Scenic Wild Newsletter Issue 13 / February 2007 ©2007, Guy Tal / Scenic Wild Photography. All Rights Reserved.
As seasons go, this winter is turning out to be particularly long and drawn out. Despite the new buds on the cottonwood trees, there is yet more snow in the forecast and I am hopeful that this will finally be the last of it.
As more grim news of our warming planet keeps arriving, I am convinced more than ever that the greatest threat to humanity is humanity itself, and in particular our collective complacency (or perhaps misplaced optimism). Is there still time to turn the tides (pun very much intended)? Is there a way?
I do feel fortunate to be living in a time and place where wilderness is still available to me, a time when I can find a place where - as Edward Abbey put it - I can go to go crazy in peace. How many generations from now will still be able to feel the same way? How important is it to others? How does one man sound the wake up call for the rest of his species?
And yet, as these and other thoughts sometimes seem too much to bear, a trip into the ancient beauty that still persists around me invigorates my soul like a dip in a crystalline canyon pool on a hot summer day.
There is still immense beauty in this world - beauty that is momentarily ours to enjoy after billions of years in the making. Yes, I am fortunate and hopeful - hopeful that others may be equally inspired by it and that the prospect of losing this irreplaceable heritage will ultimately triumph over complacency.
Guy Tal
|

|
|
A New Web Journal
With much prodding from friends and fellow artists I was finally convinced to start a web journal. Please don't call it a "blog", and I do hope the tech-heads never coin a new insipid term for it ("bournal"?) The content is no more than random thoughts and written on a whim. I expect it to ebb and flow as mood and time allows. Please feel free to add your own comments and thoughts:
http://www.scenicwild.com/serendipity
|

|
|

|
|
Price Update
Other than for panoramic prints, my prices are driven in part by the standard size of sheet-paper required to print them. For prints 12" on the short side this usually means 13x19". I am happy to announce that these prints have now been priced at $74.95 (down from $99.95). I hope the new price will prompt an increase in volume for this popular size.
As always, each month you can still purchase my Print of the Month (poste on the Scenic Wild home page) for a mere $24.95. For those curious the reason behind this is my original commitment to share the beauty of wild places beyond any monetary interest. At this price I hope anyone interested in my work will be able to afford it.
I also offer bulk purchase pricing. Please don't hesitate to inquire if interested.
|

|
|
The Eyes Don't See and The Eyes Don't Create
The brain does. Though many consider human (or other animal) vision to be consistent in its representation of "reality", this is not actually the case. It's also a mistake to assume that light hitting the eyes is the only factor which determines our perception of an image.
The lens of the eye focuses light on the retina which, in turn, converts it into neural signals sent to the brain. The brain then infers what the image is based on the neural stimulus but also on any number of other unconscious factors. In fact when scientists talk about vision they talk in terms of perception and inference, rather than any kind of straightforward translation from light into a conscious representation of an image.
Surprised? You should be. Essentially this means that what you see is just one interpretation of "reality" where an infinite number of other possibilities are equally valid.
Gestalt theory of vision identifies several factors used by our brains in the interpretation of visual information (among them symmetry, proximity, closure, continuity, the elusive "common fate" etc.) suggesting that these factors may yield an image in our mind that may not always match "reality".
This is relevant to photography is the sense that it puts a big dent in the argument that somehow the camera's interpretation (or rather film or digital sensors/computers) is in some way more relevant than the memory or interpretation of the photographer. Indeed there is a whole school of photographers who go out of their way to match their scans and prints to a given film and who consider it a mortal sin to eliminate elements in the captured image that their own brain did not register at the scene.
So much is just regarding the mechanism of seeing, now let's talk about creative interpretation. Our brains are immensely sophisticated and capable instruments and may render images independent of visual stimulus. Our so-called "mind's eye" can easily portray what a scene would be like without a pesky power line or random bird droppings. Why is it that some insist to hobble their cognitive powers and personal interpretation with the limitations of their medium? Do we really hold our gadgets ability to see in higher esteem than our brains and creative spirit?
Obviously in some applications there is value to producing a mechanical record capable of "proving" the presence/state of specific elements (e.g. for legal or other documentary purposes) but in the field of art photography are these truly relevant?
You might ask then what the value of honest reresentation is in artistic photography. My personal take is that the artist is responsible for representing his or her thoughts, emotions, and interpretation when experiencing the scene - the things that made them decide the experience is worth sharing with the world. Vision, flawed as it is, is surely a contibuting factor but hardly the only one.
My pledge to you is that my images are true to the spirit of the scene and the sense of awe and fascination I felt in the moment. It is that sense that I strive to represent without distraction and as honestly as my skill and tools allow me.
|

|
|
|