INTRODUCTION

This is the tenth issue of “Can Boreal,” a pamphlet devoted

to Visual poetry, Concrete poetry, Asemic poetry, abstract
draws, Le�erism, Experimental poetry, orthodox poetry,
altered texts, prose, collages… And anything else I might
feel like enclosing in an unsuspected future.

“Can Boreal” is an anagram of “Barcelona,” the city where

I live (survive). It means “dog from the north.” “Dog” is
anagram of “God.” There is no God, but plenty of stray
dogs. Or so is what I think.

Dogs are poe�c. Men are poe�c. Life, in general, is poe�c.

Tragically. Art is a way to kill �me. A sort of preven�ve
murder, if you want, as �me will take its revenge upon us
and we will not leave this planet alive.

Poetry shows a desperate a�achment to life. A love

for life. So, killing �me while making poetry (or “art” in
general) is one of those things rather difficult to explain
in a ra�onal way. From a distance, it might appear to be
like the howling of the wolves to the full moon. One could
say: “Stop howling and enjoy life!” But, I guess it is not
that simple.

This issue is devoted to photography.

I just want to thank Mike Dickau, Kazunori Murakami,

Derek Pell, Tom Nelson, Jessy Kendall and Darlene Altschul
for joining me in this photography-project. We all hope
that the recipients of this new issue of Can Boreal will
enjoy the ar�s�c stuff.

For the edi�ng of this issue, I counted on the invaluable

help of Darlene Altschul.
John Mountain
September 2010

3
 PHOTOGRAPHY

Someone said (an Englishmen whose name I cannot recall right

now) photography was not Art (or cra�) but “magic,” meaning that
it had a specific idiosyncrasy which made it “different” from any
other ar�s�c discipline. This referred to the fact the technique uses
light, the light bounced back from reality itself, to produce fixed and
stable images upon a matrix. So, even if we should alter, manipulate
or totally distort the matrix (or the prints derived from it), the
founda�on of the image will always be reality itself. One can argue
that in Art, generally speaking, reality is always the primal ma�er.
Maybe so, but in the case of photography, this happens in a very
literal way.

Photography is a technique to document reality which has no similar

historic precedent. This has produced a conceptual “burden” upon
the system as “language system.” Photography has found employ
in many different fields (architecture, journalism, criminology, etc.).
In fact, photography as a source for art-expression (as a method for
self-expression) is a fairly recent u�lity of the technique.

Many painters became photographers in the second half of the 19th

century. But, those ar�sts who con�nued pain�ng a�er the erup�on
of photography also were influenced (or assisted) by it in many ways.
In fact, the “camera obscura” was extensively used, previous to the
inven�on of photography, by several painters such as Vermeer and
Leonardo da Vinci.

From the very orthodox methods of the first decades of the 20th
century, when photography was considered a new “Art” together
with cinema, to the present �me of digital-photography, this cra�
has suffered a few conceptual altera�ons which might be subtle to
the eye of the profane, but ma�ers quite as much as the scien�fic
ones in commanding the evolu�on of the technique.
Two main factors determine what photography is today, as opposed
to what it was in the last decades of the 20th century: Digital
Photography and the computer´s image-so�ware (Photoshop and
other similar programs of digital image treatment).
Digital Photography has altered the way people (both professionals
and aficionados) take pictures because the produc�on cost (related

4
to film) has been totally eliminated. The images are not engraved
upon costly chemical matrixes, but have become mere computer
memory. Memory which can be reused and which abstract nature
turns into a “cost-free primal ma�er” source of images, has affected
how we shoot, how o�en we shoot and how much we shoot.
How do we shoot? We shoot faster and we “think” less about the
image we want to produce. How o�en? Very o�en: We take photos
con�nuously because, unless we print, the cost is nil. We have a
camera built into our cell-phone, so we carry a camera 24/7. How
much do we shoot? Lots more than ever: Again, the cost is nil and
we take photos of both trivial situa�ons and of important events.
Possibly, this “no cost” factor has influenced in a higher degree the
photographic ac�vity of the aficionados than the professionals.
The second factor which determines what is photography today is
the digital nature of the images, which favors to increase the image-
manipula�on with the computer. Professional photography goes
together with computer so�ware, interacts with the computer, in
the same way that it used manual re-touch a few years ago. So, the
result is always a certain amount of “transforma�on” (whether it
is mere enhancement or evident muta�on). Consequently, the
informa�on-file gets “enriched” (or simply altered) in the process,
which means the “document” provided by photography is no longer
the one given by the “real world,” in a sort of “raw state.” But, that it
is a mediated one, a “culture-mediated world,” an improved look of
what we assume as “reality.”
Digital Photography has changed the concep�on of “photographic
image.” Previously, it was synonymous to “truth,” now it is not so.
Computer altera�ons are omnipresent and are o�en difficult to
iden�fy by the average viewer, who -nevertheless- is aware of the
possible muta�on. This fact sits in the back of the head of both the
ar�st and the public and it raises suspiciousness, so nothing is taken
for granted anymore. This has been altering quite a lot the way ar�sts
relate to the technique. From a rather classic approach (in image-
concept and image-composi�on) of the ar�sts/photographers of
the first half of the 20th century towards a new use of photography
in merely documen�ng “Process Art” and in photography as a
complementary source in mixed-media processes of collage, etching,
pain�ng, computer-generated image, etc.

