# 6942-45 / common places • landscape-urban / nature • kitchen life ~ throw out the rule book

pinhole photo ~ all photos (embigenable)

IN THE LAST ENTRY WHEREIN I INTRODUCED THE idea of reducing the whole of the medium and its apparatus to a concise paragraph, there are 2 phrases–a rhythm in the world of real things / a precise organization of forms–which are commonly referred to as composition; a topic which has launched thousands of zillion word ships in an effect to codify / understand / “master” it. That written, here’s an example of an attempt to reduce the topic to a concise paragraph:

“In a photograph, composition is the result of a simultaneous coalition, the organic coordination of elements seen by the eye. One does not add composition as though it were an afterthought superimposed on the basic subject material, since it is impossible to separate content from form…. one composes a picture in very nearly the same amount of time it takes to click the shutter, at the speed of a reflex action….. Composition must have its own inevitability about it.” HC-B

Once again–just like the HB-C quotes in the last entry–this notion, re: the idea of composition, makes perfect sense to me. And, once again (again), that’s cuz, when making pictures, what pricks my eye (and sensibilities), aka: what I actually see, is a rhythm / organization of forms as it exists in the world of real things. Which is another manner of writing that the content of my photographs and the form visible therein are one and same.

Consequently, I never give a thought to composition–iMo, a bourgeoisie concept if ever there was one–when making a photograph. That’s cuz the visual rhythm / organization to be seen in my photographs is the inevitable result of my vision, literally and figuratively.Ya know, how I actually see the world.

ASIDE FYI, the fact that my vision is organically attuned to rhythm and form explains another fact; I rarely, if ever, “work” a scene–95.8% of the time-leaving aside a few exposure brackets–it’s one and done. END OF ASIDE

And now, a bit of speculation and going out on a limb – I suspect that most of the medium’s “greats” approach the practice of composition in the same–or a reasonably close–manner as HB-C describes. That is to write, they trust what their eyes tell them and then photograph what they see. I believe that to be true whether they carry around a 35mm rangefinder camera with preset shutter speed / focus and aperture and a reflex-action attitude, or, whether they expend a great deal of effort to haul around an 8x10 view camera / film holders / light meter / tripod /et al and a very methodical attitude. In effect both are point and shoot picture makers inasmuch as they point their camera at what they see and make a picture.

With speculation taken care of let me climb a tree and hope the limb holds sure and true –I believe–no speculation about it in my mind–that the ability to compose a picture in very nearly the same amount of time it takes to click the shutter is nigh unto impossible to teach or learn. That is cuz it is not a technique nor a theory that can be plotted out in a book but rather a native recognition–some might say an intuitive feeling–that the visual organization / rhythm you have imposed on your subject utilizing your POV and framing, when viewed on your picture making device’s viewfinder / ground glass / screen, just plain and simple, flat-out looks and feels “right”.

And in the end, lo and behold, there is not a single rule of composition to be seen anywhere on the surface of your print.

# 6939-41 / pinhole • around the house • common things ~ the eyes have it

pinhole photo - all photos ~ (embiggenable)

THERE ARE TIMES WHEN I THINK THAT THE WHOLE of the medium and its apparatus can be summed up in a single sentence, or, at the very most, in a very concise paragraph. I believe that to be true cuz, getting down to the nub of it all, it really ain’t rocket science. Although…..when you think about it, maybe words ain’t needed inasmuch as, if a picture is worth a thousand words, maybe all one needs to do is spend considerable time making and looking at photographs in order to truly understand the medium and its apparatus.

Then again, here’s a radical idea; don’t think about it at all. Just, re: the medium and its apparatus, give in to the simple, pure philistine visual pleasures of making and looking at photographs.Ya know, just adopt an ignorance-is-bliss kinda attitude–simple is as simple does–about it all and move on.

