# 6857-62 / common things • common places • discursive promiscuity ~ A Milk Cow Is Not a Black Helicopter

pages / spreads from my upcoming book, The Ravings of a Mad Diarist ~ all photos (embiggenable)

“Inso far as photography is (or should be) about the world, the photographer counts for little, but insofar as it is the instrument of intrepid, questioning subjectivity, the photographer is all.” ~ Susan Sontag

I INTRODUCE THE SONTAG QUOTE AS ENTRY INTO the idea of visual vs. verbal thinking as it relates to the…well, dare I write…concept of conceptual photography.

Re: visual vs verbal thinking, the ultra simple definition: verbal thinkers do most of their thinking through inner dialogue whereas visual thinkers think in pictures and spatial relationships. While people aren’t exclusively one or the other, most tend toward one or the other.

That written, I can write that I am decidedly a visual thinker; my head is, and always has been, filled to the brim with visual images. As an example, when asked for walking/driving directions I can not remember the names of streets but I can give a very detailed description of the suggested route’s landscape. Ya know, like, take the 2nd right turn past the picket fence at the yellow corner house and proceed up the rise to…and so on.

Consequently-and I think, logically-the fact that I think in pictures, call them images, and spatial relationships, it is no surprise that I was drawn, from a very early age, to the practice of making pictures, aka: art. So, that established, moving on to conceptual photography…

During my high school-all boys Jesuit institution-days, we were assigned summer reading. The books were almost exclusively of the “classic” literature variety with a few notable current works thrown in - I guess they wanted to make sure we did not spend the entire summer on the beach with a horde of sweet sixteen-ers.

In any event, I skimmed and CliffsNotes-ed my way through the assignment, barely surviving the fall semester writing assignments about the assigned books. My “problem” with the books was due to the fact that the subsequent writing assignments were intended to be a deep dive into meanings, metaphors, allegories, and the like to be found, discovered, revealed in the books. And, no matter how I tried, I could simply not find such things, aka: concepts. Or, perhaps I just did not perceive any advantage to recognizing those things. To my visually constructed thinking, they were all just stories.

That written, I have the same “problem” with conceptual photography. To my visually constructed thinking, photographs are “just” pictures. When I look at a photograph, the very first thing I see is a picture. Cuz, ya know, pictures are a visual construct. And, in order to make a photograph you do not use a typewriter, you use a light recording device that produces an actual thing that is meant to be seen, not read.

Which this suggests to me is that, if you want to say something about something, then talk or write about it. Use words. Write a book, write an essay. Hell, write a post-it note. Any of which would be better at communicating / conveying a concept-most often psychological / academic in nature-than using a medium which is intrinsically suited to show us something about something.

ASIDE am I alone in thinking that making a picture of an actual real world thing as a metaphor for something else is kinda oxymoronic? Kinda like the title of an essay, re: conceptual photography, I read long ago - A Milk Cow Is Not a Black Helicopter And That’s a Fact. END ASIDE

My Conclusion: Photography is a visual medium. Photographs are meant to be seen cuz, in the best of cases, a photographer’s questioning subjectivity about the world is primarily directed in the cause of showing us how he/she sees the world. And, for me / my eye and sensibilities, my pleasure and joy. re: viewing of photographs, is in seeing how the world looks when photographed, not only by me but also when photographed by the (unique) vision of other photographers*.

*iMo, re: Sontag’s “the photographer is all”; I agree with that sentiment inasmuch as the most interesting / engaging photographs are made by photographers who bring their unique, personal vision to bear in the making of their photographs. However, for my eye and sensibilities, it is, and always will be, the tangible results of that vision, aka: a photograph, that is the “all”.

# 6856 / ~ something about something

(embiggenable)

THIS PAST WEEK I PAID A VISIT TO the George Eastman House, aka: the George Eastman Museum, in Rochester, NY - the home of Eastman Kodak Co. which still exists in a somewhat ghost-like form of its former self. And, FYI, they still make film.