Today, ar�sts who use photography to express themselves can

relate to the technique from a spectrum of choices which is much

5
wider than ever before. From a “Spartan” and simplis�c use of
the technique, avoiding all image-treatment and all manipula�on
of the informa�on provided by the “image-capture,” to a highly
manipula�ve control and altera�on of the image by both means of
the computer and the manual work (by mixed media). So, if the 20th
century´s ar�s�c scene was dominated by photography as document
and as a quite orthodox (conceptually speaking) new source for
“ar�s�c images,” this first decade of the 21rst century has opened a
door towards a new concep�on of photography which crossbreeds
with manual ar�s�c techniques and looks for new meanings. I say
“New meanings” possibly because nothing seems to hold any “true
meaning” anymore.

I was myself a professional photographer for a long �me. I worked

in many fields of commercial photography. From shoo�ng 20 rolls of
film per day to tourists in the streets of a holiday´s resort, to “product-
photo” in the studio, through fashion-shows, books for models,
etc. This le� me with a sort of “allergy” towards photography and
unable to use photography as the main method for my “ar�s�c self-
expression.” However, I must admit that I have been constantly using
photography as a collateral tool for producing pain�ngs, etchings,
drawings, computer-generated graphics, etc.
I felt the need to stop using photography as a way of expressing
myself. I wanted to avoid the orthodoxy of what now gets labeled
as “ar�s�c photography.” I wanted to be able to use the technique
with a new mentality. Yes, I´m referring to a “paradigm shi�,” to a
completely new concep�on of it.
I may not have reached my goal, yet, but I will keep on trying.

John Mountain
August 2010

6
‘59 Pon�ac Bonneville © Darlene Altschul

7
Kitchen Drawer © Darlene Altschul

8
© Darlene Altschul

9
© Darlene Altschul

10
Mask © Darlene Altschul

11
© Darlene Altschul

12
© Darlene Altschul

13
© Darlene Altschul

14
Scissor © Darlene Altschul

15
© Darlene Altschul

16
© Darlene Altschul

17
© Darlene Altschul

18
© Darlene Altschul

19
© Darlene Altschul

20
© Darlene Altschul

21
© Darlene Altschul

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Leaves © Tom Nelson

106
Leaves 2 © Tom Nelson

107
Moonflower © Tom Nelson

108
Salt & Pepper © Tom Nelson

109
Pub © Tom Nelson

110
NYC © Tom Nelson

111
Crayons © Tom Nelson
112
Old Shoes © Tom Nelson
113
Tears © Tom Nelson

114
Tree © Tom Nelson

115
© Derek Pell

116
© Derek Pell
117
© Derek Pell

118
© Derek Pell

119
© Derek Pell

120
© Derek Pell

121
© Derek Pell

122
© Derek Pell
123
© Derek Pell

124
© Derek Pell

125
© Derek Pell
126
© Derek Pell

127
© Derek Pell

128
© Derek Pell
129
© Derek Pell

130
 INDEX

Introduc�on ........................................Page 3

Photography ........................................... 4

Darlene Altschul ..................................... 7

Mike Dickau ........................................... 23

Jessy Kendall .......................................... 43

John Mountain ....................................... 58

Kaz Murakami ........................................ 82

Tom Nelson ............................................ 106

Derek Pell ............................................... 116

Index ...................................................... 131

Credits .................................................... 132

131
 CREDITS
Introduc�on text © John Mountain 2010

Pdf by DKA - October 2010

132