The Artist and the Flamingo

This was a story that was told to me when I was a student. I was struggling at the time, and feeling discouraged. My grades were acceptable, but I knew my work was far from being anything of real substance. I knew what great work was. I could feel the power of it, and nothing I had ever done had remotely approached that.

Going to a museum or gallery was always a bitter sweet experience for me. I would stand in front of some of the most beautiful things I had ever seen. The emotional force of the experience was like being physically lifted off your feet and slammed against the wall. It could be quite compelling.

But every time I walked away, I would be washed with a wave of depression. Seeing those great works would leave me acutely aware of my own limitations as an Artist. I knew that it was not enough just to feel something. There was nothing really unique or special about that. Standard human condition took care of it for me. And it was not enough to know something, My training in photography provided for all of that.

The real force of my depression stemmed from the same question every Artist must ask himself, and that is simply; what if everything I am doing is a lie? What if somehow I'm faking it? What if my dreams are nothing more than delusions? And worse, What if I am using this deception in an attempt to fool others into believing me, when there is nothing of substance to believe.


I mentioned this to a young professor at school, and he told me the story of The Artist and the Flamingo. At first glance, it may seem to be just a lesson on mastering technique, but it is much more than that.

Technique is just technique. It is a matter of learning a set of rules and continually practicing them. If you want to know technique, that's all you have to do. If you want to master it, you must give more. Mastering, in a way removes the effort of the medium. Mastering transcends the Artist's tools. And that, is not an easy thing to do. For an Artist to succeed in that, he must be willing to go in and be torn to pieces. Over and over again. Art demands courage. That was the force that grabbed me when I saw the works of the Masters. I recognized how brave they had to be to do what they did.

At the end of this story the patron comments that the drawing is the most beautiful thing he has ever seen. What he saw was not just a drawing of a Flamingo, but a picture of the Artist in the Flamingo. There is a difference between knowing something and understanding it.

It was a worthy story for a young Artist to hear.


There was a man who loved Flamingos and really wanted to have a picture of one. So he started asking around town to find out if there was anyone who knew where he might get one. Eventually he learned that there was an artist on the outskirts who might be able to help him. One day he took the train out to the artist's studio to ask him if he could draw him a picture of a Flamingo.

When he arrived at the studio, he found the Artist totally absorbed in his work. There were several paintings on the walls that impressed the man very much, and he was hopeful that the Artist would be able to make a picture for him. Very lightly, carefully, the man knocked on the open door to get the Artist's attention. When the artist looked up, the Man said, “Excuse me, I have been informed that you are a very fine artist. By the looks of the work hanging on your walls, I would say that the information is correct.” The artist looked at the man and said, “Thank you for the compliment.” He gazed at the work around the room and said, “How can I help you?” The man said, “Well, I was wondering if you could draw a picture of a Flamingo for me. I love Flamingos, and I would like to have a very fine picture of one for my home.” The artist thought for a minute and then said, “Yes, I think I will be able to help you. Come back in three weeks and I will have it ready.” The man was thrilled. He thanked the artist and promised to return in three weeks. The two agreed on a time, and then the man left.

Three weeks pass and the man returns. He finds things the same as they were the last time he visited. The artist was intently working on a drawing, there were paintings and drawings around the studio. They were very beautiful, but nowhere was there a picture of a Flamingo. The man carefully knocked as he had done before. The artist looked up and welcomed the man in. “Come in,” he said. “You have come for the Flamingo?”, He asked. "Yes," said the man. “Is it ready? I don't see it anywhere among the other drawings.”

The artist removed the drawing he was working on, and placed a clean sheet of drawing paper on his easel. He began to draw with sure sweeping strokes, and within minutes a beautiful Flamingo emerged. The man had never seen such a drawing. Its sense of elegance, was magnificent, its presence, absolute.

When the artist was finished, the two just stood for awhile and looked at the Flamingo. Finally, the man said, “Its more beautiful than I could have imagined. You are indeed a fine artist. I thank you for this wonderful drawing, but I must ask you why did you make me wait so long when it is clear that you have the power to make such things instantly?”

The artist smiled and motioned the man to come with him. The man followed him into an adjacent room. In the room there was a large closet. The artist walked over to the closet and opened the double doors. Inside there were hundreds of imperfect Flamingo drawings. “You see my friend,” he said. “If I am indeed a fine artist it is only because I have had the greater opportunity to understand my own failures.”

