sunflower
the Cinemascapist, my son, as a kid
kitchen sink
Puxsutawney Phil and me
teen magazine assignment
broken fence
assignment - Pittsburgh: A Day in the Life
all pictures ~ SX 70 Polaroid camera / Time Zero fIlm (embiggenable)
A QUESTION, BY JONATHON WEBER, HAS BEEN ASKED:
I have always wondered how you became a devotee of the square format...
my response: I never really pondered on that idea but, question asked, my first thought was that I adopted the square format almost immediately after I moved, c. 2002, to the digital picture making side of things. Prior to that date, my personal "art" picture making was created with view cameras which have a 4:5 (8:10) crop ratio which, while it ain't square, it's pretty damn close. So, it's safe to write that my personal picture making vision was somewhat attenuated, re; the 35mm format (2:3).
That written, as my thinking on the subject grinded on, it occurred to me that, duh, I had been making zillions of square pictures for decades, starting, c. 1974, with my first purchase of an SX-70 Polaroid camera. FYI, I acquired and still possess 5 SX-70 cameras. And, yes, at times, I used those camera to make "art", as well as commercial assignments-a lot of editorial / magazine- pictures. SX-70 made pictures were quite in vogue at that time.
ASIDE All of the above written, I have always had a knack for so-called "composition". That is, arranging lines, shapes, colors, tonal values, et al on the flat 2D field (surface) of a print, no matter the given dimensional format of any camera. Although, to be accurate, in my professional / commercial career, a large portion of my work, no matter the camera format used, was created to fit the 8.5x11 inch format of the printed page. END OF ASIDE
Truth be told, my square format SX-70 picture making was performed with what might be called an "intuitive" compositional sensitivity. That is, I didn't think about it, I pretty much just did what felt "right". It wasn't until my digital picture making began that I thought seriously about the square format. That is to write, that I consciously and with forethought adopted the format.
I did so because the square format fits the way I see, vision wise - literally and figuratively .... when I see a referent which pricks my eye and sensibilities, it has done so in the center of my vision, what I see with my eyes. Consequently, when I picture what I see, I tend to place that referent-which might be simple or complex-in the center of my picture's arrangement of visual properties.
To my eye and sensibilities, that center placement is an exercise in visual emphasis. And, by such placement in a square format, other visual "distractions" are limited, relative to a rectangular format. And, just in case you haven't noticed, I alway create a blurred and darkened vignette in the corner of my pictures which puts even more emphasis on the center of the picture.
It should also be noted, re: the vignette, that blurring and darkening of the corners mimics the way human vision works ... the human visual apparatus creates maximum definition in the center of one's vision and those areas of vision which fall along the periphery / edges of human vision lack defintion. And, for better or for worse, I am very conscious of the difference between the center and the edges of my vision.
To sum it all up, I became a "devotee" of the square format when I thoughtfully and deliberately adopted the format-as opposed to having to work with it by limitations imposed by equipment (SX-70 cameras)-in the early 2000s, c.2002. I stick with it because it fits the way I see, both literally and figuratively.