Mark,

If you told Paul Butzi, “In the medium of photography, ‘landscapes’ like yours have been done to death,” I think he would just laugh.

For my part, “the medium of photography” is not an entity that interests me. What interests me is what artists in what I consider to be my artistic community are doing. If Steve is doing something interesting, I value it, whether it has been done to death by others or not. If Steve sees a value in doing it, that is an indication to me that there is something worthwhile in it. To attempt to evaluate every photograph and painting ever done in order to evaluate Steve’s would be counter-productive. Historically, great art has been the product of small communities in which the members felt they were doing something important. They perhaps took inspiration from some specific works of the past, but they were not intimidated by or even interested in much of the other art that had been created during human history. It is this ability to focus on an area of interest (something which the internet makes difficult because of the easy access it gives to EVERYTHING) that is essential to creating something new. If along the way there is a repetition of past effort, so what?

Enjoy the mountains; set aside confusion and ambivalence, unless these are valuable to your creative process.

Thanks for your comments. I have some ambivalence too! If I really got you confused, I consider that a major achievement. Here are a few things I think about this:

Certainly generic abstracts and even peeling paint abstracts have been “done to death” in some sense. On the other hand, what hasn’t? Surely there are a gazillion photos of Mt. Marcy, but that doesn’t mean a good photographer can’t make a good image of it, and maybe even one that says something a little bit new. I’m not claiming that mine fall into that category, but I aspire to it. That’s what “finding my voice” means to me. I haven’t found it yet.

There are different kinds of photography, and this one actually feels completely different to me from most of my other work. I’m in a different frame of mind doing it, I’m looking for different things, and I do very different things in the later processing of the image. David’s probably right that whatever I do in this mode will inevitably influence other things I do, but to me the connection still seems rather weak. It’s more like a different art altogether.

I agree with the point Karl made that the real foundation of the image can give it a curious kind of authority that would be lacking if it were fully invented. My goal in this project is to make strong images that have “abstract” appeal and also real referents. I have chosen one version of my second image; I have a number of similar frames of this area and others where it’s still clear that this is on a car because of some edge or holes or other metalwork. I’m actually not sure which I like best at this point.

I also love the abstracts that stay closer to true colors and more discernable objects, such as those Mary Dennis does. With my particular subjects, most of the time, I just find them more interesting with the color jazzed up (or down to monochrome, also unrealistic).

I have very ambivalent feelings about these photographs. In the medium of photography, “abstracts” like these have been done to death. It is very easy to lapse into cliche when creating photographs like these and I think that’s where my ambivalence resides.

I am “conditioned” by the ubiquitousness of camera-club abstracts. My first impression is that I’m not suppose to like these.

On the other hand, I just purchased this entire set of photographs which I am hanging just as they appear on the page.

signed
Confused and Ambivalent in the Mountains

No, I just meant that I discovered color through painting. My work in other mediums, including digital ones, is part of the same ongoing discovery process. There’s a lot there to learn, not just conceptually, but also in terms of continually finetuning one’s perception and intuition.

I doubt you’ll get bored :)

One thing I find with these color images is that viewing it on different computer monitors can really affect the experience. My monitor here shows thing lower contrast and bluer, which alters both images for me.

D,
Consequences are definitely a fair question, though I have to say I haven’t much considered it yet. That’s certainly something I’ll be thinking more about and would mention in a statement for a show, if one materializes. An update on the antique/junk controversy is that the cars have recently been moved to a new location out of town; not progress as far as I’m concerned.

The palette series David pointed to are very interesting in a different way. I mainly like the ones that are actual palettes, because they tell more about the painter and how he works (all I saw were men!!!?? — to punctuate like my Aunt Shaney). I suppose my photos are more about the remnants of a once-expensive beauty, and how it can still be beautiful in a different way. I should say that I like some of these (I’ll be putting more on my web site eventually) in their natural, muted colors, but I tend to like them best with more saturated color and/or in black and white.

David,
Did you mean you discovered color (in the sense of a new awareness, not necessarily the first) via digital manipulation? Not in your earlier painting?

And hey, does anybody else see the strange dragon/bat-creature facing left in the upper part? Do you see anything else that affects your feeling about the image? Or is it purely abstract color shapes for you?

Whew! I like these.

The overlay of philosophical questions that D. poses are fun to play with — (I myself have a perennial fascination with the magnificent concrete curves of urban interstate highways, even as I have a greenie’s dislike of their impact on my life) — but in my experience, sliding down the slope you’ve found is enough fun to begin with. You can ask yourself the questions about rust and decay and junk and your world views after the initial joy of color and manipulation slows down.

And re: the work itself — aside from the curved lines, these images seem very unlike one another. The first one has power but the second one has a complexity, like the work of abstract expressionist Joan Mitchell, that I like even better. Perhaps it is, as Karl says, the real thing that lies behind the manipulated imagery. But if I had painted that second one (oil on canvas, naturally) I would be delighted. Oddly enough, I don’t think it would work in textiles nearly as well, although it would be fun to try.