All of that written, here’s my first pick for a concise paragraph addressing the nub of it all:

“Photography implies the recognition of a rhythm in the world of real things. What the eye does is to find and focus on the particular subject within the mass of reality; what the camera does is simply to register upon film the decision made by the eye.” ~ HC-B

Now, to be perfectly clear, that concise nob of the matter needs no additional words in order to make complete sense for me. That’s cuz it describes, since the day I began making pictures, exactly my making picture MO; my eye directs me to the what (and the how) to photograph what I see. Or, if you will, another HB-C quote:

“… the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event [ed. aka: a particular subject within the mass of reality] as well as of a precise organization of forms [ed. aka: a rhythm in the world of real things] which give that event its proper expression.”

iMo, if you want to make good photographs, always remember that the eyes have it – it ain’t got diddly squat to do with the brain.

# 6935-37 / common places-things • kitchen life ~ OT but with OnT pictures

all photos (embiggenable)

OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS OUR WINTERS HAVE been rather erratic, weather wise. It comes and goes in cycles; light snow–2-3 inches–followed by balmy temps and the snow melts down to bare ground. Throw in a little freezing rain here and there and it gets downright odd for this time of year. This is quite a different scenario from 12-15 years ago (and before) when it was quite common to be buried under 60 inches of snow even in the month of March.

That written, I live in a tiny area in the Adirondack Mountains known in some quarters as The Banana Belt. That moniker derives from the fact that, quite often during winter, our little hamlet is much warmer–with less snow–than the village of Lake Placid which is only 25 miles away, albeit 1600-1700 feet higher in elevation. Travel another 6 miles beyond Lake Placid to the village of Saranac Lake and, more often than not, on many winter days it records the lowest temp on planet earth.

And, writing, re: cold temps and odd scenarios, yesterday’s pre-dawn temp here in The Forks was -12˚F. Today’s noon-time temp is 40˙F. That’s a 52˚ change in temp in 18 hours. There was a dusting of snow on top of 2-3 inches on the ground yesterday but, true to form, it’s all melting away today.

All of this is part of so-called weather weirding, a product of planet warming. But, I’m not worried inasmuch as I am certain that our Destructor-In-Chief will come to the rescue by burning more fossil fuels. Everything will be great once again. Not to worry, and, the price of eggs will go down.

# 6921 / common places • common things ~ boneheaded bunkum and balderdash

kitchen sink ~ all photos embiggenable

landscape urban

still life

single women

twigs / tangles / thickets

landscape nature

street

in situ

WRITING–IN 3 ENTRIES–UNDER THE RUBIC OF “BONES’ M. Johnston has informed his readers that “every creative effort in every artistic medium needs bones: a structure to guide the work and give it a framework. A concept.” You might ask, what are “bones” and his answer is that it is “an idea” aka: “any intellectual notion that facilitates and motivates working. And–(sarcasm alert) this is really good one–he also throws in the idea that:

“(I confess to never having liked the phrase "caught my eye.")…..They want to haphazardly grab any "photo opportunity" that happens to pass their way….they'll say something like, "I just take the camera when I go for a walk and photograph anything that catches my eye." That seems like a dreadfully weak-dishwater idea for working, a framework for little more than desultory camera-pointing.”

To which I reply, good f____ing grief, what a bunch of condescending bourgeois bunkum and balderdash. I mean, why would someone, when walking around with a camera and something catches their eye–in my case, pricks my eye and sensibilities–NOT make a f–––ing picture of it? Making pictures is what photographers do and they don’t need no stinkin’ “intellectual notion” to “facilitate and motivate working.”

Upon reading the idea of “intellectual notion”, the very first thought that came into my head was Sontag’s notion of the revenge of the intellect on art cuz I believe that anyone who looks for an “intellectual notion” to facilitate / motivate the making of their photographs is headed down the wrong road. Simply written, iMo, making a picture is not an intellectual pursuit. It is, plain and simple, a visual pursuit, the results of which are manifested as a visual manifestation, aka: the culmination and subsequent visual representation of the act of seeing… not of thinking.

All of the above written, let me express my take on the idea of facilitating / motivating one’s self to “get one past not-doing and into doing”….

