# 6974-76 / kitchen sink • flora • landscape ~ they're not as sharp as they think they are

all photos (embiggenable)

“I’m always amused by the idea that certain people have about technique, which translate into an immoderate taste for the sharpness of the image. It is a passion for detail, for perfection, or do they hope to get closer to reality with this trompe I’oeil? They are, by the way, as far away from the real issues as other generations of photographers were when they obscured their subject in soft-focus effects.” ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson

REGULAR FOLLOWERS OF THIS BLOG HAVE PROBABLY noticed there have been more entries posted than is usual. That is most likely do to my new proclivity for using quotes to introduce one topic or another. FYI, as mentioned previously, I have collected quite a number of quotes from the interweb and from photo book––monographs––intros / prefaces / reviews. They act as a kinda instigator for entry topics, so much so that rarely have words poured from my penny pencil with such feverish fluidity.

Be that as it may, today’s topic was not instigated by the above HBC quote––I dug that out after I encountered the real instigator; today’s entry on T.O.P. in which M. Johnston made know his opinion, re: too much sharpness, resolution, micro contrast, et al known, i.e. he, like my own self, don’t like it at all.

Having written on the topic numerous times, I am disinclined to do so again. However, as an addendum to my previous thoughts on the subject, let me add this idea; the addiction to sharpness / resolution to-the-max is just one of many picture making afflictions embraced by those who are “as far away from the real issues” as possible. Just like the band Spinal Tap, who play their music with their amp volumes set to “11”, these dreck-conian picture makers have never seen a slider––hue & saturation, sharpness, vibrance, et al––that they don’t set to “11”. They often refer to that proclivity as “being creative”. Ha. Enough written on the topic.

FYI, one possible reason I have posted more often than usual is that the wife and I are headed to New Mexico tomorrow for some R’nR. Staying for a few days in a modest Pueblo-style, hot spring resort. Then on to Santa Fe for 2 days and a night for some luscious food and some culture. Followed by a visit to Denver to visit with some friends and family. That being so, I kinda think I’ve been cramming in a bunch of thoughts on some virtual paper before heading out.

In any event, I will post while I’m away although it might be more pictures than words.

BTW, writing about sharpness, the picture with the budding maple tree was made through a back porch screen. A “diffusion” filter, if you will. I didn’t have any other choice of making that picture from the same vantage point without involving a step ladder. iMo, it gets the point across quite effectively without any sharpness to-the-max.

# 6969-73 / common places-things • landscape • in situ ~ nominal subject matter

“John Szarkowski has used the expression “nominal subject matter”. I think that’s perfect for my behavior here. I am not interest in gas stations or anything about gas stations. This happens to be an excuse for seeing.… I don’t care if it was about a gas station or if this is a rubber raft or if this is a crappy little house. That’s not my subject! The gas station isn’t my subject. It’s an excuse for a place to make a photograph”….

…. “I take a picture of the subject and its context––the subject as it stands with everything else…. I’m trying to make an atonal photograph where everything is as important as everything else…. I think it’s possible to make a photograph in which the photographer lays back enough so the viewer comes into the photograph and has a chance to perceive the thing on his own terms, instead of only seeing what the photographer has hooked him to see. I think one of the reasons I’m using the 8x10 camera is that I felt I could work with the large camera and make photographs in which the subject was everything in the frame.” ~ Joel Meyerowitz

I RECENTLY WROTE THAT I DO NOT TITLE MY photographs onaccounta I do not wish to call attention to the literally depicted referent in my pictures cuz my pictures are rarely “about” the literally pictured referent. As an adjunct to that practice, at an exhibit of my photographs I have always wished for red velvet ropes strung 3-4 feet in front the gallery walls to prevent viewers from sticking their noses where they don’t belong––that is, so close to a picture that they can not see the print in its entirety. That’s cuz seeing the print in the all together is the only way in which a viewer can actually see what my pictures are about.

My “excuse” for making a photograph is the potential I see in isolated––by means of framing––sections of the quotidian world to create visually interesting form; form that results from the fact that everything within my frame is as important as everything else within the frame. In other words, creating visually interesting form is my subject, aka: what my photographs are about. It is not about the literally depicted things in my photographs.

FYI, if I were to title any of the above photographs, the titles might be something like; my son wearing a new hat, or, my grandson eating lunch at the Statue of Liberty, or, my daughter and her cousins reading on the beach. However, for the life on me, I just can not imagine how those titles would improve, in any manner, a viewer’s reaction to / appreciation of / understanding of the pictures. In fact, iMo, the titles might very well lead a viewer to think that that information had something to do with why I made the pictures which, in fact, had absolutely nothing––nada, zero, zip––to do with why I made the pictures.

# 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.