The Only Creative Session for 2009
For the first time in years, I will be in Seattle for several months in a row. I intend to use that time to finish projects started and abandoned over the years. I’m also going to offer a single Creative Session to be held in the classroom at my gallery in Seattle.
I’ve created a comprehensive curriculum to illustrate how I approach photography and to try to convey how others can use the lessons I’ve learned in their own work. In this Creative Session, we will spend three full days covering my curriculum. In addition, members from the Travels to the Edge crew will talk about our workflow on the road, and experts will show how editing programs can add the finishing touches to imagery.
This intensive session will run from May 1 through May 3, 2009. I will hold a reception at my home for all participants the evening before we begin. The course fee is $995, and we have limited the number of attendees to 50.
This will be the only Creative Session for 2009 in the United States. I look forward to seeing you there.
Hello Art, Wondering if purchasing my hubby a spot in this class is appropriate right now…he would LOVE to come, of that I am sure. But he is just dipping his toe in professional photography, doing lots and lots of reading and research and taking gobs of pictures. Is this creative session mainly geared toward photogs who are established in “the business” already? Thanks for your reply!
Hi, Kristen,
I designed the Creative Session to change the way photographers see. The tools and techniques come into play. You need to think about the correct shutter speed/f stop combo for the subject, but I will concentrate on how to visualize the result from the opportunities that exist in a situation and how to find a situation that is most likely to deliver the result you envision. I actually draw what I intend to shoot before I go to Africa. It keeps me alive to the possibilities so I can put myself in the best position before I capture a single frame. The aim is to take absolute control and to act as an artist instead of an opportunist, although you need to be ready to grab the serendipitous.
Your husband’s level of experience is immaterial, but it sounds like he’s fairly far along. I look forward to seeing him at the event.
Hi Art,
Love your website. Lots of terrific information. I registered for your Creative Session in May.I need to book a room somewhere. Any suggestions, recommendations?
I relayed your question to Julie, our Education guru.
Hi Art,
Love your website. Lots of terrific information. I registered for your Creative Session in May.I need to book a room somewhere. Any suggestions, recommendations?
I relayed your question to Julie, our Education guru.
I have long been a admirer of your work – from your PBS shot to your books and the opportunity for this workshop is fantastic! Looking forward to it!
Tim,
I look forward to seeing you there as well.
Hi Art,
The temptation here is overwhelming. Now I just need permission from the wife… which won’t be easy, as I will have gotten back from Iguazu Falls literally the night before.
In addition to what you describe here, one of the things I would most value is blunt, honest criticism of my own photos. That critique is nearly impossible to get from someone in your shoes, and would be very valuable to me.
Does the course as you’re offering it have any time that could be used for something like that? (e.g. each photographer gets 3 or 4 shots to display and have critiqued) ?
—
Chris Mullins
Hi Art,
The temptation here is overwhelming. Now I just need permission from the wife… which won’t be easy, as I will have gotten back from Iguazu Falls literally the night before.
In addition to what you describe here, one of the things I would most value is blunt, honest criticism of my own photos. That critique is nearly impossible to get from someone in your shoes, and would be very valuable to me.
Does the course as you’re offering it have any time that could be used for something like that? (e.g. each photographer gets 3 or 4 shots to display and have critiqued) ?
—
Chris Mullins
I really should read your curriculum before posting.
“Each participant will have the opportunity for a critique of up to 10 images.”
… I’m off to talk to my wife. Hopefully I survive the experience!
—
Chris
Good luck.
Hello, Art. You mention in this course synopsis that you are holding it in your gallery in Seattle. Please, what is the name of this gallery, and where is it? Thank you so much! I would also like to thank you for many enjoyable hours watching your shows on TV. Every single one of them has been absolutely spellbinding, both the photography and the narration by you. I have you TiVo’d so I don’t miss anything!!!
Hi, Cheryl,
Thank you so much.
The Art Wolfe Gallery is south of Safeco Field, a mile or so south of Downtown Seattle. It’s easy to get here by bus or taxi from the downtown hotels.
