# 6964-68 / common places • common things ~ they keep beating it like a rented mule

all photos (embiggenable)

“Admire it. Love it. But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography.” ~ George Eastman

“There is no such thing as “good” or “bad” photographic light. There is just light.” ~ Brooks Jensen

“Photography is about light…. The best light for photography usually comes in early morning and late afternoon…. I might drive several hundred miles checking out barn sites and then double back to photograph an especially good one in evening light; or put up at a nearby motel if I thought morning light would be better.” ~ POOR, DELUDED PHOOL (as found on the interweb)

“I use the real world: whatever the light is, wherever I find myself, I make the picture. I don’t often say I’ll come back the next day for it. There is only now. The moment is now, I am here now, it is happening now, take it now. The sense of that moment, the magnitude of that, is the only thing I can respond to…. Photography is about the consciousness of now for me.” ~ Joel Meyerowitz

WHEN I CAME ACROSS A LINK TITLED, in part, with “…and the meaning of photography”, my curiosity got the better of me and I clicked on it. Unsurprisingly, what I found was yet another leaden nugget of dreck-conian, cliché drivel. The first thing that sprang to mind was Brooks Jensen’s opinion, re: light, followed by George Eastman’s opinion which, in turn, was followed by digging out my much worn, somewhat tattered copy of Cape Light by Joel Meyerowitz.

ASIDE I first encountered the work of Joel Meyerowitz when I worked as a consultant, c. 1978, for Sally Eauclaire, the author of the seminal book, the new color photography. Sally, a well-respected and published art critic, knew nothing about photography. Consequently, she asked me to advise her on all things photographic as we spread out photo prints, a near weekly occurrence, on my studio floor-work selected by her from work submitted by gallery / institutional directors and individual photographers for inclusion in her book.

For me, this experience was like having a front row seat at the emergence of the new fine art color photography movement. To say it had a profound effect on me is a…well…. profound understatement––a truly eye opening, literally and figuratively, experience. Ya know, kinda like having an student-of-one grad school study experience.

TRUE CONFESSION At that time I was smitten by the work of Meyerowitz. So much so that I went on a search to learn as much as I could about his photo technique; he used an 8x10 view camera-no problem, I had 2 8x10s along with a very ample number of 8x10 film holders; he used long exposure / tungsten balance color negative film-a seemingly odd choice for making daylight photos but, on second thought, long shutter speeds @ f45-64 were frequently required; the only thing I lacked was a light weight wood tripod but I was able to long-term borrow one from a friend. Armed with that gear, I must shamefully confess that I set out to make as many photographs as possible––but not exclusively––during the time of day, as mentioned by Meyerowitz, as entre chien et loup. END ASIDE

Getting back to the topic of light, I am totally down with Jensen inasmuch as I have always believed that there was just light. And like Meyerowitz, whatever the light is at the time when a picture making opportunity pricks my eye and sensibilities, I just make a picture. Unlike those who” chase the light”––those whose pictures most often degenerate into nostalgia and cheap sentiment––I prefer the real as opposed to caricature-ized, fanasty dramascapes.

Light is an obviously elemental constituent in the making of a photograph. However, iMo, it exhibits itself in a seemingly endless stream of variable emanations. That written, the question that arises in my mind is simply, why would any picture maker limit his/herself to just a single expression of that expansive natural phenomenon? A picture making act which creates an endlessly repetitive––in fact, deadening to my eye and sensibilities––sensation to our visual receptors.

