# 6459-62 / people • foilage • sink • picture window ~ philistinish pleasures

August 8, 2024

645 medium format camera / transparency film ~ ***all photos*** ~ (embiggenable)

IN A RECENT T.O.P. ENTRY MIKE JOHNSTON prattles on (and on and on and on), re: that whatever a picture maker’s intent, meaning-wise, a viewer will make of it whatever they want, influenced by what mental / emotional makeup he/she brings to the viewing. A postulation which is totally dependent upon the idea that a photograph is capable of possessing / communicating a meaning. An idea that I-and many others-reject.

Unfortunately, iMo, the art world has, over time, reached a point wherein content-what a piece of art “says”-is valued over form-what a piece of art looks like. Me?… I subscribe to K. B. Dixon’s idea that:

“The contemporary fine-art establishment is a coalition of vested interests. They are not doing the medium any favors by relegating the idea of “visual interest” to the scrap-heap of philistinish pleasures. In a photograph, as in a painting, the photographer wants to see something he wants to look at. He does not want some ancillary item—some half-baked idea of intellectual profundity.”

Call me a philistine but I much prefer visual interest in a photograph-or any art form-over “intellectual profundity”. Or, to put in another way, I believe a photograph is meant to be seen, not “read”. I want a photograph to hit me in the eye like big pizza pie cuz that’s amore. If you wanna read, get a book.

I believe Susan Sontag got it right when she wrote:

“Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy… the very muteness of what is, hypothetically, comprehensible in photographs is what constitutes their attraction and provocativeness.” ~ Susan Sontag

I also think she got right again when she wrote:

“Interpretation is the revenge of the intellectual upon art. ”

That’s cuz I believe that, if you want to suck the life out of a photograph-or any piece of art-try turning it into words instead of letting it seduce and captivate your visual senses.

FYI the pictures in this entry are meant to represent the fact that there is no “magic” format for creating interesting form. No cropping was employed in processing / editing these photos - full frame only.

# 6455-58 / decay • landscape • around the house • people ~ it's a better world

August 5, 2024

MORE NEGATIVE NATTERING FROM THE Doomsday crowd, Photography Division:

Doomsayer # 1: “It's clear to me that we're in the sad twilight of the era of photography as a serious hobby.”

Doomsayer # 2: “I'm interested in what stuff looks like now. And I'm much more interested in the popular media for viewing images now. The web. The monitor. The screen….I've been to too many galleries that cater to customers my age.….Mewing over the "wonderful tonality" of a print with content as boring as a tax audit. While all the good stuff is floating around in the ether….. It's like art stuck in amber…. I haven't shown a print or made a print in at least ten years.”

Re: “the sad twilight” - pure BS. I live in a small town (p.600) in a rural area. Every once n a while, aka: when I get the itch, I post a notice on an local online newsletter that I am conducting a improve your Phone picture making class. It regularly draws 6-8 people. People who are what I would call the new “serious” picture making hobbyist inasmuch as they are “serious” about making better pictures and they spent a fair amount of time and creative energy making those pictures. And, I might add, it it just delightful be around picture makers who are not gearheads, who just go out and make pictures.

And, while it constitutes just anecdotal evidence, I also have 2 baseball-style caps that I wear which display photo related messages; one simply has the KODAK logo, the other simply says 18% Gray. Both hats are frequent conversation starters with complete strangers who are, not surprisingly, amateur picture makers. The KODAK hat draws out a surprising number of film picture makers. Not surprisingly, the 18% Gray hat draws out the true cognoscenti. However, in either case, it is interesting to discover how many picture makers are out there hiding-unadorned with cameras-amongst the populous .

Now if your picture making (dimwitted) prejudices dictate that you can’t be serious unless you have “serious” gear (or wear a “photo” hat), then I guess the millions of such picture makers as described above are just flotsam and jetsam that have been thrown off the true-believer (photography) ship of state. Which, iMo, is a good thing inasmuch as all the killer sharks are actually on the ship.

Re: “I haven’t shown or made a print in at least 10 years” MORONIC - I am a true believer in the adage that it’s not a photograph until you make a print. That’s cuz it seems very obvious to me that a photograph is a thing - a physical / tangible object. You know, an actual thing that one can find in a shoe box after the person who made the thing is dead and gone.