I just found your blog about the creative workshop and wonder if there is still space available.
Yes, there is still room. Hope you can make it.
I just found your blog about the creative workshop and wonder if there is still space available.
Hi Art,
After much thinking about this, I’m afraid the price is just a bit too high for me. While I would love to attend a seminar like this with you, I’ll have to continue watching your shows and looking at your work.
I love your ‘Travels to the Edge’ show – Please keep up the great work!
Hi, Chris,
Sorry you can’t make it this time. Good luck with your photography.
Art, I enjoy you shows and this may not be the place to post this but frankly my time is limited and I couldn’t find a better one.
I’m watching your Glacier Bay Alaska show and its great except for your unscientific human induced global warming dig.
I’m a lifelong environmentalist and licensed professional engineer practicing in the field of environmental engineering for 39 years and while agree we need to be concerned about environmental change. There is no doubt Alaska and Greenland are warming.
However, you are totally and absolutely wrong to claim that the natural process is being accelerated by human activity.
The simple fact is Greenland is now almost as warm as it was when Eric the Red Discovered it in 1000 AD. Thats right Art, Greenland was green back then and Vikings farmed the green coastal land for 300 years until the mini ice age. As a fact you can verify if you want to Greenland is still 1 degree C COLDER than it was when Eric the Red Discovered it.
There is no evidence that CO2 is the cause of any acceleration of the natural warming cycle.
BTW Greenland ice cores more than 400,000 years old produce historic factual evidence that a rapid climate change is about 12,000 years and if you want to wait and see the effect of the current cycle of Global Warming you need to live a long time guy. But cheer up the ice cores prove incontrovertibly that the quickest and best way to cool the earth is to put small amounts of particulate matter in the upper atmosphere. Thats right a little air pollution will take care of even the chicken little human induced global warming fanatics claims. Before you open your mouth about global warming you really need to get the facts and the best way to do that is look at both sides of a question.
The best way to understand how fanatical human induced global warmists are is to go back and look at the religious fanatics who predicted the end of the earth and when it didn’t happen they rationalized. For an example of religious rationalization of global warmist theory go to unScinetific American’s recent Hot Times in Alaska and check out the professor from the University of Alaska who shows Alan Alda a paper with three charts on in. One is the inaccurate computer projection which he admits isn’t very good under that is a chart of what actually happened in the same time period and below that is one where he combines the inaccurate prediction with the historical fact and claims that by combining the two makes the predictions of dire immediate global warming in the next 100 years is proved. Aside from the unscientific process of combining fact and fantasy to prove fantasy its no different that what end of the world fanatics have done or said.
Please take the time to know what you are talking about before making a fool of yourself. But cheer up it will be thousands of years before anyone really knows how much of a fool.
As for the computer models they don’t prove anything except that the data and design were faulty. Models don’t prove anything, never have never will.
Personally as an environmentalist I am upset that people like you give credence to t a bunch of fanatics that are trying to create a State of Fear that will cause us to make rash decisions that will damage our country.
A perfect example is the poster boy of green alternative fuels, corn ethanol. Not only does corn ethanol drive up the price of food, its a net user of fossil fuels. Thats right guy it uses more fossil fuel BTU’s to produce a gallon of corn ethanol than the BTU’s in the ethanol. But the real clincher is the additional fertilizer (produced with fossil fuel) adds to the already grossly polluted ground water and run off to the Missisippie River which has a 200 mile dead zone at its mouth were nothing grows. Thats a fact just like like the one about Greenland being Green in 1000 AD.
Hi, James,
Thanks for your note.
We disagree on this subject. I wanted to respond clearly and fairly to your points so I asked my friend James Martin, the author and photographer of the upcoming book Planet Ice to respond for me. He is as well informed as anyone I know, has no axe to grind, but tends to speak bluntly. I give you James’ response:
James,
I think the test of a scientific theory is how well it predicts future discoveries or events. When the climate change model was postulated back in the Seventies, it predicted that global temperatures would rise with the increase in CO2 and related gasses. Further, we would see wider swings in weather.