# 6990-93 / landscape • common things • kitchen sink ~ it's more than what you think it is

all photos ~ (embigenable)

“One might compare the art of photography to the act of pointing. It must be true that some of us point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others.” ~ John Szarkowski

“Finding something beautiful means conferring significance on it. Snatching it from oblivion, rescuing it, making it visible.” - Ariel Hauptmeier

“By Interstate 70: a dog skeleton, a vacuum cleaner, TV dinners, a doll, a pie, rolls of carpet....Later, next to the South Platte River: algae, broken concrete, jet contrails, the smell of crude oil.... What I hope to document, though not at the expense of surface detail, is the form that underlies this apparent chaos.” ~ Robert Adams

“The talented practitioner of the new discipline would perform with a special grace, endowing the act… with that quality of formal rigor that identifies a work of art, so that we would be uncertain, when remembering the adventure of the tour, how much our pleasure and sense of enlargement had come from the things pointed to and how much from a pattern created by the pointer.” ~ John Szarkowski

I HAVE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED THAT I COLLECT QUOTES that tend to have relevance to my thoughts and practices, re: the making of photographs. The 4 quotes presented herein come very close to encapsulating my M.O., re: the picture making process, to wit….

…. the “art” of photography is comparable to the act of pointing cuz, in fact, one is actually pointing a picture making device at something. And, in point of fact, some of us do tend to point that device toward more interesting facts / configurations than other pointers do.

In any event, making a picture of that something essentially snatches it from oblivion and makes it visible. A print made from that encounter does indeed confer a significance on that something cuz, the picture maker is conveying to a viewer of that photograph the simple directive of “Look at this. I believe it to be of some significance.”

Now here is where it gets “tricky”…. if the picture maker performs the act of making a picture with a “special grace”––understanding and trusting their unique vision, both literal and figurative––and employs a formal rigor that identifies a work of art, he/she will most likely manage to document the form that underlies the sometime apparent chaos of the real world––although, hopefully, not at the expense of surface detail.

In the most successful results of the act of picture making, a viewer of the printed result will be uncertain how much of their pleasure and sense of enlightenment comes from the thing pointed to and how much from a pattern created by the pointer.

All of that written, my primary objective in making photographs is to document the form that underlies the apparent chaos of the real world. However, as a practitioner of straight photography, I also always strive to respect the visual integrity––as much as the medium allows––of the surface detail of the literally depicted thing(s) as seen in my pictures.

FYI, I rarely title / caption my photographs cuz most captions / titles call attention to the literally depicted referent(s) in a photograph and, to be perfectly clear, the literally depicted referent(s) in my photographs are not what pricked my eye and sensibilities and instigated my picture making activity, so why call attention to it?

Rather, once again to be perfectly clear, what pricks my eye and sensibilities is the visual possibilities of line, shape, value, color, and texture I see (quite literally see), which, when snatched from the real world, isolated and organized in a perfect––to my eye and sensibilities––frame, can be employed to create visually interesting form.

All of that written, I can unequivocally write that, if all I could do, picture making wise, was to make pictures of things, and only things, I would have traded in my picturing gear and purchased a Singer Sewing Machine a long time ago.

# 6984-89 / landscape • roadside • (un)common thing ~ Spring sweetness

On the boil in the sugar house ~ It takes 40 gallons of maple sap to make 1 gallon of maple syrup. all photos (embiggenable)

“I've worked out of a series of no's. No to exquisite light, no to apparent compositions, no to the seduction of poses or narrative.” ~ Richard Avedon

THE THING ABOUT SPRING HERE IN THE ADIRONDACKS is mist, fog, and raging water.

Of added Spring time interest is the very short weather window for maple syrup making. There are quite a number of so-called sugar houses doting the landscape. FYI, a sugar house is a small shack-like structure where maple sap is boiled down to produce the correct density for maple syrup. Standing in a sugar house during the boil feels / smells like you have coated the inside of your nose with, well… maple syrup. And, tasting the syrup straight out of the boil is a taste sensation that is simply amazing.

