Pure Nature, Accept no Less: Brendon Holt on Landscape Photography

Andrew D. McClees (ADM): Welcome back to Frozenwaste.land Brendon! We’re here talking about Landscape in 2020 this week:

As of right now, how do you define "landscape" and "landscape photography?"

What do they mean to you, and what is your baseline approach and philosophy behind your photography practice?

Brendon Holt (BH): Well, lemme work my way to an answer by telling you what I think landscape photography isn't.

I don't think that cityscapes are landscape photographs, they're just that, cityscapes. Let's just get that out of the way. I have always found that angle to be a gross perversion of the term. I also do not really consider a lot of new-topographics stuff to be landscape photography. While some of it does deal either implicitly or explicitly with the land á la Robert Adams, I don't consider it to constitute landscape work in the stricter sense, as important as that work is.

I suppose this makes me something of a purist or a stubborn nineteenth century romanticist holdout or something but it leaves me with an understanding of the true subject of landscape photography to be the land itself. Not the landscape as modified or influenced by human activity, and most certainly not urban/cityscape work.

So, landscapes and landscape photography, to me, deals with "the inhuman," a term I will borrow from the American poet Robinson Jeffers which refers simply to the vast realm of non-human nature. It is non-human nature itself considered as the subject of photography.

Furthermore as a medium I understand landscape photography as a channel for me to try and express, in the photographic form, the spiritual or existential depths of these kinds of transcendent experiences of the world beyond our modern humanistic self obsession. This component really constitutes the raison d'être of my work, to be honest. Photography in general is just a means to an end for me, and that end is turning our eyes from the dark abyss of human subjectivity to the vast glory outside ourselves. I could care less about photography as some abstract end in itself. That entire approach strikes me as absolutely vapid. Photography for what? The sake of photography? Images for the sake of images. That's an absolutely vacuous approach. My philosophical and spiritual proselytizing is intimately wedded to my photographic work. Photography, and landscape photography specifically, is just the visual megaphone I use most.

ADM: I guess in that sense, you view Urban Landscape, etc, as really more about anthropology and architecture at the end of the day - rather than nature, or nature in true fashion?

Following that up, I've found, in my own landscape practice -- or at least within the confines of the modern/postmodern art/instagram landscape that landscape has slowly come to mean, colloquially, a very specific aesthetic - this sort of superficially epic, highly saturated, glossy, and frequently strangely tinted view of nature.

While I’m aware there’s definitely other takes on landscape - this is for sure the most popular take right now, outside of the “fine art” bubble. I think this is a huge impediment to landscape as a topic of discussion, and furthering and deepening the dialogue around it.

I’d be curious to get your perspective on that aesthetic, what it’s origins are, why it continues to be so prevalent, and what it means for your own practice, and other artists working in landscape right now?

BH: Yeah, I can get mostly on board with that characterization of cityscapes, new topographics, et al. Per the landscape aesthetic, I definitely agree with your characterizations. I think the term we could use to encapsulate the aesthetic and all the features that you've pointed out is "hyperrealism." It all feels a bit like taking the world and cranking it up to 11 so that we're left with this "strangely tinted" presentation of nature, as you said (If anyone is unfamiliar with what we're talking about just take a trip over to 500px or something and search for the most popular work in the landscape category, it abounds there).

And as you also said, its entrenchment as the standard for landscape photography is deeply problematic for anyone trying to engage with the subject/genre in ways beyond that very limited aesthetic. Work trying to deal with the subject/genre of the landscape in ways outside that aesthetic is quite commonly ghettoized for not toeing the line of that codified understanding of "good landscape photography." Maybe the saving grace of the fine art bubble is that it can still serve as a refuge for work that's been ostracized from the popular canons, even if it harbors a bunch of bullshit too.

My personal relationship with the whole aesthetic and the genre of contemporary landscape work in general is, well, contentious. I find the aesthetic formulaic to the point of sterility and ubiquitous to the point of exhausting. The same light, the same subjects, the same compositional choices, the same basic formulaic images repeated over, and over, and over. It has been repeated ad nauseam in landscape circles since it was popularized by the dissemination of photographs from the likes of Galen Rowell, which is where I personally see its origins. To be fair there was color landscape work before Rowell, such as Eliot Porter and Philip Hyde's work (which I think is all beautiful), but Rowell's work begins to take landscape photography in an entirely different direction that tends toward the kind of hyperrealism that is so prevalent today (and digital photographic technologies have only made that move toward hyperrealism easier).