While at the museum, as I moseyed through one of the galleries-the Collection Gallery-I experienced a modified semblance of awe and distinct appreciation as I viewed original prints of photographs made by Stieglitz, Stiechen, Atget, Adams, Arbus, Negly, amongst other notables. Then I moved on to the New Directions: Recent Acquisitions exhibition in the Project Gallery wherein I tried, really tried, to get some kinda grasp on some photographs…

“…acquired by the museum over the past five years and showcase significant developments in photographic practice….Throughout New Directions, the photographic image figures as a tool to fortify—but also unsettle—ideas about history and identity…While some of the artists embrace photography as a documentary medium, others develop strategies to destabilize the authority of the image. Some work to explicitly make visible the myriad ways that the past shapes the present. As instruments of power, archives become platforms to be challenged, subject to reinterpretation and reconfiguration. Found and appropriated materials offer practical, but also critical, approaches to reflecting on contemporary life and the status of images in the digital era.”

…however, try as I might, a grasp of any kind was, at best, elusive, at worst, not possible. That’s cuz the pictures were; a) visually un-engaging, and, b) so “conceptually” driven in their making that, ironically, the concept was virtually indecipherable without a zillion word art-speak “explanations” which, mercifully, were not included with the exhibition. FYI, I write “mercifully” cuz I most emphatically do not go to an exhibition of visual art to read what are essentially an academic thesis about “concepts” that are of interest to academics or, even worse, interesting to psychologists.

Being, at times, a glutton for punishment, in the museum gift shop I purchased an expensive hardbound book, A MATTER OF MEMORY : PHOTOGRAPHY AS OBJECT IN THE DIGITAL AGE. I did so knowing full well, forewarned as it were, that it was a “scholarly” work.

However, the book is illustrated with a large number of photographs by 35 picture makers, each accompanied with a short essay about the picture maker’s conceptual intent. My hope was that with another attempt to get a grasp on “significant developments in photographic practice” I might be able to get at least a scintilla of insight into the academic world’s fascination with conceptual picture making.

Despite my earnest attempt, I yet again was left in the dark and dealing with a nasty bruise from repeatedly banging my head against a stone wall. Best as I can tell, some people get a kick outa dancing on the head of a pin.

# 6830-32 / common places • common things • sink ~ it is what it is and that's all what it is

from Terry Falke’s book, OBSERVATIONS IN AN OCCUPIED WILDERNESS

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

“In photographing dwarfs, you don’t get majesty and beauty. You get dwarfs.” ~ Susan Sontag

Continuing with my thoughts on photography’s inability to convey meaning(s) or a true sense of place (amongst other such considerations), I offer for your consideration the Sontag quote about photographing dwarfs.

I agree with that concept but would also add that in photographing dwarfs, you “get” not only dwarfs, you also get a photograph of a dwarf(s). Ya know, a picture which illustrates what a specific dwarf looks like when photographed by a photographer at a specific point in time and from a particular POV-both literally and figuratively.

And, sure, sure…a photographer can employ the tools of the trade, his/her unique manner of seeing, and prop and posing, aka: theatrics sensibilities, to create a photograph of a dwarf who appears to project air of majesty and/or beauty, but, any intended (by the picture maker) meaning(s) to be gleaned from the picture is as Sontag suggests:

[an] “inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy”

Be that as it may, or, make of it what you will, forgive me if you feel that I am flogging a dead horse. But, in my defense, re: my curiosity, can a photograph have narrowly defined, unambiguous embedded meaning?, I have been revisiting a number of my photo books-individual photographer monographs-in a effort to discover what,if any, meaning I can glean from the viewing of a wide variety-personal vision wise-of numerous bodies of work.

What I have discovered is that my native and initial reaction to the viewing of a photograph is to see it as a photograph. That is, to consider it it as an object, in and of itself. An object which presents-in good photographs-interesting / intriguing / engrossing visual form and energy that pricks my eye-not my intellect-and my visual sensibilities. After that initial, spontaneous reaction, then and only then, do I take in what is literally been photographed, aka: the illustrated referent(s) as captured by the picture maker’s gaze.

iMo, if a photographer has extracted engrossing form from the “mere” quotidian world, then he/she has created a really good photograph. That is to write, a visual image that stands on its own as only a photograph can. It don’t need no stinkin’ meaning. Nor, I might add, it don’t need no 1,000 words. Ya just gotta see it and feel it.