ASIDE Don’t know what will happen with the price of maple syrup this year cuz, thanks t-RUMP, most of the maple syrup in the US of A that originates in Canada will be hit with tariffs. The current price for pure maple syrup here in our neck of the maple tree woods is $34.95 / quart (32oz.) END SIDE

# 6981-83 / around the house • kitchen sink • common things ~ creative networks

all photos (embiggenable)

“The photographs that excite me are photographs that say something in a new manner; not for the sake of being different, but ones that are different because the individual is different and the individual expresses himself. I realize that we all do express ourselves, but those who express that which is always being done are those whose thinking is almost in every way in accord with everyone else. Expression on this basis has become dull to those who wish to think for themselves.” - Harry Callahan

I BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE THAT A LARGE PORTION OF the population feels quite safe and reasonably happy being in accord in almost every way with everyone else. Hell, even in our politically divided US of A, 75% of the population did not vote for t-RUMP,––who gave us E. musk-RAT as a bonus. However, that written, this is not about politics, it is about photography…

…. and I also believe it to be true that most “serious” amateur picture makers are reasonably happy making pictures, aka: expressing themselves, that look remarkably like the pictures everyone else is making. Ya know what I mean; safe, conventionally ”approved” subject matter pictured according to the “rules”, or if you prefer, creating one cliché after another. Whether this is due to the fact that most “serious” picture makers are risk-adverse or––as I believe––are unable to imagine themselves out of a wet paper bag is an open question. Although, iMo, it is most likely a combination of both causes….

ASIDE All of that written, it is worth asking what, contextually, was Harry Callahan referring to when using the phrase “expresses himself”? iMO, it would be reasonable (and safe) to assume that he was referring to the act of making photographs. And, it would also be reasonable to assume that with his idea, “Expression on this basis (thinking in accord with everyone else, picture making wise) has become dull”, Callahan is expressing––in the kindest possible manner––his dislike of boring, photographic schlock. END ASIDE

…. , but, my ASIDE aside, maybe the “cause” of all of this dull expression is not attributable to group thinking. Rather, it finds its roots in the fact current research suggests that:

Our findings indicate that the creative brain is “wired” differently and that creative people are better able to engage brain systems that don’t typically work together. Interestingly, the results are consistent with recent fMRI studies of professional artists, including jazz musicians improvising melodies, poets writing new lines of poetry and visual artists sketching ideas for a book cover.

Future research is needed to determine whether these networks are malleable or relatively fixed. For example, does taking drawing classes lead to greater connectivity within these brain networks? Is it possible to boost general creative thinking ability by modifying network connections?

For now, these questions remain unanswered.

So, going with my unable-to-imagine-their-way-out-of-a-wet-paper-bag idea, it is quite possible that this issue, attributed to those alike-thinking picture makers, is actually linked to the fact that they are not able to engage brain systems that don’t typically work together. Not cuz they are dumbasses but rather cuz they were born / wired that way. Sorta like they got passed over in that ability in the DNA / genetics spin-of-the-wheel, aka: “god-given gift”, lotto.

Now I am aware that mentioning the above research––just one of many that have come to similar conclusions––reads like the ye-olde either-ya-got-it-or-ya-don’t saying. Some might be inclined to put me on an express train to being an “elitist” but here’s the thing; I have indeed been a life-long believer in that ye-olde saying.

However, that is not to write that I believe it to be an all-or-nothing concept. Rather, I believe that “having it” runs along a spectrum; some have it to the max, some have a healthy dose, while others have enough of it to be dangerous, and some just don’t have it at all. And, to be certain, just cuz one has-it in one area of human endeavor does not mean they have it any other area of human activity.

So, if ya got it, use it. If ya don’t you can always play it by the “rules”.

# 6976-80 / landscape • common things ~ signs of spring / on the road again

all photos (embiggenable)

“One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it...If we limit our vision to the real world, we will forever be fighting on the minus side of things, working only too make our photographs equal to what we see out there, but no better…. My first thought is always of light.” ~ Galen Rowell

ONE MORE DAY UNTIL SPRING BUT I COULDN’T wait, so I got the EYE-TAL-EE-N sports car––twin intercooled turbo, track-tuned suspension, burble / pop / wail free-flow exhaust, soft top––out and on the road-gotta give the Mazda turbo a bit of a rest.With a ˚64F day the top was open and I headed 10 miles down river to check out the Spring runoff at the chasm. Made some photographs while I was out and about.