The predictions were conservative as it turns out. While it is certainly possible that this is a coincidence, I doubt it. When the early proponents of evolution and continental drift made their claims, they made predictions, and the accumulation of evidence supported their predictions.
Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica prove that this is the high point in atmospheric CO2. The conclusion that CO2 is a major contributor to climate change is accepted by almost all climate scientists and endorsed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who earned one more Nobel Prize than either you or I. Your denial of the relationship between CO2 and climate change is very much in the minority of the scientific community.
Although you seem well informed on much of the data, check out Two Mile Time Machine by Dr. Richard Alley, by all accounts one of the premier paleo-climatologists and a leader of US ice core programs. There is no hint of hysteria or handwaving, yet he makes the connection you deny.
You write as if you presume I am too ignorant to know about climate variation in Greenland. You refer to the rapid temperature increase of Younger Dryas event, but the preconditions for that, a temperature minimum, do not apply under these conditions.
You have a point regarding global warming alarmists. People on both sides of the issue tend to cherry pick the data they prefer; it’s human nature. Conflating alarmists with scientists is an ad hominum argument, though. The fact that Al Gore made an unsupportable connection between climate change and Katrina doesn’t mean his other points are without merit.
I’ve read about the idea of using certain particulates to cool the earth. Maybe. I agree completely regarding ethanol.
In the end, either of us could be wrong. The question is whether our positions are falsifiable. What set of facts would change your mind, or mine? If there is no set of facts, then we are being irrational. Certainty has no place in issues such as these and your arrogant and dismissive comments on those who disagree do harm to your argument.
James Martin
Art, I enjoy you shows and this may not be the place to post this but frankly my time is limited and I couldn’t find a better one.
I’m watching your Glacier Bay Alaska show and its great except for your unscientific human induced global warming dig.
I’m a lifelong environmentalist and licensed professional engineer practicing in the field of environmental engineering for 39 years and while agree we need to be concerned about environmental change. There is no doubt Alaska and Greenland are warming.
However, you are totally and absolutely wrong to claim that the natural process is being accelerated by human activity.
The simple fact is Greenland is now almost as warm as it was when Eric the Red Discovered it in 1000 AD. Thats right Art, Greenland was green back then and Vikings farmed the green coastal land for 300 years until the mini ice age. As a fact you can verify if you want to Greenland is still 1 degree C COLDER than it was when Eric the Red Discovered it.
There is no evidence that CO2 is the cause of any acceleration of the natural warming cycle.
BTW Greenland ice cores more than 400,000 years old produce historic factual evidence that a rapid climate change is about 12,000 years and if you want to wait and see the effect of the current cycle of Global Warming you need to live a long time guy. But cheer up the ice cores prove incontrovertibly that the quickest and best way to cool the earth is to put small amounts of particulate matter in the upper atmosphere. Thats right a little air pollution will take care of even the chicken little human induced global warming fanatics claims. Before you open your mouth about global warming you really need to get the facts and the best way to do that is look at both sides of a question.
The best way to understand how fanatical human induced global warmists are is to go back and look at the religious fanatics who predicted the end of the earth and when it didn’t happen they rationalized. For an example of religious rationalization of global warmist theory go to unScinetific American’s recent Hot Times in Alaska and check out the professor from the University of Alaska who shows Alan Alda a paper with three charts on in. One is the inaccurate computer projection which he admits isn’t very good under that is a chart of what actually happened in the same time period and below that is one where he combines the inaccurate prediction with the historical fact and claims that by combining the two makes the predictions of dire immediate global warming in the next 100 years is proved. Aside from the unscientific process of combining fact and fantasy to prove fantasy its no different that what end of the world fanatics have done or said.
Please take the time to know what you are talking about before making a fool of yourself. But cheer up it will be thousands of years before anyone really knows how much of a fool.
As for the computer models they don’t prove anything except that the data and design were faulty. Models don’t prove anything, never have never will.