FYI, writing of “1,000” words, it is customary (and predictable) that every photo monograph contain at least 1,000 words (or many more). Forwards, introductions, and essays give a viewer much run-at-the-mouth ideas about the work; historic and medium references, purported meaning(s), and suppositions about the photographer’s methodology and intent, ad nauseam.

In the case of Terry Fake’s book / photographs (as is the case in every photo book I view), I looked at the pictures before I read the commentary. That’s cuz I also agree with Sontags’s idea that….

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

…. and sliding down the rabbit hole of interpretation, more often than not, sucks the life out of a photograph (or any work of Art). Although, to be fair, I do on rare occasion find a kernel or 2 of insight that might add a smidgen of additional appreciation to body of work.

BTW, one of my favorite monographs is Mark Wise 18 Landscapes. That’s cuz: a) I like the work, and, b) the only words in the book are Mark Wise 18 Landscapes, as seen on the title page. That’s it. No words, not even a title or artist name on the front or back cover. One picture per spread on the right page, left page blank. No picture titles or captions. Last page has copyright info printed in minuscule 6pt type centered on an otherwise blank page.

My kinda book. Figure it out / experience / enjoy it for yourself and let the art commentariat go pound salt.

# 6816-22 / common places•things • kitchen sink • around the house • 1 very un-common thing ~

view from my back yard ~ all photos (embiggenable)

OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS I HAVE BEEN clicking away making pictures created with the iPhone ultra-wide lens, AKA: linear convergence pictures. The results suggest to me and my eye and sensibilities that that picture making technique is a valid concept for making a linear convergence body of work. Although…

… as can be seen when comparing 2 pictures made of the same scene (desktop workspace) but with different camera orientations-1 camera held vertical, 1 camera held at a downward angle-the results are quite different inasmuch as 1 view emphasizes the so-called wide-angle lens distortion, there other not so much. Which begs the question, “Should I limit my linear convergence picture making to one look or the other?”

My initial answer is that I do not want to mix and match the looks. So, it must be one way or the other. However, it may be that there is another option; a much less downward angle that more subtly exhibits the lens distortion. I’ll give that a go over the next few days.

FYI, over the past few days, I tried to resist being a 1-trick (linear convergence) picture making pony by making a few telephoto so-called compressed perspective pictures. Ya know, even more photos about photography.

cityside

countryside

# 6914-18 / convergence • common places-things ~ a different point of view

DURING MY DECADES OF VOLUMINOUS READING, re: photography and its apparatus, I have on numerous occasions come across the expressed idea of “photographs about photography”. That is, pictures that were made intentionally employing one (or more) of the medium’s unique characteristics / attributes in order to create pictures-albeit more commonly an entire body of work-that are uniquely photographic; characteristics / attributes such as, say, the camera’s capability to stop time / isolate a precise real-world moment from the flow of time, or, techniques such as limited / narrow depth of field.

Photograph made in that manner-independent of referent-are often considered, especially by art critics / academics, to be photographs about photography. And I mention the concept cuz it seems that I have started to create a body of work-tentatively titled linear convergence ~ a different perspective-that might be considered to be photographs about photography. Although the referents in these photographs and my picture making intent are typical of all of my previous work, the photographs are a departure from my previous work inasmuch as the format is rectangular and all the photos are made using the ultra-wide angle lens on the iPhone.

That written, I have yet to noodle together an artist statement for this work. That written, I do know what led me to this endeavor - for quite a while I have been futzing around with making pictures using the iPhone PORTRAIT mode. Not so much for making portraits as for making pictures with a narrow DOF. In any event, the PORTRAIT mode produces pictures in the 3x4 format which was I cropping to my preferred square format. However, along the way I started to identify-so to write-with the somewhat strange to me (over the last 3 decades) rectangular format.