The day started sunny and gradually turned into a soft hazy overcast. Galen Rowell would have hated it and most likely left his camera at home. That cuz, ya know, it’s all about “the light” and if “the light” ain’t dramatic what’s the point? Without it it’s very difficult to be a photo-caricaturist. That is, a picture maker dedicated to making caricatures of the natural world cuz, ya know, the real world is just…well…boring.

And, iMo, Rowell was one of the masters of that genre and it’s fair to write that he never used a film that wasn’t color saturated and never encountered a hue & saturation slider that he did not use to the max. Rowell apparently believed that the answer to making one’s photographs “better” was to slather on a lot of art sauce cuz only suckers and nincompoops attempt to make their photographs bear a closer resemblance to the real world; in his words “fighting on the minus side of things”.

The only conclusion I can draw from his work and his words is that he is someone who employs the tools of a medium that excels, like no other visual art, at showing what the real world looks like, in order to make photographs that do not look like the real world. iMo, that makes made him the real nincompoop who is was fighting on the minus side of things.

# 6973-75 / landscape • roadside detritus • kitchen sink ~ more than meets the eye

all photos (enmbiggenable)

wonder: 1. n. a feeling of surprise mingled with admiration, caused by something beautiful, unexpected, unfamiliar, or inexplicable.

“I had a teacher who said there were three ways in which art functions: one, as decor, an augment to interior design; then there is art as a statement, a tool to support a particular argument; and then there is the idea that it evokes wonder. When I heard that, the idea of pursuing the sense of wonder stood out.” ~ Edward Burtynsky

I NEVER HAD A TEACHER WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT art or photography. And, I can write with authority that my lack of that kind of education hasn’t hurt me none.

That written, I do have a quibble with the statement made by Burtynsky’s teacher; I believe that fine art can function as decor, make a statement, and evoke wonder simultaneously. In fact, as an example, I would be delighted to hang a Burtynsky Quarries photograph––saw the NYC gallery exhibition––on a wall in my house (if I could afford one) and I am certain that it would function as a decor-like object, make a statement (albeit not a strident one), and most certainly evoke a sense of visual wonder.

In any event, many might wonder why I would choose to put a picture of a quarry on my wall. Most likely, my answer––”I did not hang a picture of a quarry on the wall. Rather, I put a photograph on the wall that expresses what a quarry looks like when photographed.”–– would only further add to their confusion. To take my answer a step further, I would add that, when looking at the photograph, I do not see a quarry; what I see is an image with an amazing amount of visual energy / interest––an organization of lines, shapes, color, tone, form––that pricks my eye and sensibilities.

And, that visual quality in a photograph––a photograph of any thing––is what I most prize in a photograph. That visual quality which, to my eye and sensibilities, is an act of transmutation that is capable of changing an image into a beautiful object, i.e., a beautiful print––in and of itself as an object––which transcends the literally depicted referent.

To be certain, a photograph’s form is intrinsically linked to what is literally depicted. However, that written, my advice #3 is-if you wish to dig deeper into a photograph, do not be distracted / misled by what is literally depicted. A really good photograph is most often about more than that.

# 6970-72 / common things ~ form fitting fotos

all photos (embigenable)

wonder: v. desire or be curious to know something.

“I work to create an image that draws people in with its aesthetic, but then has them grappling with it and wonder why they are drawn to it. They’re thinking, “I am reacting against what I am seeing, but drawn to it.”….. If it makes the viewer somewhat uncomfortable, that’s interesting.” ~ Edward Burtynsky

I HAVE SEVERAL TIMES PAST MENTIONED THAT ONE of the most common comments I hear from viewers of my photographs is, “I don’t know why I like this, but I do.” In my experience, the “dilemma” they are grappling with is that they do not understand why they are drawn to / curious about a picture of something that is conventionally deemed to be very ordinary / plain / unexceptional.