…. in my experience, I have noticed that when a picture maker is experiencing a lack of enthusiasm for getting out and making pictures it is due precisely to the fact that they are sitting around on his/her lazy ass trying to come up with an idea about something to photograph instead of just getting out the door—or at least just getting off their lazy ass–and start making pictures. That is, pictures of any thing(s) that catches their eye.

To write it very emphatically, there is absolutely nothing f–––ing wrong with making pictures in order to just see what something looks like when photographed–especially so in order to see what it looks like when photographed by you. And here’s the thing about this exercise; after a period of time, you might just surprise yourself by realizing that, in your (sarcasm alert) “desultory” and “dreadfully weak dishwatery” camera pointing, there just might be a few pictures of referents / themes that you have unintentionally but repeatedly responded to that just might create the foundation for further picture making investigation.

Point in fact, all of my bodies of work, with just one exception, evolved from–as M. Johnston might put it –my “desultory” and “dreadfully weak dishwatery” camera pointing (discursive promiscuity, as I put it). That is to write that, as an example, I did not start my kitchen sink body of work by thinking that I should photograph my kitchen sink. Rather, I realized after of period time during which I made a few pictures of my kitchen sink, among many other referents, that, surprise, surprise, there was something, picture making wise, worth exploring further along that line of photographic inquiry. And that example is true of all of my various bodies of work (see examples above).

So, here’s my point–or is it a counterpoint to M. Johnston’s point? I don’t need no stinkin’ intellectual idea to facilitate / motivate my picture making. Rather, I rely upon my continuing desire to see what some thing(s) looks like when photographed–especially so when photographed by me. While my way of working ain’t gonna necessarily work for everyone, iMo, if your wheels are stuck in the station, instead of rootin’ around in your head for an idea, try rootin’ around with your eyes in order to see what your eyes might see.

Don’t be a bonehead. After all, it is a f–––ing visual medium.

PS Next up: a critique of Johnston’s thoughts, re: the Artist Statement.

#6709-16 / zines ~ paging all photographers

all photos (embiggenable)

I HAVE LONG PONDERED THE IDEA OF WHY anyone would engage in picture making and not make physical / tactile objects-aka: prints, books, et al-of the results of that pursuit. The absence of such objects, leaves me perplexed, re: what’s the point? The only answer I can come up with is the old adage of “different strokes for different folks”, or, “whatever floats your boat”.

I, of course, am the poster boy for the making of printed photographs in one form or another; the current count of displayed photographs on the walls of my house is 124 (some prints display multiple photographs of my travels “snapshot” work). In addition there are 25 photo books laying around the place. And now, to add to the “clutter”, there is a growing body of zines.

FYI:

The word “zine” is a shortened form of the term fanzine, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Fanzines emerged as early as the 1930s…A zine is most commonly a small circulation publication of original or appropriated texts and images. More broadly, the term encompasses any self-published unique work of minority interest…There are so many types of zines: art and photography zines, literary zines, social and political zines, music zines, perzines (personal zines), travel zines, health zines, food zines. And the list goes on and on. 

My interest in making zines is to: a) create easily made and economically inexpensive updates of my various bodies of work, b) make the zines available for distribution on an e-commerce component of this site, c) thereby getting my work, in printed form, in the hands of those who might be interested in it, and, d)duh, I like looking a prints of my work

My zines are printed by BLURB. BLURB zines are actually labeled as magazines on the site. The quality of their magazines is much better than typical zines-often hand-bound pages made on photocopiers-inasmuch as the paper and printing quality is very good. And, what I find amazing is the very low cost; typically a 20 page zine will cost about $10-12US (+ shipping*).

Re: the paper and printing quality is very good: I can write, without much reservation, that, if making zines on BLURB were to be the only method I could employ to print my work, I would be quite happy to cut pages out the zines and frame them for display on my walls. The print/paper quality is more than good enough for that use. Portfolio use or photo-”perfectionist” viewing, maybe not so much.

BTW, my current photo world fantasy is to create a curated site devoted to showcasing and selling photo zines. The biggest problem to doing that is finding a critical mass of zine-making photographers and, accomplishing that, getting the word out to a sizeable audience.