ASIDE Which is not to write that I am a stranger to that format cuz I have made a zillion and a half rectangular format pictures over the years using 35mm, 4x5 and 8x10 cameras. Hell, even my medium format camera had a native 6x4.5 rectangular format cuz 90% of my commercial work was made to appear on the “standard” 8.5x11 printed page. So why use a medium format camera with a native square format (Hasselblad) that produces a square picture which needs to be cropped to fit on the printed page? Not to mention the fact that I have always framed and configured my photographs in camera on the ground glass / viewing screen. There is no after-the-picture-making fact cropping in my picture making world. END ASIDE

So it was only a matter of time for me to make a rectangular format picture using the ultra-wide lens on the the iPhone. And, having done so, my eye and sensibilities were pricked by the result cuz I had “discovered” a different kind of form than I had been previously making. However….

…. I am acutely aware that these pictures might be-in fact most likely will be-considered to be rather gimmicky. Ya know, cheap tricks / effects and all. But, in fact, these pictures are an honest / authentic visual expression of the optical characteristics of one of the medium’s tools which, when used to make pictures, create images that are uniquely photography-centric; that is to write, images that can be made only by the means provided by photographic medium.

So, while that provenance qualifies these pictures as being photographs about photography, they will, nevertheless, most likely instigate the question (justifiably so), “What’s the point?” A question to which my response, at this conjuncture, is, quite simply, I like the way the pictures look.

I am also rather delighted by the play on the word perspective as used in the titled to describe the photographs, 1. the art of drawing solid objects on a two-dimensional surface so as to give the impression of their height, width, depth, and position in relation to each other, and, 2. a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view.

In any event, I will keep on exploring this particular point of view for a bit. Who knows where it will go.

# 6903-06 / common places / things ~ it is what it is and that's all that it is

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

A FEW DAYS AGO, WHILE HAVING MY MORNING coffee, I made a picture; the making of which was instigated-very uncharacteristically (for me)-by an idea that the picture could serve well as a metaphor for a topic I have been considering, id est: the meaning(s) to be found in a photograph….

“The fact that photographs — they’re mute, they don’t have any narrative ability at all. You know what something looks like, but you don’t know what’s happening… .A piece of time and space is well described. But not what is happening.” ~ Gary Winogrand

“Photographs, which cannot themselves explain anything, are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy…. Strictly speaking, one never understands anything from a photograph.” ~ Susan Sontag

On that topic I am in basic agreement with Winogrand and Sontag inamuch as I believe that photographs are “mute” and “cannot themselves explain anything”. And, made in a straight photography manner-”A piece of time and space is well described”-a photograph can show “what something looks like”.

That written, I am in total agreement with Sontag’s idea that “photographs…are inexhaustible invitations to deduction, speculation, and fantasy”. Inasmuch as photographs are mute, they nevertheless have the potential to incite feelings and/or emotional responses. However, that written, those responses are most often (or is it always?) the result of what an individual viewer brings to the act of viewing a particular photograph.

Consequently, one viewer’s response to a given photograph may be diametrically opposed to another viewer’s response to the same photograph. And, it is well within the realm of possibilities that neither response is that which the picture maker intended to incite. Or, in other words-and to paraphrase the notion that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”'-I would believe that, re: meaning in a photograph, the meaning is in the mind of the beholder.

Case in point, my “metaphoric” photograph in this entry; if I did not inform the you that the reflection in the glass on the art work-which is rather vague and indistinct-was seen by my eye and sensibilities to be representative of the indistinct and vague meaning that might be found / hidden in the photograph, would you “get” it? And, I can further suggest that the attempt to find meaning in a photograph-or any art-tends to get in the way of seeing the full expression of the picture maker’s vision, id est: what I was trying to show you.

All of the above written, it should be understood that I do indeed have have an intent, aka": what my pictures are “about”, in my picture making. However, that intent is important only to me. It is not important to the viewer of my pictures. It is not my responsibility to tell the viewer what to think feel when viewing my pictures. That’s cuz I want viewers to make of my pictures exactly what they will.