Process and photography

A recent APUG thread was started to discuss (among other things), the relationship of process to the expression inherent in Art. Basically, is process also inherent in a work of Art, particularly photography? Or is it simply a means to an end? This was my reply:

In my opinion you can't separate the content from the craft. If you do, you have something else other than the original. I am someone who appreciates impressionist painting enormously. To think that you could change the texture of the brush stroke, and have the same thing...well,no.

One of the really beautiful aspects of photography that initially drew me to it was its sense of physical, tactile process. Sure, ultimately the final product is the culmination of processes undertaken for the goal of expression. In the end, I agree that it is the work that needs to do the final "speaking".
But the expression lives in the process as well. It is ingrained in it. In photography, it starts at the negative, A negative is not merely a matrix. It is a product of process influenced by the mind of the artist. I don't make negatives haphazardly. I influence the materials with a knowledge of their strengths and shortcomings. A negative can be a beautiful object. And it is the mind and craft inherent in its making that influence its beauty, both physically and as it relates to the goal of the final print. This is probably my biggest qualm with digital imaging. It has a way of sanitzing process to the point where it becomes irrelevent. How is this photography? It isn't.

Is it just a nude?

What makes a nude presentable? I suppose there are a lot of answers to such an open ended question. But I have noticed first hand over the years one particular factor that definitely affects the ability to sell a piece. That is when I looked at the number of gallery sales of my work; I realized that more people buy nudes where the model is not identifiable. An anonymous figure might make it to the living room wall. A beautiful woman...seems to be harder to justify in the eyes of the discerning public.
Something happens when a nude becomes a complete woman. I guess it then becomes a portrait.... and a nude. In some way it loses its sense of abstraction with the loss of its anonymity. I don't think this idea makes it any less beautiful. In fact, it creates opportunity for more layers of expression, (subtle or obvious). It seems odd that humanizing a nude by making it an identifiable individual would create....I'm not sure what it is... a level of discomfort? Why?
Maybe its because people feel they need to know the person to justify owning and displaying the piece. Does that mean that the piece is something more (or different) than a work of Art? Maybe. Or is it a semi conscious social taboo that stirs up some level of uncomfortability with having a naked woman in the room?... a stranger at that.

Digital Fauxography

There as been much discussion lately on the APUG forum concerning the legitimacy of digital imaging to be classified as photography. One member of the forum commented that he had heard digital referred to as "Fauxography". My reply is in italics.

I think that this term really cuts to the point. Personally I have a tendency to reject anything that is attempting to pass itself off as something else. This goes for imitation wood grain, simulated leather, plastic Mr potato heads....(Ok that one might be a stretch).

I don't have trouble with the idea of imitation, as long as it is stated as such. Digital imaging is imitative of photography. Ink jet prints are imitative of silver gelatin prints. All of that is fine. But to want to be the same thing... I think that gives up a lot. Definition is important. It is a form of knowledge. It stimulates question. It initiates a further search. I think we lose much when we allow a definition to smear itself across such a broad range. It dilutes difference and that robs people of the richest characteristics (whether they are associated with vision or craft) of a particular medium.

I see this thread wander into areas that concern the definition of Art more than the definition of photography. Using any media (or combination)necessary to get the image that you wish, is about fulfilling a goal, not about defining a medium that by its nature incorporates an understanding of specific materials, and a working knowledge of their implementation. There is a certain craft required with the production of photographic prints. And it is not the same craft as that required for digital prints.

What bothers me the most are the arguments that simply acquiesce to a definition reached by an uninformed mass or dictated by clever and incessant marketing campaigns. Why should we allow this watered down version? When it comes to analog photography, I don't think anyone in this forum,(APUG)has a C- understanding. Just because I see people everyday who wouldn't much notice or care about the difference between a digital phone image and a gallery quality silver gelatin print, doesn't mean I should be expected to let them define what the term "Photography" is.

I heard on Leno the other night the following: "Americans are the stupidest people in the world....with the best marketing campaigns."

Being an American, I find this statement to be insightfully funny, and disappointingly true.

A Few New Images

I'm working on several new pieces for the gallery. I have included a recent work here. The theme this summer has been figure with furniture. All the work has been created in my studio, using several models. I plan to do another shoot in August, and one more scheduled in September. Most of the work is 70mm, but I usually sneak in a few 8x10 exposures when I can. Thist image is from an 8x10 negative. The color is close, but its pretty much impossible to match the tone in the print. The original is a rich brown/black. This print is 11x14.