In the visual arts world the thing is the thing. Sure, sure; in some quarters digitally created and digitally viewed images qualify as a visual art but ya can’t go the gallery gift shop and buy a postcard of it that you can place on your refrigerator door. Or…

Consider this…since we are discussing photography, it is safe to assume that, if one is creating art that is a reflection of one’s unique vision, then it also safe to assume that one tries to express that vision on the surface of one’s prints. That is, a print which exhibits / presents to a viewer one’s vision is a precise-fixed size, specific surface texture, color /tonal balance-and permanent manner. Qualities and characteristics that, quite simply and truthfully, can not be had in the digital domain on a display screen.

Forget the idea of making art and just consider the making of pictures of family, friends, travels, events, et al. The best way of sharing these pictures is in print form. I make both photo books and prints of our travels and events which, of course, include family and friends. The prints are on walls and in piles of small prints all over our house. They are constant, ever-present reminders of our life experiences and are a constant source of curiosity for friends and visitors.

All of that written, I believe we are in a happy decline of the traditionally embraced ideas of what constitutes a “serious” picture maker. The result of which is a freer / looser picture making attitude that is slowly but surely producing more diverse and interesting photographs.

I also believe, as demonstrated by the growth and popularity of online print making services- prints and books-and the emergence of combined print making + framing services, the walls of homes will be adorned with more framed photographs than ever before.

# 6447-48 / kitchen sink • diptych ~ allusive, formal, and breathtakingly efficient

July 22, 2024

“These collections of the photographer’s are pictorial notebooks—efforts to capture an evanescent emotional reaction to a visual stimulus. He is not really trying to say this or that has existed, but that this or that has existed for him in a particular way.” ~ K.B.Dixon

iMo and to my eye and sensibilities, the very best of photographs are those made by a photographer who see the world in their own innate / particular way; an M.O. that is most often labeled as their vision. And, the success of those photographs is most often conditioned upon, not what they photograph, but the resultant photographs which exhibit an exquisite sense of form.

Some might opine that creating form is just another picture making cliché; a tried and true formula for making pictures. To which I would write that, if it is true that everything that can be photographed has been photographed, I believe that it is true that no matter what one photographs there are endless possibilities for the creation of new form.

And, photographs that exhibit an allusive, formal, and breathtakingly efficient sense of form are those that separate the really good photographer from the merely talented picture makers.

#6444-46 / doors • travel ~ Marco Venturini Autieri, this one's for you

July 20, 2024

ON MY LAST ENTRY, Marco Venturini Autieri wrote, re: my hometown porches photos:

“They are soooo different from what I would see around me (Tuscany). Another world.”

So Marco, right back atcha; last time I was in Tuscany, the front entrances to homes were soooo different from what I see around me (Au Sable Forks). Another world (and I really liked it).

6904-12 / people ~ RIP

March 30, 2024

***Mel, picture by me with a pinhole lens*** ~ all photos (by Mel) embiggenable

I LOST A VERY GOOD FRIEND THIS WEEK. IN FACT, the only photo friend I have ever had in my entire life.

I am pleased to write that in all our time together we never once talked about gear. Photo wise all we ever discussed was photos, primarily his and/or mine. Over the years we would send-emailed-each other some of our current our photos (he lived in New Jersey) to keep abreast of what we were picturing. During the past few years I was “mentoring” Mel with his fascination with making iPhone pictures.

I met Mel through my wife’s sister, they were neighbors. It seems-without much exaggeration-that every time we were visiting my sister-in-law, especially when other family members were present, Mel was there with a camera documenting the goings on. And again without exaggeration, he must have amassed hundreds of pictures of the family’s gatherings; pictures that he made without ever putting the camera to his eye.

Mel was, without a doubt, in his professional career an exceedingly successful photographer. He leaves behind an amazing body of work which, iMo, deserves nothing less than a retrospective exhibition and a series-too much work for a single monograph-of books. Read his obituary to understand the volume and breadth of his work.

In any event, if such an exhibition / book(s) never happens, he would rank as one of the top unknown photo making greats.