In any event, while doing research for this entry, I came across the following on forum topic re: meaning. I truly believe that most of the medium’s iconic Fine Art (acknowledged) photographers would agree, if they were honest, recognize this idea as integral to their picture making intent:

“What do my photographs mean? Well, I saw something that I thought looked worth recording, for whatever reason at the time. The scene interested my eye, and that's all it means to me. If I show you the picture, it's because I think it may interest you as well.
That's the meaning of my pictures.” ~ barzune (nom de web forum)

#6900--02 / common things • around the house ~ old dog new tricks

all photos (embigenable)

IN HIS BOOK, Why People Photograph, Robert Adams wrote:

“…photographers must also face the threat that their vision may one day be denied them. Their capacity to find their way to art-to see things whole-may fail for an hour or a month or forever because of fatigue or misjudgement or some shift in spirit… For every Atget, Stieglitz, Weston, or Brandt who remain visionary to the end, there is an Ansel Adams who, after a period of extraordinary creativity, lapse into formula… when photographers get beyond copying the achievements of others, or just repeating their own accidental first successes, they learn that they do not know where in the world they will find pictures …”

FOR SOME TIME I HAVE BEEN RUMINATING ON the idea of “repeating my own first successes” inasmuch as, when began to make pictures, I did so with what I eventually came to recognize as my own personal vision. A vision that continues to dictate the manner in which I make pictures; id est, I photograph what I see in the manner of how I see it. Throw in the fact that, in my “serious” work, I tend make only square pictures, one could state that I am continually repeating myself, picture making wise.

On the other hand, I can rationalize myself out of that (square) box simply by noting the fact that what, referent wise, I picture is spread out all over the map of life and living, a picture making habit that label as discursive promiscuity. And BTW, in case you haven’t noticed, I also have an accepting and comfortable relationship with complexity.

Be all of that as it may, my vision remains firmly intact. However, I have acquired an itch that requires at least a bit of scratching. That is, the nagging desire to make pictures that do not conform to my “standard” deep depth-of-field, shades of the old-timey f 64 look. FYI, that desire is a long-standing one, for me, that has been exacerbated by the inherent quality of small(ish) sensor* digital photography wherein, typically, pictures tend to have deep depth of field, aka: everything in focus, nice and sharp. One might suggest that I am suffering from a (very) mild case of sharpness fatigue.

So, enter the iPhone and its PORTRAIT setting. Apple has continued to improve its functionality and I have been playing with it for a while now. And yes, the results are not exactly the same as making pictures with a large sensor, so called full-frame, camera coupled with a wide open, large aperture (aka, fast) lens. Plus, its function is limited to subjects within a 2-8ft range.

Nevertheless, to my eye and sensibilities, it does satisfy my desire for narrow DOF looking photographs. And, I do really appreciate the fact that I can modify the DOF effect to a greater or lesser degree-as many times as I wish after the picture is made.without permanently adjusting the original file.

All of that written, here’s the surprising thing that has appeared, seemingly out of nowhere; a significant number of these PORTRAIT setting pictures have been seen and made as “full frame” photographs. Who would / could have thought?

In any event, the one trait that I like most about these narrow DOF photographs is that, to my eye and sensibilities, they look just like photographs. And I do want my pictures to look like photographs.

*The magnification of a lens means how large (or small) a subject can be reproduced on the image plane (e.g., film and image sensor). As one increases magnification, the depth of field decreases. Conversely, as one decreases magnification, the depth of field increases.

# 6899 / common things ~ I'm an enthusiast, they're enthusiasts, wouldn't you like to be an enthusiast too?

the TOKO MIGHTY ~ (embiggenable-the photo, not the camera)

JUST SHOOT ME. WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS NOW is yet another top 10-or should it be, TOP 10) camera list.Ya know, cuz there is nothing more entertaining than reading about someone’s-ratchet up your enthusiasm fan-boys!-beloved camera….oh, wait….scratch “someone’s” and substitute “50 (or more) someone’s”.

In any event, shown above is my nominee; the incomparable TOKO MIGHTY...

… just the right size cuz it fits comfortably in the hand on the finger tips. It has a format. Spares no any attention to quality materials / build and detail. Film available everywhere somewhere (maybe, or maybe not). Finest plastic optics. And, 2 interesting bonus features; 1. it has not only a rangefinder window but also a waist-level viewfinder (extremely minuscule but cute), and, 2. it has a film advance nob but, interestingly (as I mentioned), no rewind nob. Made In Occupied Japan.

Who could ask for, or needs, anything more?