Personally as an environmentalist I am upset that people like you give credence to t a bunch of fanatics that are trying to create a State of Fear that will cause us to make rash decisions that will damage our country.
A perfect example is the poster boy of green alternative fuels, corn ethanol. Not only does corn ethanol drive up the price of food, its a net user of fossil fuels. Thats right guy it uses more fossil fuel BTU’s to produce a gallon of corn ethanol than the BTU’s in the ethanol. But the real clincher is the additional fertilizer (produced with fossil fuel) adds to the already grossly polluted ground water and run off to the Missisippie River which has a 200 mile dead zone at its mouth were nothing grows. Thats a fact just like like the one about Greenland being Green in 1000 AD.
Hi, James,
Thanks for your note.
We disagree on this subject. I wanted to respond clearly and fairly to your points so I asked my friend James Martin, the author and photographer of the upcoming book Planet Ice to respond for me. He is as well informed as anyone I know, has no axe to grind, but tends to speak bluntly. I give you James’ response:
James,
I think the test of a scientific theory is how well it predicts future discoveries or events. When the climate change model was postulated back in the Seventies, it predicted that global temperatures would rise with the increase in CO2 and related gasses. Further, we would see wider swings in weather.
The predictions were conservative as it turns out. While it is certainly possible that this is a coincidence, I doubt it. When the early proponents of evolution and continental drift made their claims, they made predictions, and the accumulation of evidence supported their predictions.
Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica prove that this is the high point in atmospheric CO2. The conclusion that CO2 is a major contributor to climate change is accepted by almost all climate scientists and endorsed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who earned one more Nobel Prize than either you or I. Your denial of the relationship between CO2 and climate change is very much in the minority of the scientific community.
Although you seem well informed on much of the data, check out Two Mile Time Machine by Dr. Richard Alley, by all accounts one of the premier paleo-climatologists and a leader of US ice core programs. There is no hint of hysteria or handwaving, yet he makes the connection you deny.
You write as if you presume I am too ignorant to know about climate variation in Greenland. You refer to the rapid temperature increase of Younger Dryas event, but the preconditions for that, a temperature minimum, do not apply under these conditions.
You have a point regarding global warming alarmists. People on both sides of the issue tend to cherry pick the data they prefer; it’s human nature. Conflating alarmists with scientists is an ad hominum argument, though. The fact that Al Gore made an unsupportable connection between climate change and Katrina doesn’t mean his other points are without merit.
I’ve read about the idea of using certain particulates to cool the earth. Maybe. I agree completely regarding ethanol.
In the end, either of us could be wrong. The question is whether our positions are falsifiable. What set of facts would change your mind, or mine? If there is no set of facts, then we are being irrational. Certainty has no place in issues such as these and your arrogant and dismissive comments on those who disagree do harm to your argument.
James Martin
Art,
The session sounds very interesting. What percentage of the course will be taught by you vs. the other presenters?
Are there enough people signed up for the course that it’s sure to run? If not yet, when will the final decision be made so that we can make travel arrangements, etc., without risk of possible cancellation?
Thanks,
Jim
Hi, Jim,
I will teach all but a few hours. The Session is filling fast and already is certain to go. I think it will sell out.
Art,
The session sounds very interesting. What percentage of the course will be taught by you vs. the other presenters?
Are there enough people signed up for the course that it’s sure to run? If not yet, when will the final decision be made so that we can make travel arrangements, etc., without risk of possible cancellation?
Thanks,
Jim
Thanks for the quick reply, Art. I look forward to seeing you there.
Jim
Thanks for the quick reply, Art. I look forward to seeing you there.
Jim
I am reg’d/paid for this and wonder when we will get the address for the reception and official hours of the workshop. I am looking forward to it all!! Are spouses welcome at the reception???
Thank you –
Tim
I am reg’d/paid for this and wonder when we will get the address for the reception and official hours of the workshop. I am looking forward to it all!! Are spouses welcome at the reception???
Thank you –
Tim