FYI: from his obituary … “For over six decades, Melchior “Mel” Di Giacomo has captured moments through his camera, spurred by a friendly competition with his best friend.” the best friend who spurred him on was Jay Maisel.

# 6883-86 / common places / things • people ~ on the subject of magic

February 21, 2024

WHEN IT WAS MENTIONED TO WILLIAM EGGLESTON THAT the design of most of his pictures seemed to radiate from a central, circular core, he responded that this was true, since the pictures were based compositionally on the Confederate flag. This response, in the opinion of John Szarkowki, was…

“…presumably improvised and unresponsive, of interest only as an illustration of the lengths to which artists sometimes go to frustrate rational analysis of their work, as though they fear it might prove antidote to their magic.”

Re: rational analysis - it is the provenance of art critics and academics to delve into the rational analysis-the techniques-and the art theories-the aesthetics-employed in the making of any given piece of art. In most cases the rational analysis is intended to assist a viewer of any given piece of art in more fully understanding, aka: the ability to “interpret” and discover meaning (aka: content”)-and appreciating it. Or, in some cases, to assist a viewer in recognizing that a piece of art is actually a piece of crap.

In any event, whatever the merit(s) of rational analysis might be to some, one prevalent demerit, iMo, is the constant ascription to artists-PhotographyDivision-of consciously / deliberately using techniques and aesthetic devices in the making of their pictures. An assertion that is based upon the ignorance of critics and academics who, for the most part, are not practicing and/or accomplished artists themselves. That is to write, that based upon their voluminous technique and art theory expertise, they are predisposed to miss the forest for the trees.

Re: magic - To continue with the “forest” metaphor - the most interesting picture forests-in this discussion Photography, Fine Art Division-are germinated and fostered by picture makers who tend, on the whole, to understand that art theory and technique-other than what they need to make their vision visible-are nothing more than a hill of beans in their world.

iMo long-considered opinion, their “magic” springs fully formed and, seemingly, unbidden from their innate, personal vision-literally and figuratively how they see the world. Simply written, it’s all about the pictures…

“Every artist I suppose has a sense of what they think has been the importance of their work. But to ask them to define it is not really a fair question. My real answer would be, the answer is on the wall.” ~ Paul Strand

All of the above written, and getting back to the idea of fearing that rational analysis “might prove antidote to their magic”… I get it. Breaking down one’s vision-in this case, so called “magic”-into its individual components might, like Humpty Dumpty after the fall, be never able to be put back together again.

That’s cuz true vision is not formulaic. It is not a collection of parts glued together to create a operations manual. Rather, vision, like a photograph itself, it is an organically synthesized whole that is somewhat akin to magic-i.e. possessing the power of apparently influencing the course of (picture making) events by use of mysterious forces.

So, iMo, it is best to embrace the magic and go with its flow.

PS 2 new galleries - POLES and EYES DOWNCAST - on my WORK page.

# 6879-82 / kitchen life ~ who could have imagined?

February 13, 2024

IN MY LAST ENTRY I WROTE ABOUT THE MATURATION of the medium, c.1970s, a key element of which included the realization of its unique and intrinsic relationship with, and as a cohort of, the real world wherein any thing and every thing was color-ed and considered to be referent acceptable. Or, as Szarkowski wrote…

“… [an] encompassing motif [that] is itself so broad and hopelessly unformed, with so many aspects, angles, details, sotto voce asides, picturesque subplots, and constantly shifting patterns-and none of this clearly labeled…”

This casting aside-by the fine-art picture making crowd-of the then conventional what-is-appropriate-subject-matter wisdom was, iMo, a very belated-case in point, re: hidebound, insular thinking-recognition / realization of the picture making practice employed by the ubiquitous, next door snapshot-ers ever since the advent of the earliest amateur, handheld film cameras. Snapshooters who-as an English writer observed in 1893-

“… run rampant over the globe, photographing objects of all sorts, sizes and shapes, under almost every condition, without ever pausing to ask themselves, is this or that artistic? … They spy a view, it seems to please, the camera focused, the shot is taken! There is no pause … To them, composition, light, shade, form, and texture are so many catch phrases…”

