding the author though.
All the reasons Nigel gives for what makes those photos interesting miss the point I think.
> "although any of us could have taken those pictures, only one person actually did"
> "Just knowing that these scenes aren’t the most beautiful places along the trail system provokes a rush of tenderness for that forest. It’s the same thing I feel looking at pictures of my wife caught unaware she’s being photographed, when she looks ordinary instead of radiant."
> "reducing each of Struth’s photographs to a list of the plant species it contained and some observations on the successional state of the forest. "
I notice this miss the point on artsy/literary stuff happens a lot when talking to other engineers. It's like there's a blindness that some can't seem to overcome. To see the pictures in another way, the keyword here used in the article was "complexity". Look at one, and image this wasn't a photograph at all. Imagine it if were an abstract painting, like a pollock painting. Forget about the forest, and that there are plants in it, just focus a little bit less and look at the lines. The author is looking at all the wrong details. Struth here seems to care about the tangle of lines, the massive dark structures contrasting with the little bits of tiny complex jumbles. I'd guess the best I could do is to say to an engineer, try to write a program that generates patterns like this. What would that look like? These aren't photos of randomness, there is complex, sophisticated architecture in these plants trying to fight for scraps of light. It's humbling and in a way reminds me of other types of structures in nature like the superstructures in the cosmos, like the CfA2 Great Wall[1]. Try and focus out a little, like I said, try and see it as a painting. Turn off the forest, and then if you get it, turn it back on, because context is important.
A good analogy here might be the 3D Stereograms that were popular in the 90's. Some people looked at those things and couldn't see the 3D (I often couldn't) but would say they see something.
It's hard to know with certainly exactly what the photographer was thinking (without asking them).
I personally think it's a good point that a lot of pictures that are famous/considered visually interesting are of grandiose locations and subject matter while here we have artistically strong photographs of "common/boring" spots.
Regardless of what the photographer intended, it's an mildly interesting thought.
I agree with this post, and I think a lot of other HN readers would as well if they saw the context of Struth's work. I did a quick Google images search and found a few of his other works:
Comparing these to the Paradise series, all exhibit the a similar sense of visual complexity, as discussed by VieElm. However, these photographs are not necessarily of "mundane objects" -- city skylines are commonly photographed. This leads me to believe that Struth's interest is in the visual appeal rather than an interest in "the obvious."
Despite this, I liked the article. Well written and thought-provoking.
I was immediately reminded of Kanemura Osamu's rather pointed search for complexity amongst Tokyo's backstreets - many taken while he was working as a newspaper delivery boy.
In my experience, art invokes several ideas at the same time. Nigel Pitman explored several in these pictures, and VieElm pointed out another. Unlike most jokes, it is satisfying to spend time with each of the ideas.
I'm no Thomas Struth, nor had I heard of him before this article, but a couple years a ago I took several pictures in a similar spirit, of which I uploaded four: http://thyrsus21.deviantart.com/gallery/
Talking about art and explaining it to each other is the most awesome thing about it! Honestly, I’m unable to comprehend your viewpoint on this at all.
I think you're totally wrong about the interpretation, but who knows what Struth meant if anything by these. Unlike maybe Stephen Shore or even Alec Soth, Struth's photographs seem to me to be much more just about the equipment. He seems to think that anything taken on large format and printed really big is art. Personally I find his work bland and utterly devoid of anything even remotely interesting. The author of this piece has the advantage of fond memories of those banal forest scenes, but to the me they are without artistic merit. I don't like any of Struth's work though. He's a fraud in my opinion.
And as for this artistic interpretation "Imagine [as] if it were an abstract painting" is a ridiculous one. It's as valid as me saying imagine it were actually an interesting photograph.
Then again, the world needs art historians as about as much as birds need bird watchers.
One thing we can agree on, the CfA2 Great Wall is awesome.
That's what's so cool about art. We each take from art what appeals to us, if we take anything. It's subjective, and the reason one might like Stokowski, another Marilyn Manson, and yet another both.
