Intimate landscapes

The lack of horizon was suggested as one route to a form of landscape photography both more intimate and more revealing of the artist's intentions [1]. I therefore decided to assemble on one page the pictures that typified and qualified this approach.

From a personal point of view, I have found this exercise most enlightening. The reduction in scale is correlated with a loss of information, and serves to strengthen the graphic qualities of the world that surrounds us. It has told me something about the way I see the world. I would recommend to any photographer serious about his art that he creates a selection of his pictures according to the no-horizon rule; that he looks at them hard and thinks about what it he is trying to say.

Horizontals: yes, Horizons: no

In the first row, the pictures are unquestionably devoid of sky, but are they devoid of horizon? Pictures 2 and 3 do not show any horizontals: they have vertical (2) and diagonal (3) rhythms. Picture 1 has a marked horizontal at the top of the frame reminiscent of a horizon. It is still however a self-contained, enclosed and finite space. Horizons and horizontals should not be confused. Horizontals are a graphic element integral to the picture. The horizon is a descriptive element, a carry-over from the real world rather than a graphic element. The lack of horizon serves merely to restrict the space being photographed: it influences our approach of the subject.

 

 

If the absence of horizon were the only way to intimacy, then we may as well live in the city and photograph urban landscapes (Pictures 4-6). The object of the exercise is then to crop out the sky and focus on the objects before us, thus emphasising them [2]. For the photographer who would rather the picture convey his feelings, a small scale will minimise the number of objects depicted and therefore reduce the total number of possible messages. The picture better depicts the object and provides for deeper meaning.

 

Simplicity is not related to scale

There is no reason to otherwise restrict oneself to features smaller than a dozen meters. Is intimacy related to scale? Are pictures 1 to 3 arranged in order of increasing intimacy (ditto pictures 7&8)? Scale is directly dependent on what is being photographed. A picture that is not representational of a specific object - commonly termed 'abstract' - will not have explicit scale and is also more likely to be read only in terms of its graphic or symbolic elements [3]. Eliminating the descriptive draws the attention to other contexts; the spectator must look for a meaning in these. In the words of David Ward, a less denotational picture is more likely to be connotational. The photographer is hoping that the spectator will perceive mainly the photographer's intentions once the spectator is deprived of descriptive elements.

An intimate photographer-spectator relationship is more likely with an intimate scale, but the fundamental parameter is actually the number of elements in the picture. The fewer the number of elements [4], the simpler the message. However, the photographer cannot control what the spectator will associate with the picture elements; he can only control which to display and hope to guide the spectator's perceptions.

 

Photography being what it is, will always carry an element of representation, to which the spectator may cling. How often do we hear that a picture has mood when in fact it is nothing more than a depiction of bad weather! Does such a picture have connotation (mood) or denotation (weather)? Only the spectator chooses - we cannot impose this decision upon him. The picture can be mis-interpreted or indeed not interpreted at all. The spectator may not have enough information to interpret the picture in the way intended by the photographer, whose expression may be obscured as a result of over-simplification.

 

 

Communication and intimacy are inter-dependent

I conjecture that the intimate landscape - the ideal case where photographer and spectator understand each other - can only be achieved when they share a common culture and have similar outlooks. That is, the intimate landscape is not related to the picture itself, but to the two human beings who are communicating by this vehicle. Cultural identity decreases with distance and is eroded by the passage of time, so that mostly it is low. Learning about other cultures is the only way to counter this wastage. Overall, given the difficulties in conveying a message, the photographer's prime aim should be to express himself for his own gain; in a second instance, he can strive for the right impression, and indeed to the creation of a new culture.

The spectator reacts to the picture in much the same way as the photographer does when he sees a scene. Both these people are fundamentally viewers. Sometimes, what we see - as either photographer or spectator, ie as viewers in general - makes us react, has a mysterious yes-factor, that makes us stop and ponder. Our role as artists should be to populate the world with objects that not only will make us (the creators) react, but will also make some of them (the public) react too.

 

 

Notes

[1] Landscape within, by David Ward (2004).
[2] The sky need not be banished altogether. Why not photograph above the horizon? The sky can provide beautiful background colour when shooting against it (Picture 20).
[3] As I have argued elsewhere, I consider the final picture to be the only messenger from me to the spectator. The picture is a two-dimensional surface covered in graphic elements (colour, form...); there is no obligation to show anything more. The elements need not hold information about the object being photographed or have any symbolic relevance. The aim is for the whole picture to provoke an emotional or intellectual reaction. Anything more is an extra which strengthens the claim to landscape photography.
[4] This pre-requires that the elements be well defined - more on this matter in this discussion of composition.