[Leica] Rowell, etc.

["Gib Robinson" <robinson@sfsu.edu>]

[Response to khoffberg@email.msn.com]

Kevin,

Thanks for your thoughtful response to my comments about Rowell. My
three-year-old daughter presented me with a nursery-school cold this week
that is making it hard for me to think, but I'm going to see if I can
clarify what I said.

Let me underscore something at the beginning. I'm not trying to be an
"objective" (never really possible) judge of Rowell's work, but to express
some personal preferences. One of them has to do with his choice of film for
his particular subject matter. I don't like Velvia saturation for natural
landscapes. Provia is OK but really what I prefer is Kodachrome 25. We've
"been there, done that" discussion on this list. That's simply my
preference. When I look at Rowell's landscapes they have a technicolor
quality that I don't find pleasing.

About the remainder of my comment, it was certainly shorthand, cryptic, and,
again, based on personal preference. I was commenting on two facets of his
photography: 1) choice of image and 2) technique.

With respect to image choice. You mentioned the image of Potala with the
rainbow.To my eyes, that picture is striking and dramatic and pretty but not
moving. I'm sure it sells very briskly; but personally I wouldn't hang it in
my house because that's not the sort of image I want around me. It doesn't
have the subtlety and depth that I  find appealing in the art I like best.
To me it's a nice coffee-table image but it has no "edge" to it. I find it
too much of an over-simplified, over-dramatized view of what's "out there"
in the world. Personally I'm drawn to images that have more balance between
prettiness and something that "wakes me up" and urges me beyond my
conventional view of the subject to a more intimate understanding. The
Potala image is grand and, with the rainbow, conveys a certain mystical
quality, but it's too idealized and conventionally mystical for my taste.
Tibetan landscape (and Tibetan Buddhism) have a harshness and a stark
mystical quality that, for me, is masked rather than revealed by Rowell's
image. If I were to juxtapose it to an "image" of Buddhist landscape I'd
probably turn to Anagarika Govinda's book "Way of the White Clouds.' The
portrait is in words not visual images, but it has compelling subtlety and
depth.


With respect to technique. I've certainly seen many 35mm images that move me
when they're blown up to 16X20 but they don't tend to be images of static
landscapes. When I look at a large landscape in a print produced from a 35mm
negative, I'm more often than not keenly aware of what I'm NOT seeing. I'm
NOT seeing anywhere near as much texture and detail as my eye can see in a
natural environment. There are obviously ways to photograph landscape that
make up for that inherent deficiency, but to my eye, Rowell's landscapes
generally leave me with a sense that my relationship to the subject matter
is being "conventionalized" rather than sharpened, deepened, refined, or
refreshed. They leave me feeling vaguely cheery about the technicolor
"beauty" of what's out there but not moved or exhilarated. So, personally I
don't feel I learn much about the subject matter Rowell is photographing.
Maybe that's because I've spent more than the usual amount of time in those
particular landscapes trying to "see" what's there. I suspect it's just my
personal preference for a certain raw edginess in art or a sharper, deeper
sense of awe or wonder than I find in Rowell.  That doesn't mean he's not a
good technician or a successful commercial artist. I assume he's both of
those. Just not my artist of choice because I think his goals for his art
are different than mine or at least his impact on me is limited in ways that
leave me essentially uninterested in his images.

I'm going to stop here because I feel as if I've been moving around on the
outskirts of too many large philosophical and art-theory issues. Probably
not a good idea in this medium. I hope this helps clarify what I meant
rather than just lengthening the obscurities.

Gib