ANOTHER 24 HOURS AND ANOTHER DOZENS PHOTOGRAPHS some of which are presented in this entry. Give me another day or 2 and I’ll have 20 photographs for a short-form body of work / book.
re: my last entry wherein I offered Sleepy LaBeef’s idea that it ain’t what ya eat, it’’s the way how ya chew it–which metaphorically suggested that vision- the way how you chew it–is the thing that distinguishes one person’s eating form other person’s eating. I might also add that individually unique vision is most often what distinguishes true art from mere documentation, picture making wise. ASIDE a reminder that I believe that vision can not be taught–it can only be discovered / recognized within one’s self. END ASIDE Given that proviso, let’s discuss the idea of what you eat.
One of photography’s most salient characteristics is it’s ability to document, with reasonable accuracy, the real world–people, places, things–at a particular moment in time. And, for most picture makers, from snap shooters to “serious” amateurs, that defining characteristic is their photography raison d‘etre; they all make pictures with people, places, and things as their prime objective. And, by the same token, most viewers of photographs look at / are attracted to such pictures primarily for what is literally depicted.
Consequently, most “serious” amateur photographers in particular strive to photograph the most attractive, dramatic, spectacular and commonly acceptable subject matter available. Additionally, in order to stand out from their peers, they tend to gussy up their photographs with all manner of effects and techniques. And, no surprise, the picture viewing masses –sticking with the chewing schtick– eat it up.
All of that written, suffice it to state that an overwhelming number of picture making / picture viewing people get their photo kicks from the photography medium’s characteristic of literal depiction, i.e. what a picture is of. I have no problem with that other than to write that, if that’s all there is to making pictures–to quote Ricky Nelson–I’d rather drive a truck.
That’s cuz I believe that a photograph can exhibit more than mere documentation; a belief based upon the idea that a photographic print is a thing in and of itself, i.e. a flat 2D surface on which a never ending variety of lines, shapes, colors, tones, space, et al–as seen and photographed as is in isolated segments of the real world–that illustrate a visually interesting / pleasing / captivating / challenging (take your pick or make up your own description) pattern / geometric “arrangement” that is independent of–but intrinsically linked to–the literally depicted what (aka: the literally depicted referent).
In a word, the what I am writing about here is creating visually implied form.
To wit, form that can be seen and recognized from virtually any actual, real world referent. Which is to write that any real world referent / subject matter–the what in a photograph–can be considered as the raw material for creating interesting form. Simply written, the what in a good photograph does not have to be made of the sublime; interesting form can seen and extracted from the commonplace. Any thing every thing is fair game.
As John Szarkowski wrote:
“It must be true that some of us point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others. [...] The talented practitioner of the new discipline would perform with a special grace, sense of timing, narrative sweep, and wit, thus endowing the act not merely with intelligence, but 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.”
Again returning to the eating / chewing schtick, the whole wide world is chock full o’ whats, so keep your eyes wide open and eat it up.
