Summary of My Project: In the Shadow of Sun Mountain: The Psychology of Othering

DEATH ANXIETY & THE DENIAL OF DEATH
This project has a level of complexity in communicating what it is, what it’s about, and the objective of the work. It is very complex in one sense and, in another, very simple and straightforward. It’s simply expounding on theories of human behavior (Becker et al.) that affect all of us and the implications of them. I would sum up the objective of the work using Carl Jung’s idea of making the unconscious conscious. That’s what I would like to have happen: The average person would be able to accommodate and assimilate these ideas and understand their universal implications.

From the book, “The Worm at the Core: The Role of Death in Life,” by Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, and Tom Pyszczynski. This is a great book. I encourage you to read it.

This is what I've written as a short description of the project. I would like to hear your feedback if you're willing to share. Does it make sense? Do you think you understand the work or the goals of the project? Do you feel that you have a basic understanding of the theories I'm working with?

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF THE WORK
Drawing inspiration from the seminal work of cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker, my book, "In the Shadow of Sun Mountain: The Psychology of Othering" (2024), aims to challenge the dominant cultural narratives that deny the reality of death and the ways in which this denial contributes to the oppression and eradication of marginalized cultures, specifically the Tabeguache-Ute of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. By embracing Becker's insights into terror management theory and the role of death anxiety in shaping human behavior, this project seeks to provoke reflection and dialogue about the urgent need to come to terms with our mortality and its implications for our relationships with one another and the planet.

The Same Thing, Over And Over Again...

"Illuminated Sunflower" from my project, "In the Shadow of Sun Mountain". A whole plate, toned cyanotype print from a wet collodion negative.

I’m writing this in response to my image, “Illuminated Sunflower,” that I posted yesterday. Here are some of the comments/responses:
“It’s strange looking but familiar.”
“Is it real?”
“I’ve never seen a sunflower that looks like that.”
“How did you do that?”
”Is it manipulated?”

MY RANT
Have you noticed that, as photographers or artists, we tend to follow what’s “accepted” and recognizable in photography? In other words, we make the same images that we’ve seen a million times over and over again. It’s almost like we’re in a trance or robotic. We have a very difficult time doing anything else.

These images are everywhere out there. Go to any “fine art photography” group online and you’ll see that 90%+ of the pictures are easily recognizable—same content, just a different photographer.

You’ll see old barns in empty fields and abandoned places (usually a farm or an old warehouse). Autumn leaves in a bowl or just on the ground. Foggy, misty landscape scenes. And any kind of flower in a vase. How about an old piece of farm equipment (tractors, old trucks, etc.)? National parks are always in the mix—a large format photograph of any recognizable landscape, especially anything from Yosemite National Park. I call these images “sunset and driftwood pictures”. Most of the pictures are (manipulated) digital images, or in some groups, there will be a few large format black and white film pictures that are scanned and made into digital prints. And some even make silver gelatin prints. But the numbers are going down fast. Regardless of the process, the content will be the same.

Before you send me a nasty email, let me say that there’s nothing wrong with doing any of that type of work! Obviously, the masses love it. It sells pictures, no doubt, and if that’s your hustle, more power to you. But creatively, I feel like these types of photographs fall short—way short. I feel like I’m listening to a broken record, playing the same part over and over again. Nothing new. It feels like visual torture to me sometimes. And it’s derivative.

We are conditioned to respond to familiar things. I get it. It’s kind of like, “Oh! I recognize that and I know people think it’s important, so I like it too!”. Those kinds of feelings and responses are embedded in photographers’ minds—so they keep making pictures that people will recognize and like. Commercial photographers are bound by this obligation. They need to sell pictures. As fine artists, we’re not bound to this way of working or thinking. In fact, we should reject it completely.

How do we do that? In my mind, there are three ways to accomplish this. The first is unique content—what’s in the picture. This can also include the context of the image. Your narrative can support something that’s been seen before if it’s a meaningful part of the story. Second, is the way the image is made (what process). And third, how you produce the image/print (post-production printing).

I know that influence is incessant; we really can’t get away from it. We bring everything we know and have seen to the image we’re making. And it’s very difficult to “pass” on the obvious, recognizable image. I think this is where experimentation and exploration can pay big creative dividends. Get out of the habit of only making pictures in “good” light or only composing in the way that you’ve seen. Try new things and break the rules. Play with optics, processes, and even post-production stuff (again, I’m talking about printing here). Do your best to make images of scenes or objects that you would never normally photograph. Then, play with the way you make them. If you’re lucky, you’ll discover a new way to work that supports your story, and the pictures will be interesting to look at! You’ll discover ways to see things that you’ve never really seen before.

