# 6892 / quotidian ubiquity ~ form and function are one

February 10, 2026

AS THE PIECES FOR MY PRESENTATION TO a gallery are falling into place–just waiting for delivery of a new folio and interleaving paper–all of the work involved, most notably the decision limit the presentation to 11 bodies and the subsequent photo selection / editing, has given rise to a bit of contemplation, re: my decisive promiscuity picture making predilection v. a single referent biased picture making MO….

…. It is a tradition in the photography world, Fine Art Division, that photographers are most often known for their work in a specific genrè, as in he/she is a landscape / street / people / still life / wildlife / et al photographer. On the other hand, some photographers are not associated with a specific literal referent but, rather, with a concept, as in his/her photography is driven by an intent to amplify / explore the idea of color / light / identity / societal-cultural traits / et al. In any case, photographers tend to choose a picture making MO and, for the most part, stick with it. Concomitantly, in the Fine Art gallery world most, but not all, photography solo exhibitions feature work that is genrè / concept specific. Even group exhibitions are generally a single theme oriented presentation.

All of that written, re: my work–cumulatively considered under the title of discursive promiscuity–depicts a wide range of literal referents which, to my eye and sensibilities, are united by a single concept–my fascination of seeing / finding form in the quotidian world. Nevertheless, that singular body of work can also be separated, if one is so inclined, into multiple, individual bodies of work, aka: genrès.

I have been so inclined to do so based upon the assumption (careful now cuz to assume can make an ass outa u and me) that the gallery to which I am presenting my work would prefer to see it that way. It is my belief that, were they to take on my work, they would choose just one body of work. Although, that stated, they might selected two or three bodies of work that they believe would appeal to their clientele. On the other hand, they just might say, “Thanks for stopping by.”

In any event, this endeavor of putting together this presentation–a book + a folio of 11 prints (one from each body of work)–has caused me to wonder if the energy+time expended during my discursive promiscuity photo life might have been better served / applied by choosing one genrè and working it to death ad nauseam.

Who knows? Although, I am fairly certain that I would not want to been known only as, let’s say, the Kitchen Sink guy. Then again, if I were to be so known, I would most likely be the sole practitioner in that genrè. Then again, I might have to share some space with Jan Grover.

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

May 15, 2024

*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

May 13, 2024

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.

# 6366-68 / discursive promiscuity ~ any where, any place, any thing

December 20, 2022

***book covers*** ~ note the crumpled **BANKRUPTCY** banner in store window • (embiggenable)

AS I MOVE ALONG WITH THE PHILOSOPHY PROJECT /BOOK, I am still trying to come to grips with what the book should be about. During that mental wrestling contest, the only “philosophy” I have come up with, re: why people make pictures, is quite simple (albeit very broad in scope):

Any time, any place, any thing (especially your face). Everyone photographs cuz they like what they see.

No matter under which genre banner a photographer might be toiling- decorative art, fine art, or no art at all-the ubiquitous snapshooters who are simply, without artistic intentions, recording the goings on in their life-I believe it is safe to write that they all like (and photograph) what they see.

Of course, what a photographers “sees” can have a literal and/or a transformative meaning inasmuch as those photographers working under the decorative art banner, along with the ubiquitous snapshooter, are relentlessly and unabashedly wedded to the actual referent depicted in their photographs. Whereas, those toiling under the fine art banner are much more inclined to “see” (and photograph) something that goes beyond the literal visual characteristics of their depicted referent. Thereby causing a change in how the viewer perceives, within the photographer’s chosen framing-and “organization” of line, shape, color, tone, and space-the depicted referent.

All of that written, with either a literal or a transformative picture making intent, I think it safe to write that photographers like what they see cuz, whatever they see or however they see it, they most definitely like it for its potential as fodder for the making of a good picture.