I'm not sure why the whole aesthetic has become so firmly rooted in the collective consciousness of landscape photography, personally. Obviously it's just a truism that aesthetic trends happen but trying to work out the processes and mechanisms by which any aesthetic trend happens is a gigantic can of worms that could probably encompass its own essay. Regardless of how or why this aesthetic has become so entrenched, it's an issue that anyone working in the genre today has to confront. As a general rule my advice to anyone working within any genre of photography is to forego the easier path of ready-made aesthetics and focus all their efforts on their own vision. Speaking personally, when I first started making images I turned to that culturally established norm of landscape images as a guide for how I made images. I knew I loved the landscape but as a new photographer I didn't really know how to go about translating my experiences into a photograph so the popular aesthetic became my guide as I learned photography. Ultimately, however, if you have any modicum of individual vision that approach can't but begin to feel hollow and empty and you have to set off on the harder but more meaningful path of catering to your own vision. I had to take that step, and reflect on what it was I myself wanted to say and show with my images and choose to follow that path rather than the path set for me by the dominant approach to the genre. I think this is the path that anyone working in landscape photography today has to take unless color-by-number photography is all they're looking to do.

AM: That’s a really great insight into working practice or an insight into where to go when starting landscape. Your work and your philosophy, both as you’ve stated and as it reads in your images is deeply rooted spiritualism of nature and the land; but what other topics would you like to see discussed in the genre, or adjacent to the genre as you’ve defined it? I’d be curious to know if there are any aesthetics, non-mainstream (or non-mainstream within the fine-art bubble) that you think are under utilised or that could be better explored?

BH: Well, my engagement with landscape work is admittedly pretty single-minded, maybe to the point of parochialism, haha. So outside of rekindling the spiritual dimensions of our experience of nature I haven't really given the other thematic avenues of the genre too much thought.

Off the cuff issues of ecology, conservation, the philosophy of nature (ontological reflections about the "being" of nature), etc. come to mind. I'm not naively parochial, I do think there is a wealth of other themes that could be dealt with in the context of landscape photography, even in the narrower sense that I've defined it. I just haven't really spent too much time following those avenues because so much of my focus is honed in to the spiritual/religious/existential angles of our engagement with the land.

As to the question of aesthetics, I must also admit that my aforementioned parochialism means I'm not super familiar with aesthetic trends, especially not the obscure ones of the fine art world. But as to what I'd like to see explored I think I could offer a vague gesture toward those aesthetics that eschew those codified formulas of the popular landscape aesthetic in order to break open new avenues for rethinking our artistic engagement with the land.

One example of that comes to mind is landscape work that trades the "Iconic Landscape" approach of Ansel Adams and Co for a more down-to-earth, intimate approach. Less the iconized nature of Yosemite National Park and more intimate reflections on the smaller, quaint landscapes around us. We might also think of the work of someone like Eliot Porter as an example of work that sidesteps a lot of the dominant aesthetic cues. In Eliot Porter we find less of the clean and formalized nature of the dominant aesthetic and more of an honest encounter with the real chaos and complexity of nature that exists beyond the formalizing attempts that exist only within the fabricated frame of the photographer's vision.

I know this answer is kind of vague, but I hope the examples at least help to clarify what I have in mind when I say something like "aesthetics that eschew those codified formulas of the popular landscape aesthetic in order to break open new avenues for rethinking our artistic engagement with the land."

ADM: You're usually fairly prolific in one environment at a time (formerly PNW, now Montana) and have expressed a preference to shoot or look at only one area at a time - is there a particular reason or meaning behind that?

BH: Yeah, I definitely prefer to dedicate my time to revisiting a limited number of places over and over rather than constantly seeking out new environments. I find the practice of constantly photographing the next hitherto unvisited location kind of empty. It's the photographic equivalent of a never ending string of one night stands with various landscapes that never really gives you the chance to get to know and connect with any specific place. And given that so much of my work is about trying to rebuild those connections and that rootedness to place that we've lost in the wasteland of modernity, the whole idea of that kind of cosmopolitanism in landscape work has never suited me. Maybe it makes for a dazzling portfolio but if it's all empty what's the point?

And I guess that deeper spiritual urge behind my work is how I came to practice that single minded focus as well. My photographic practice has never really been separate from my own philosophico-spiritual practice and because that reflection on the spiritual importance of the landscape is such an integral part of my own spiritual practice, my photo work has always reflected that.

ADM: (A little redundant -- we’ve gotten into it a bit here) but for someone looking to refine their practice and focus it tightly as you have, what advice can you give, or how did you get there?

BH: My advice for people looking to do the same isn't so much going to be photographic advice but advice for the soul, I guess. It's about making that experience and connection to a place primary and the photographic work a kind of secondary outgrowth of those deeply meaningful connections and experiences with a place. And how you find and connect with a place is going to be different for every individual but that the connection comes first is the best I can say. Find some place that speaks to your soul, however that happens for you. Then give your heart to it and let the work come from there.

ADM: Where can we see more of your work, and do you have any projects on the horizon?

BH: You can find my work on Instagram, @bmholt_ and at my website, www.brendonholt.com. I am currently working on assembling two books, Pathways and Cascadia: A Retrospective, both of which can be read about in the "Projects" section of my website. Thank you for the chance to air some of my thoughts with you!