Otto Rank said, “What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality.” I believe that. Art can be a powerful way for you to experience and understand life. It can give you a way to tackle the big questions in life and find meaning and purpose. E.O. Wilson came up with a word in the 1980s. “Biophilia” (it’s a book actually), which means “the love of life”. I do my best every day to be grateful, humble, and love life as much as I can.

“A River of Wood”—a cyanotype print on Canson Vellum (Tracing) paper.

“A River of Wood”—a Palladiotype print for reference—from the wet collodion negative posted here.

Three sheets of paper in an iodizing bath. These will become calotypes (paper negatives). This is the first step.

Three sheets of freshly iodized paper. These will become calotypes (paper negatives). I usually iodize six sheets at a time.

Buffalo Plum and Slendertube Skyrocket

I’m back in the studio making negatives and prints of these incredible plants up here. Today, I made negatives of two varieties; a Buffalo Plum plant and a Slendertube Skyrocket plant.

One plant is purple (Buffalo Plum) and the other a “peach color”. Wet Collodion sees these colors very differently. It’s a challenge to make exposures that will capture everything. I have to sacrifice some part of the image for another when there’s a three or four stops difference.

SLENDERTUBE SKYROCKET

Ipomopsis tenuituba is a species of flowering plant in the phlox family known by the common name slendertube skyrocket, or slendertube ipomopsis. It is native to much of the western United States. In Colorado, it is found on rocky mountain slopes. This is a perennial herb producing an erect stem with widely spaced leaves, each 3 to 6 centimeters long and with many narrow, fingerlike lobes. The inflorescences toward the top of the stem each hold three to seven flowers. The flower is very pale to medium pink, sometimes with white streaks, or solid white. It is a tube 2 to 5 centimeters long, opening into a corolla of five twisting, pointed, ribbonlike lobes. The stamens and style do not protrude far from the mouth of the flower, if at all. While it is a perennial plant, it dies after its first flowering.

Checking Density (Dmax/Dmin) On Wet Collodion Negatives

The Wet Collodion Negative - varnished and ready to run some test prints on Platinum Palladium and Rawlins Oil!

The Equation
Dmax: The area with the most density with detail.
Dmin: The area with the least amount of density with detail.
Subtract the Dmin from the Dmax and that is your NEGATIVE DENSITY.

The Print
If you want to maximize the quality of a print, you need to know what the Dmax/Dmin, or density of your negative is - maximum density (with detail), where the most silver is deposited. This is the brightest or highlight area(s). The thinnest part with detail is your Dmin area - approaching the void area or shadow(s). And everything else in between is the middle tones or middle values.

Why is it important? Not every negative will print well on every POP (Printing Out Process) or DOP (Developing Out Process). Some require density in the 2.0+ range - like Salt Paper. And some require less density. If you fail to match the negative with the process, it will never be as good of a print as possible if it were matched up.

In my opinion, you should choose a printing process and make negatives exclusively for that process. I’m not saying you can’t print a “Salt Negative” on Colodio-Chloride paper, you can. What I’m saying is that it will never be as good as a Salt print and vice versus.

My plans for this project are two types of prints. Both are “non-silver” and one is a pigment process. They are Platinum Palladium (mostly Palladium) and Rawlins Oil prints. I’ve made many Rawlins Oil prints and know that good negatives are almost identical to the Platinum Palladium process. The density of 1.50 - 1.80 is perfect. I can get great prints all the way to 2.0.

What happens if you don’t get the proper exposure or development on the negative? What can you do? Rarely are you too dense; I’m not talking about over-exposure, but getting in the density of 2.0+ with a foundation negative, or a negative straight out the camera. Most of the time they will be a bit under the desired density for technical reasons (fogging the shadow areas). If you need more density, you can do that chemically with pyrogallic acid and citric acid plus a bit of silver nitrate. This is called redevelopment and you can take it as far as you desire regarding density. Problem solved.

The Negative
Today, I varnished and prepared my test plate for my first run of the Platinum Palladium process and Rawlins Oil process. I checked the Dmax and found that where the light was hitting the back of the stump, my highlights, with details, ranging from 1.75 to 1.80. And the areas with the thinnest silver (some weeds in the foreground) that still had detail registered as 0.20 - that means if I subtract the Dmin from the Dmax I have a density of 1.59 - or thereabout. This should be a perfect negative for the processes. I’ll soon find out!