Terra Incognita

Have you ever given thought to what attracts people to your photography? Yes, it’s an emotional response, but is it due to the subject matter, or what you’ve done with the subject matter? What if the subject matter is a specific location? Many years ago, during one of my earlier exhibits, a viewer expressed his fondness for one of my photos. It quickly became apparent that the main reason for his appreciation was a sentimental attachment to the location, a truth that left me feeling a little deflated. True, I captured the scene in nice light, and the photograph was well composed and technically sound. Still, it was the location that mattered most. The interaction caused me to reflect on the various reasons a photograph may connect with the viewer.

It stands to reason that a sense of place is one of the main qualities of landscape photography that connects with people. Much landscape photography is representational, and an audience responds most when a photo captures a place's look and feel. I’ve always realized this, though I’ve never been comfortable with it. Too often the appeal of the image lies in aesthetic qualities already inherent in the place. It’s as if my role as an artist has been reduced to little more than a recorder. I want my artwork to stand apart from geography and not rely on sentimental association with a particular place for acceptance and connection. For me, the emotional impact should be measured by how successfully I have conveyed my emotional response to the scene in photographic terms, regardless of where the image was made. 

These thoughts came to mind while reflecting on the images I have made in recent years where I live. The Thousand Islands region is steeped in natural beauty and a unique culture. It is a place that inspires deep passion in those who live and visit here. Given people's beauty and passion for this place, it’s not hard to make a beautiful photo that moves people. Yet, it is all too easy to rely on geography. That is not to denigrate such photos or say that they are bereft of creativity or merit. It is a question of emphasis on subject matter that indicates place or the photographer’s personal response. It’s not an either/or question. There is always a degree of subjectivity on the photographer’s part. The question is, how much does the photographer rely on geographic association? One of the primary reasons I am drawn to photographers like Eliot Porter and John Radigan (founder of the Adirondack Photography Institute) is that they tended to remove geography from their images, creating bodies of work that rely more on their powers of imagination and self-expression for connection than the place photographed. 

Not long after that interaction, and for unrelated reasons, my photography shifted, becoming not only more subjective and less descriptive, but also smaller in scale. This shift resulted in images that no longer offered any sense of place. It wasn’t a conscious decision to degeographize the image, but rather a consequence of the change in my work. Stripped of sentimental attachment, the viewer’s appreciation of the image became solely based on my interpretation of the subject at hand. The when, where, and how became immaterial. Granted, removing evidence of location from your work will also have the unfortunate effect of removing a potential source(s) of income that rely on geographic association. There are always consequences. It’s up to each of us to identify not only our voice but our values. Ultimately, as a self-expressive artist, I wish my photography not to be about the thing photographed, but rather about my emotional response and how I experience the subject.

Thank you for subscribing to my blog. If you know of others who may enjoy it, please consider sharing it with them.