#6883 / constructed ~ much ado about nothing

March 16, 2026

A DECADE OR SO AGO I MADE A SERIES OF constructed images / assemblages based upon the concept / question of what is a photograph? The intent was not to find / suggest some kind of universal answer cuz there are so many kinds of photographs with so many kinds of maker’s intent that there can be no simple answer to that question other than to write that a photograph is a picture, i.e. a visual representation of an object, scene, person or abstraction produced on a 2D surface. However ….

…. in an essay on T.O.P.–What Are You Taking a Picture Of?–it has been suggested that if you think you are taking a picture of a subject / what the camera recorded, a moment, the light, reality, you are sadly mistaken ….

“The images in your library are not pictures of people or places or light. They are fossils …. the fossil does not merely remind us of the past. It becomes the past. The photograph stops being a trace of the event and starts being the event itself, the only version that survives. What was once evidence becomes the thing it was evidence of.”

Right from the get-go this essay is problematic; in the first sentence the definition of the word image–a representation of the external form of a person or thing in art–contradicts the remainder of that sentence. That is, if you have images, you have visual representations of an object, scene, person or abstraction, aka: pictures. FULL STOP.

And, I’ve got news for the author, it is the literal visual representation in a picture, aka: the subject as seen in a picture, which is the impetus for 90%* of picture takers for taking a picture; they want to take a picture of what something looks like at a given moment in time. And guess what–those pictures always have a subject (what the camera recorded) which includes the light, color, and other visual elements–most commonly referred to as reality**. Ya know, what mama’s smile looks like, what the Roman fountain looks like, what the colorful autumn scene looks like, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum.

The value of these pictures is 2-fold; 1) they can illustrate quite convincingly–a reasonable facsimile–what the subject of the picture looked like at the moment of its taking, and, 2) on future viewings they can also remind us of the past / incite memories of the subject, the time, and the place of their taking. However, that written, a warning ….

…. if a picture of a recorded past occurrence “starts being the event itself”, I would suggest seeking immediate mental health support in order to deal with your demonstrably apparent delusional disorder.

*10% might be trying to make art. Both %s are estimates.

**on that topic, if you wanna start dancing on the head of pin, I’m gonna send you to bed without your supper.

# 6443-50 / bodies of work ~ stumbling down a dead end street #2

February 3, 2023

***Life without the APA*** ~ (embiggenable)

***Adirondack Snapshot Project*** ~ (embiggenable)

ACCORDING TO THE IDIOT QUOTED IN MY LAST entry, I have apparently been “repeating the same basic work, for decades and decades, unaware that I have been stumbling down a dead end street”. That would be because I have been making pictures driven by my very own picture making vision. A vision that does not allow me to go careening around the technique / visual effects / gear-obsessed picture making landscape like a drunken sailor. To wit, I see what I see and that’s how that I see (all credit to Popeye who said, “ I am what I am and that’s all that I am.)

That written, re: careening around like a drunken sailor, I will readily admit to careening around the referent landscape like a drunken picture maker. A picture making condition condition (affliction?) that I call discursive promiscuity. To my eye and sensibilities, any thing and every thing is fair game for a picture making possibility. The result of that discursive promiscuity is that I have accumulated, over the past 25 years, at least 15,000 pictures.

One might think that that glut of pictures would make for a very unruly mess. However, that is not the case cuz, thanks to the guidance of my vision, the overwhelming majority of my pictures exhibit a consistent,-but not formulaic-very particular attention to form, aka: the “arrangement” of the visual elements-line, shape, tone, color and space-within the imposed frame of my pictures.

This “consistency” leads to a very interesting result; while I rarely work with the thought of creating a body of work in mind, nevertheless, I have, over an extended period of time, realized that my eye and sensibilities have been, and still are, drawn to specific referents again and again. The result is that eventually-many times over the course of years-I “discover” that I have, in fact-albeit inadvertently, created many bodies of work.

ASIDE the body of works illustrated above, with a few images each, are some of the bodies of work I have created, most of which were “discovered” in my library (as opposed to deliberately created). The are at least 6 more bodies of work I could display. END OF ASIDE

And, what I find interesting and very surprising is that, once a number of referent related pictures are organized into a body of work, the coherent consistency of vision is, quite frankly, amazing.

Makes me quite happy that I have not tried to “re-invent” my vision. And BTW, I really like the “street” I am on. It is not a “dead end” and, in fact, there is no end in sight as far as I can see.