As photographers, Fine-Art Division, pursued / explored this expansive picture making possibility landscape, the pictures they produced tended to have-to the casual viewer-the look of amateur-ish color snapshots. And, in an almost humorous, historic recurrence, the response-from “serious” amateurs and photo critics alike-to this sea see change was a nearly word-for-word repetition of the aforementioned 1893 “run rampant” observation. Case in point, Szarkowski’s introduction of the William Eggelston’s Guide exhibition / book was greeted by the then “traditional photo world with outright derision and scorn: “must be a joke”, “a put-on”, “can’t be serious”, etc., etc. Quite obviously, Szarkowski had a different opinion:

“… such pictures often bear a clear resemblance to the Kodachrome slides of the ubiquitous neighbor next door … it should not be surprising if the best photography of today is related in iconography and technique to the contemporary standard of vernacular camera work, which in fact, is often rich and surprising. The difference between the two is a matter of intelligence, imagination*, intensity, precision and coherence.”

Szarkowski recognized that what was happening at the time; a significant group of phorographers where striving to break free of conventional picture making “wisdom”, all the while in pursuit of creating a distinct art form with a unique visual syntax.

*I never imagined that my kitchen would be such fertile ground for picture making. On the other hand, once I began to make pictures therein, I continued to do so cuz I could, if I kept my eye and sensibilities open, imagine that a world of unknown picture making possibilities might just be lurking therein.

I believe that what one is drawn to-or chooses-to photograph is a creative act-innate or conscious-of one’s own unfettered imagination.

# 6873-75 / picture windows • still life • fashion ~ it's a window, as I see it

February 5, 2024

IT IS MY FIRM AND CONSIDERED OPINION THAT, in the straight photography world, a picture can be viewed as “a window through which one may better know the world” (Szarkowski). Although, Winogrand might state that a picture can be viewed as a window through which one may better know “what something will look like photographed”. Szarkowski most likely would not have disagreed with Winogrand inasmuch as he also stated that … “the factuality of a picture, no matter how convincing and unarguable, is a different thing than the reality itself. Much of the reality is filtered out in the static…image, and some of it is exhibited with an unusual clarity, an exaggerated importance. The subject and the picture are not the same thing”.

All of that written, one could be led to the question of what exactly is a photograph? There are many possible answers to that question but most “serious” photographers-according to Szarkowski-tend to cluster around one of two possibilities; a photograph is either “a window through which to better know the world (an exploration)”, or, a photograph is “a mirror reflecting a portrait of the artist who made it (a self expression)”. However….

…iMo, the very best photographs are both a window and a mirror. That’s cuz a photograph that exhibits a high degree of convincing and unarguable factulality is able to help us better know the world when the captured image is the result of a picture maker’s unique manner of seeing, aka-his / her vision (literally and figuratively). That written, and to clarify my thoughts on the matter, iMo and to my eye and sensibilities, The best photographs-as described above-are those that stand on their own two visual feet, AKA-their appeal to the visual senses.

Too many picture makers try way too hard to imbue their photographs with meaning. “Artistic” techniques / effects and accompanying artspeak are the primary evidence thereof. A picture never be just a picture. I.E. a thing that gives pleasure to the eye, what Sontag called the erotics of art.

In order to be “understood”, the purveyors of such pictures seem to insist that their pictures must be viewed as stand-ins for something else; a symbol, a metaphor, or a sign that reveals a hidden and invariably “deep” meaning. Ya know, like an apple for instance…is it a symbol for love, ecstasy, fertility and abundance, or, if your mind is of a certain bent, an apple core sliced in half represents the vulva. Take your pick. And, you can bet your bottom dollar that an art theorist / historian / MFA / critic and the like will have a zillion other possibilities.

In any event, all that decipher- the-meaning stuff requires thinking. And, just as the advice goes, re: don’t think when making a photograph, I apply the don’t-think idea when viewing photographs. That’s simply cuz I want to see and feel what a photograph has to offer, aka: what the photographer saw as he / she sees it. Inasmuch as photography is a visual medium, I want my eyes to do the investigating, not my intellect.

Call me simple-minded, but that’s how I see it.