Thanks for all of your replies!
1. About the site.
The opening slideshow: I knew it was a bit slow to download, but not so slow to fall asleep even connecting to the web via my cell phone. (Probably you won’t believe it, but this is the way I built the entire site, and the way I’m writing to you now...). I really thought that usual, and much faster connections, would not have any problem with it. Evidently I was wrong! Sorry (but sure you’ve already understand that I’m not so confident with that stuff, which probably explains many other flaws on the site side. Thanks for inputs)
Now I’ve halved the number of images on the slideshow. Hope this helps. It helps?
Alignment of the home page menu: Yes, I know it’s not an elegant solution having to change from vertical to horizontal menu viewing when you leave homepage. I’ve checked right now again on zenfolio but it seems there’s no way to have a horizontal homepage menu that can hold more than five or six links.
To try to give an answer to other site-related questions I think I have to spend some words about my photography (simply because these questions are strictly related to it).
Sorry, perhaps it would have been better to say something more about my thoughts on photography in the opening post, just to try to reduce misunderstanding.
2. Photography
I’m not sure but I think that the word “landscape” taken alone has a someway different meaning than when the same word is coupled with “photography”.
When I think about “landscape” (or “paesaggio” in my language) I’m meaning almost everything, nature or man made, it’s on the earth surface and has a dimension that cannot qualify it as a “detail” of the environment itself (ok, more or less!)
Attach “landscape” to “photography” and immediately “landscape” becomes a much more restrictive term: my sensation is that “landscape photography” today means, before all, astounding natural sceneries.
Perhaps, as suggested by aaron2005 (thanks really a lot for your words!), “contemporary landscape” is a tag that identifies better this kind of landscape photography.
Many times photography has to be recognised under a definition, under a name, to be seen, and surely I underestimate this fact: it’s someway like when we bring to mouth a glass full of what we expect to be Coke, but... Oh my god, what’s this? It’s horrible! It’s sh*t!
No, it was only coffee. But we, expecting coke, didn’t recognise nor accept it at all...
This to say that, when we talk about landscape photography, most of the people expect to see absolutely astounding images of natural scenery.
I completely understand it, but sorry, I’m simply not interested in producing the zillionth cliche of a red rock arch under a red light. Or the billionth long-exposured-silk-like-waters-among-shore-rocks-under-an-end-of-the-world-violet-sky.
And the main reason is: our world is not like this.
I try to point my interest to places, to real and common places, and try to describe them even if they have poor photographic appeal. Even if there’s nothing exceptional around. I want to try to work on them, try to narrate their minimal stories, knowing it’s often a nightmare to find something to photograph, and that the results can be really frustrating. Even the best results I can achieve are often nothing to eyes looking for “astounding” sceneries.
That’s also the reason why I work on a place (a road, a coastal line) trying to collect a little serie of images of that place. Possibly the best I’m able to put together. Single images are good for the Tour Eiffel or the Statue of Liberty, rarely for talking about a place.
I know, it’s a huge problem: how can we photograph the 99% of places on earth that are far from being astonishing?
I think the only possible solution involves not only the photographer skills but also the viewer eyes. Both need to have sincere interest and curiosity on places themselves instead of looking always for the fantasticly oversaturated bidimensional images some places can produce. Vast majority of places simply can’t give you this.
It’s the simple interest at how places ‘round our world are that gives their images dignity.
I’ll go further: I think that keeping on photographing always the same landscape cliches, always searching for what is cool, looking for the exceptional, without any interest for the subject matter apart its potential to deliver an astonishing colored surface, well, this is simply killing photography (or at least what I loved of it).
I'm just trying!
Thanks again for your patience
Andrea