In any event, why not give it-making a zine-a try?

*BLURB shipping costs are, iMo, a bit high. So what I do, in addition to selecting the cheapest shipping cost, is to order at least 3 copies of a zine and split the shipping cost across the number of books)

# 6705-08 / in situ • common places-things ~ I contain multitudes

all photos (embiggenable)

LIFE IS BACK TO POST-HOLIDAY “NORMAL”. Been busy grinding out more SEEN magazine editions, most recently Issue No. 5, IN SITU. Also updated the IN SITU gallery on the WORK page. From the zine’s Artist Statement :

As I see it the medium of photography and its apparatus has as its primary capability making visible what something looks like when photographed. That characteristic is the impulse that drives my making photographs obsession….

…. Presented herein are photographs culled from my picture making oeuvre organized under the discriptor of in situ, aka: in the original place. They pay homage to the genre of street photography but not all are made on the street. My intent in the making of these photographs was to record, in a pictorially interesting manner, divine and sometimes quirky snippets of the human condition / comedy.

The other thing that has kept me somewhat busy is seeing-now 3 times-the A Complete Unknown movie. Wednesday evening I drove, to and from, a theater in Lake Placid during a moderate snow storm with 2˚F temps and a bitter, biting wind. Some might suggest that that certifies me as a Dylan fan-atic but, truth be told, I am not wrapped up, as so many others are, in the never-ending quest to unravel / decipher / understand the who and what of Bob Dylan.

In order to avoid going completely OT, I’ll bring it back around to photography, re: Paul Strand; who when asked about his work, simply stated that “the answer is on the wall”. Dylan has spent a lifetime of not answer any questions about his work and his private life. Which, in most people’s minds makes him enigmatic. I don’t think of him as enigmatic inasmuch as I believe the answer to Dylan is, simply stated, in the music cuz, after all, he was-and still is-aware that The Times They Are A-Changing, so consequently, he let it be know that (he) I Ain’t Gonna Work On Maggie’s Farm No More, and, he was-and still is-not afraid to tell his fans that It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue (..take what you need You think will last But whatever you wish to keep You better grab it fast). And, of course, if you still can’t figure it out, you might wanna remember that The Answer, My Friend, Is Blowing In The Wind.

What I appreciate / respect about any artist is their authenticity-true to one's own personality, spirit, or character-and an unrelenting commitment to their art. iMo, that’s true of many photographers, musicians, et al. Also iMo, I do not believe that in that regard Dylan has ever changed inasmuch as, no matter the musical “notes” / rhythms he pairs with his lyrics, his lyrics are always amazingly lyrical-think Nobel Prize for Literature.

All of that written, it’s back to photography, specifically, my photography. Like Dylan, I contain, photography wise, multitudes. Consider this from the In Situ Artist Statement:

During my 60 year picture making life, I have adopted no allegiance to any one photographic genre-landscape / nature, still life, people, street, et al. Rather, whatever pricks my eye and sensibilities is impetus for my discursively promiscuous picture making endeavors.

As I am creating multiple SEEN magazines representing many of my separate bodies of work-kitchen sink, in situ, life without the APA, picture windows, art reflects, poles, decay, autumn color / urban + nature, tangles scrub / thicket / trees, single women, all of which reside under the umbrella of discursive promiscuity-that endeavor serves to reinforce my understanding that ordinary life is my source of artistic inspiration, aka: my muse*. And, it should be made obvious that, like Dylan and his work, I refuse to be put in a box, referent wise.

Although, it should be made plain that I am not consciously “refusing” to do anything; rather, simply put, I am being true to myself and my muse, aka: being authentic. What others may think about what I create is of little concern to me** cuz I am doing just what it is I have to do.

*Some common synonyms of muse are meditate, ponder, and ruminate…. all these words mean "to consider or examine attentively or deliberately which describes precisely my picture making M.O.