Context is why Art is highly subjective. The context is nearly endless, the subjective perception must be cut-off by a threshold. Your Idea of sophisticated architecture in plants would imply personification in your mind, which is clearly one way to think about it, seeing oneself merely as a flower, neglecting the distinction the context of the origin and the meaning of the term knowledge gives, generalizing the concepts. It's one way to do it, the other is specialization. It's ironic that you would try to argue naturalistic generalization, which is itself a specialization. Your context, apparently is engineering, and you try to try to infer intention from interpretation, while the author laid focus on the intention (as in "only one person actually did") to draw information about the possible interpretations. Those are different problems; I learned about the Bayes-theorem today :)
I have always been fascinated that people consider tropical rainforests "paradise". They are one of the most difficult places to live with the heat, humidity, disease, and dangerous flora and fauna. Fascinating places, but in my mind far from paradise.
Yes. The closest I have ever experienced are the islands of the South Pacific. You get the same lush vegetation, but with pleasant temperatures and few of the nasty critters. Some of the Cook Islands are a very nice :)
"...all of us were burning to write up whatever we learned in some technical journal that, years later, an associate professor might glance at on his coffee break."
18 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 43.2 ms ] threadAll the reasons Nigel gives for what makes those photos interesting miss the point I think.
> "although any of us could have taken those pictures, only one person actually did"
> "Just knowing that these scenes aren’t the most beautiful places along the trail system provokes a rush of tenderness for that forest. It’s the same thing I feel looking at pictures of my wife caught unaware she’s being photographed, when she looks ordinary instead of radiant."
> "reducing each of Struth’s photographs to a list of the plant species it contained and some observations on the successional state of the forest. "
I notice this miss the point on artsy/literary stuff happens a lot when talking to other engineers. It's like there's a blindness that some can't seem to overcome. To see the pictures in another way, the keyword here used in the article was "complexity". Look at one, and image this wasn't a photograph at all. Imagine it if were an abstract painting, like a pollock painting. Forget about the forest, and that there are plants in it, just focus a little bit less and look at the lines. The author is looking at all the wrong details. Struth here seems to care about the tangle of lines, the massive dark structures contrasting with the little bits of tiny complex jumbles. I'd guess the best I could do is to say to an engineer, try to write a program that generates patterns like this. What would that look like? These aren't photos of randomness, there is complex, sophisticated architecture in these plants trying to fight for scraps of light. It's humbling and in a way reminds me of other types of structures in nature like the superstructures in the cosmos, like the CfA2 Great Wall[1]. Try and focus out a little, like I said, try and see it as a painting. Turn off the forest, and then if you get it, turn it back on, because context is important.
A good analogy here might be the 3D Stereograms that were popular in the 90's. Some people looked at those things and couldn't see the 3D (I often couldn't) but would say they see something.
[1] http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2004/31/aa0696/img12.g...
I personally think it's a good point that a lot of pictures that are famous/considered visually interesting are of grandiose locations and subject matter while here we have artistically strong photographs of "common/boring" spots.
Regardless of what the photographer intended, it's an mildly interesting thought.
http://classes.dma.ucla.edu/Fall13/173/wp-content/uploads/20...
http://www.contemporaryartdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/...
http://www.contemporaryartdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/...
Comparing these to the Paradise series, all exhibit the a similar sense of visual complexity, as discussed by VieElm. However, these photographs are not necessarily of "mundane objects" -- city skylines are commonly photographed. This leads me to believe that Struth's interest is in the visual appeal rather than an interest in "the obvious."
Despite this, I liked the article. Well written and thought-provoking.
https://www.google.com/search?q=kanemura+osamu&espv=2&biw=12...
I'm no Thomas Struth, nor had I heard of him before this article, but a couple years a ago I took several pictures in a similar spirit, of which I uploaded four: http://thyrsus21.deviantart.com/gallery/
And as for this artistic interpretation "Imagine [as] if it were an abstract painting" is a ridiculous one. It's as valid as me saying imagine it were actually an interesting photograph.
Then again, the world needs art historians as about as much as birds need bird watchers.
One thing we can agree on, the CfA2 Great Wall is awesome.