(embiggenable) • iPhone
(embiggenable) • iPhone
WHY TOOTHPICKS? Answer: Why not? WHY ICICLES? Answer: Why not?
A point in every direction is the same as no point at all.
Or so said the Pointless Man when encountered by Oblio and his dog, Arrow, in the Pointless Forest. The comment could have been directed at my discursively promiscuous picture making ... since I point my picture making devices in every direction, does that mean I have no point at all?
AN ASIDE: the following are random comments gleaned, during my on-point research, from random online sources, all strung together in no particular order. END OF ASIDE
All this begs the question of what it is that makes the photographer. What makes a photographer great, or influential? Which parts of the process are inherent, and which can be dispensed with, without losing that essence of greatness? I maintain that it is, essentially, the singular vision. What she is lacking is any singular vision. She's simply shooting everything, anything, that catches her eye as interesting. What we are looking at here, almost certainly, is a modestly talented vernacular photographer. She has no particular vision, because she doesn't need one, there's no evidence that she was remotely interested in any such thing. Why the hell can't we let this woman be what so she obviously was, a woman with a camera who took pleasure in photographing things, lots of things? Vernacular photography includes pictures by amateur makers, studio practitioners, itinerant and press photographers–many whom work unconcerned with the medium’s fine art applications. Snapshots capturing everyday life and subjects are a major form of vernacular photography.
AN ASIDE: the following is part of a comment (left on a previous enrty) by THOMAS RINK. END OF ASIDE
I received your book this week and enjoyed it a lot. The pictures look very spontaneous - almost vernacular - but your command over colors and composition reveals that they are products of conscious effort. Very well done indeed. You recently mentioned that you don't work in terms in projects, but photograph what you find visually arresting ('discursive promiscuity' in your terms). On the other hand, I believe it is this spontaneous character, of effortless beauty, which keeps the pictures in the book together.
So, dispite what the Pointless Man said, the Rockman later told Oblio and his dog, Arrow, that:
You don't need to have a point, to have a point.
This conclusion was based, in part, upon the observation of the 3 Dancing Fat Sisters who were so rotund that they didn't have an obvious visual point. Nevertheless, they did have a point-laughter and merriment-which their actions quite obviously expressed.
At this point, some might think that this entry is rather pointless. So, let me make my point ...
Based upon the fact that straight pictures-and mine in particular-seem to be so relentlessly literial-that is, pictures which seem to be only about what is so clearly / accurately depicted-many viewers see only the referent and find nothing more to "see". And, given the fact of my roving picture making eye, many viewers are inclined to ask, re: my pictures, "What's the point?"
In answer to that question, perhaps I should create an all-purpose Artist Statement derived from Thomas Rink's comment. Something like:
My pictures look very spontaneous-almost vernacular-but my attention to color and the orginization of visual elements on the 2D surface of the print reveals that they are products of a conscious effort. I don't work in terms in projects, but rather, I photograph what I find visually arresting (discursively promiscuous picture making). On the other hand, I believe it is this spontaneous character, of effortless beauty, which keeps my pictures together as all of a single piece. Or, as all of a single vision / way of seeing.