**but, of course, I do appreciate that others may appreciate my work.

# 6704 / common places • common things • the new snapshot ~ I hate it when my eyes bleed

(emebiggenable)

THERE EXISTS A SOMEWHAT CONTRADICTORY DILEMMA which stems from 2 ideas a.) that digital is better than analog (aka: film) and that, nevertheless, b.) that there is an interest in film simulation apps. Or, in other words, that you make a photograph using some form of digital capture-cuz it’s better than film?-but would like it to look like it was made with film-i.e., exhibiting the visual characteristics of film-cuz it looks better than digital?.

It would seem that the obvious solution to that somewhat contradictory situation is quite simple; if you want your pictures to look like they were made with film then, duh, make your pictures using film. However, it is not really that simple. Using film is much more expensive in the long run than using digital and it also involves finding a reliable source of high quality film processing-more expense-which, depending upon where one lives, is like finding a needle in a haystack. And, quite frankly, even finding film can be a challenge; that is, if you can want certified “fresh” film-film that has been properly stored and handled before sale. In my commercial film-based hay-day, when I purchased film, it came out of a refrigerator and was then kept in a refrigerator in my studio (film warmed to room temp prior to use).

Truth be told, very few picture makers are willing to enter-or re-enter-the film world. Consequently, app makers have recognized enough of a demand for a film-like appearance that can be applied to digitally produced images. So now you have it, film simulation apps aplenty. Haven’t tried any of those apps and I don’t intend to. However….

….. all of that written, I must admit, I do like my prints to exhibit film-like appearance. Which is not to write that I want my prints to look like they have been made with a specific type of film-aka: Ektachrome, Kodachrome, Kodak color negative film, Fuji film, Agfa film*, et al.

Rather, what I strive for is what might be called an anti-digital look. That is, a “softer” look that is less color saturated, has less acutance (edge contrast), softer highlight / shadow contrast, and a smidge-and-a-half less “sharpness”. I can get that look all by my lonesome all of which produces a print which strongly resembles a C-print made from a color negative. A look that, to my eye and sensibilities, is more gentle on the eye than the prints that exhibit all of the “better” qualities of digital capture.

*true confession, I did love Agfa color negative film.

# 6700-03 / common places-things • picture windows • single women ~ OT New Jersey and some whiskey

all photos (embiggenable)

SPENT THE WEEKEND IN NJ FOR THE WIFE’S family holiday get together. Snuck (aka: sneaked) out with a few family members to see-2nd time for me-A COMPLETE UNKOWN. Both the drive down and back were a Dylan music fest in a car, our car. At times it felt like we were on Highway 61.

Speaking of which, Highway 61 wise, for the Holidays Dylan gifted me a copy of his hand annotated lyrics to Subterranean Homesick Blues. It was wrapped around a bottle of his Heaven Door Homesick Blues Minnesota Wheated Bourbon Whiskey. How nice of him.

FYI, here’s a review typical of his whiskeys:

Okay, so there's something just a teensy bit creepy about naming a booze brand after a Bob Dylan song with a title that's a euphemism for dying (via YouTube). Dylan does own the distillery, though, and presumably drinks the whiskey as well, and he's still knock-knock-knockin' right along in his 80th year. By all accounts, the man is quite the whiskey aficionado, so he's not going to attach his name to any old plonk. While not all celebrity-branded booze lives up to the hype, Heaven's Door Master Blender's Edition seems to be well worth the price. You can still pick up a bottle for around $100, which is not bad at all considering its striking Dylan-designed artwork.

BTW, not all of his whiskeys are $100 but, that written, I do have one (2020 edition) that was $650 off the shelf, now selling for $1,000-2,000+ a bottle. That’s why I have 2 bottles-one to drink, one (it was a gift) to hang on to for later sale as the supply dries up. The 2019 edition is currently selling in the $3,000+ range - iMo, this is a rather bizarre / ridiculous absurdity not unlike, say, buying a “bargain” priced, used Leica M4 for $7,557.29.

For the record, I do not buy whiskey as an investment. I buy it to drink it cuz, ya know, I enjoy it.

FYI, the design on the bottle is of one of his much sought after iron gates; gates he makes in his iron working studio that are put together with scrap metal he gathers while on tour.