# 5687-91 / constructed pictures ~ illustrations

March 23, 2021

BACK IN MY PICTURE MAKING WORKING LIFE, JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT, I created a portfolio of photo illustrations. Much to my surprise, clients liked the work and quite a few assignments followed.

Some times a picture maker just wants to have fun.

constructed # 6 / diptych # 217 ~ there and back again

May 9, 2017

big city cat nap ~ (embiggenable) — **big city cat nap** ~ (embiggenable)

country store ~ (embiggenable) — **country store** ~ (embiggenable)

In yesterday's entry I mentioned the cruel radiance of what is and my failure to have any of my submitted pictures selected for 2 juried exhibitions. The topics are closely related but let's start with the following 2 juror's statement from both of the exhibitions:

The images selected for this exhibition are poetic, evocative, and deeply interpretive. They masterfully capture some of the spirit of their subjects, rather than simply telling us what things look like ...

... in the case of the image that won the juror’s award, (a) construction of a magical vision that does not exist outside the mind of the artist.

In both of these statements, the juror's bias against pictures which are "simply telling us what things look like", is quite clear. In the first juror's statement it is also quite clear, upon viewing the selections, that "deeply interpretive" means pictures which clearly exhibit the application of effects which are intended to elicit a manufactured, in the words of the second juror, "magical vision that does not exist outside the mind of the artist."

As a counterpoint to those juror statements, consider this call for entries for an exhibition into which one of my pictures was selected:

As juror for this exhibit, what am I looking for in an image? In a word: everything. I want to see well designed photographs that have depth, strong structure, good light—and within them a spark of life ... What don’t I want to see? Images that are contrived, forced, synthetic or derivative. Images where software or hardware have made the picture.

The primary difference in the former vs the latter quotes is, iMo, rather simple. The first 2 quotes were made by juror's who could properly labeled as artists who use the medium of photography to create their interperative art expressions whereas the latter qoute was made by a photographer who uses the medium of photography to make photographs.

In a very real sense, this dichotomy is nothing more than a redux of the Pictorialists vs. Group f/64. The Pictorialists were focused on moving away from the early perception of photography as a merely mechanical means of reproducing what was pictured whereas Group f/64 wanted to promote a modernist aesthetic that was based on highly detailed images of natural forms and found objects.

Let me be perfectly clear ... I am not writing that either of these approaches to making pictures is superior or inferior to the other. What I am writing is that they are two entirely different kettles of fish.

The (let's call them) New Pictorialists are, like their earlier counterparts, dedicated to deconstructing a photographic image into an interpretive construction of something that does not exist outside of the mind of its creator. The Modernist Group f/64 practioners, much like their earlier counterparts, are dedicated to making photographs which deal in the coin of the cruel reality of what is realm.

As I have written, I am firmly rooted in the Modernist (or is it Post Modernist) Group f/64 so the chances any of my pictures being selected for an exhibition which is being jurored by a New Pictorialist are slim to none. It has happened but those times were exceptions which proved the rule.

constructed # 1-4 ~ acts of the imagination

May 2, 2017

I received a call for entries for an exhibition with the theme Balck & White. Upon checking out the call, I found this:

For this exhibition we are looking for work that tells a story, recites a poem, or simply gives beauty to the viewer, without significant use of the color spectrum.

While I have number of B&W pictures which I believe qualify, re: simply gives beauty to the viewer, the fact is, in my picture making I do not try to tell a story or recite a poem. However, while I could submit those gives-beauty pictures, I discovered upon further investigation that the juror is a very committed devote of constructed B&W pictures.

Consequently, I am working on creating a number of constructed pictures which address the juror's picture making prejudice. And truth be told, I enjoy creating such pictures. Not only is there the technical challenge of seamlessly putting together the bits and pieces sourced from various pictures, there is also the challenge of creating pictures which convey a sense of mystery, sureality and strangeness.

Do such pictures tell a story? No, I don't believe a picture can tell a story or have a narrative of any kind. That written, I do believe a photograph can be an instigating source of endless speculation and conjecture. That a photograph can evince a mood or a feeling that can have an affect on a viewer which leads him/her to create their own story or narrative. Think of a photograph as a rorschach test of sorts.

In any event, these pictures are a work in progress. They may be altered and there may more pictures. I have nearly 3 weeks before the submission deadline.

FYI, I do not consider these pictures to be photographs. They are illustrations / works made using the tools of the medium of photography and its apparatus.