When I hear such a comment, I am tempted to throw my hands and arms into the air and yell, “Success!!!!” That’s cuz, like Burtynsky, I work––although it does not feel like work to me–– to create an image that draws in, a. my eye and sensibilities (first), and, hopefully, b. other people’s eye (second) with its aesthetic, AKA: the form I see and photograph in the quotidian world and which is on exhibit in my photographs.

I am in no way trying to be condescending, however I do believe that most viewers who express such consternation have no conscious / learned knowledge, re: form …. ASIDE Unlike, say, an art center gallery director who asked, when viewing my very early on, unorganized portfolio–– I had yet to understand my discursively promiscuous picturing tendencies––”Are you a designer? Your photos, despite their random subject matter, have a very identifiable look that holds them all together as your work.” END ASIDE …. What I believe is happening with the don’t-know-why viewers is that, while they may have no formal recognition / understanding of form, many people* do possess an unconscious sensitivity / positive reaction to interesting / pleasing form when they see it.

That written, here’s the thing about form …. when attempting to describe form, most veer into vocalizing wispish vagueness, like, say, defining it as an orderly method of arrangement; a definition which most likely means many different things to many different viewers. Ya know like, one man’s orderly arrangement is another man’s sloppy mess. Others might describe form as the structural element, plan, or design of a work of art; while that might be viable for a painter who starts with a blank substrate, iMo, it simply don’t work for a straight photographer cuz, ya know, the visual structural elements of the real world are not very malleable.

There are also those, primarily found in academia or the writings of academia trained critics**, who go to great lengths to rip apart / dissect the visual structural elements of a work of art––a kinda post-mortem mori memento, an autopsy––in an effort to explain / understand how it “works”. It has always been my contention that if you have to kill it to understand how it works, then it was already dead to begin with.

All of that written, and to paraphrase A. Adams;

“There are no rules for making good form, there is only good form.” ~ I said that

*although, probably a minority of the population cuz ya can’t forget the quote attributed (but not verified) to H. L. Menckin;

“Nobody ever when broke underestimating the taste of the American people.”

** and don’t forget the how-to-make-great-composition workshop hustlers

# 6967-69 / common places • common things ~ little rectangular worlds

all photos (embiggenable)

“Because of the resolution of working with an 8X10 camera, I found that I did not have to thrust the viewer’s face into something. If I saw something interesting, it could be part of a larger picture that has a number of points of interest. It changes the viewer’s relationship with an image. It is not framing one thing but creating a little rectangular world that the viewer can move their attention around and explore.” ~ STEPHEN SHORE

TO MY EYE AND SENSIBILITIES, THE IDEA THAT, WHEN making pictures, a photographer should “simplify”––that is, in framing a segment of the real world, one should eliminate all “distractions” which might direct attention away from “something interesting”––is simple minded. iMo, that edict, taken directly from the traditional canon of photography, can be accurately interpreted to simply (kinda a pun) mean to, dumb it down. Ya know, cuz simpletons need simple ideas cuz they have simple minds…

… to which I call balderdash!!! In my experience, say, when interacting with viewers of my photographs––which no one would consider to be shining examples of “framing one thing”––that they seem to be eminently capable of walking and chewing gum simultaneously. And, if my memory serves, I can recall only one instance of a viewer having to be revived from an attack of complexity derangement after viewing one of my pictures––fortunately, the gallery had a medic standing by for just such an emergency cuz, apparently, every now and then a simpleton did manage to sneak in the door.

All that written, I am totally down with Stephen Shore’s idea of making little rectangular worlds––albeit, in my case, (primarily) little square worlds. But, that stated, I am also sympathetic to the idea suggested by the Irish poet Peter Kavanagh:

“There is something wrong with a work of art if it can be understood by a policeman*.”

*don’t know what Kavanagh had against policemen.