# 6969-73 / common places-things • landscape • in situ ~ nominal subject matter

“John Szarkowski has used the expression “nominal subject matter”. I think that’s perfect for my behavior here. I am not interest in gas stations or anything about gas stations. This happens to be an excuse for seeing.… I don’t care if it was about a gas station or if this is a rubber raft or if this is a crappy little house. That’s not my subject! The gas station isn’t my subject. It’s an excuse for a place to make a photograph”….

…. “I take a picture of the subject and its context––the subject as it stands with everything else…. I’m trying to make an atonal photograph where everything is as important as everything else…. I think it’s possible to make a photograph in which the photographer lays back enough so the viewer comes into the photograph and has a chance to perceive the thing on his own terms, instead of only seeing what the photographer has hooked him to see. I think one of the reasons I’m using the 8x10 camera is that I felt I could work with the large camera and make photographs in which the subject was everything in the frame.” ~ Joel Meyerowitz

I RECENTLY WROTE THAT I DO NOT TITLE MY photographs onaccounta I do not wish to call attention to the literally depicted referent in my pictures cuz my pictures are rarely “about” the literally pictured referent. As an adjunct to that practice, at an exhibit of my photographs I have always wished for red velvet ropes strung 3-4 feet in front the gallery walls to prevent viewers from sticking their noses where they don’t belong––that is, so close to a picture that they can not see the print in its entirety. That’s cuz seeing the print in the all together is the only way in which a viewer can actually see what my pictures are about.

My “excuse” for making a photograph is the potential I see in isolated––by means of framing––sections of the quotidian world to create visually interesting form; form that results from the fact that everything within my frame is as important as everything else within the frame. In other words, creating visually interesting form is my subject, aka: what my photographs are about. It is not about the literally depicted things in my photographs.

FYI, if I were to title any of the above photographs, the titles might be something like; my son wearing a new hat, or, my grandson eating lunch at the Statue of Liberty, or, my daughter and her cousins reading on the beach. However, for the life on me, I just can not imagine how those titles would improve, in any manner, a viewer’s reaction to / appreciation of / understanding of the pictures. In fact, iMo, the titles might very well lead a viewer to think that that information had something to do with why I made the pictures which, in fact, had absolutely nothing––nada, zero, zip––to do with why I made the pictures.

# 6984-89 / landscape • roadside • (un)common thing ~ Spring sweetness

On the boil in the sugar house ~ It takes 40 gallons of maple sap to make 1 gallon of maple syrup. all photos (embiggenable)

“I've worked out of a series of no's. No to exquisite light, no to apparent compositions, no to the seduction of poses or narrative.” ~ Richard Avedon

THE THING ABOUT SPRING HERE IN THE ADIRONDACKS is mist, fog, and raging water.

Of added Spring time interest is the very short weather window for maple syrup making. There are quite a number of so-called sugar houses doting the landscape. FYI, a sugar house is a small shack-like structure where maple sap is boiled down to produce the correct density for maple syrup. Standing in a sugar house during the boil feels / smells like you have coated the inside of your nose with, well… maple syrup. And, tasting the syrup straight out of the boil is a taste sensation that is simply amazing.

ASIDE Don’t know what will happen with the price of maple syrup this year cuz, thanks t-RUMP, most of the maple syrup in the US of A that originates in Canada will be hit with tariffs. The current price for pure maple syrup here in our neck of the maple tree woods is $34.95 / quart (32oz.) END SIDE

# 6973-75 / landscape • roadside detritus • kitchen sink ~ more than meets the eye

all photos (enmbiggenable)

wonder: 1. n. a feeling of surprise mingled with admiration, caused by something beautiful, unexpected, unfamiliar, or inexplicable.

“I had a teacher who said there were three ways in which art functions: one, as decor, an augment to interior design; then there is art as a statement, a tool to support a particular argument; and then there is the idea that it evokes wonder. When I heard that, the idea of pursuing the sense of wonder stood out.” ~ Edward Burtynsky

I NEVER HAD A TEACHER WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT art or photography. And, I can write with authority that my lack of that kind of education hasn’t hurt me none.

That written, I do have a quibble with the statement made by Burtynsky’s teacher; I believe that fine art can function as decor, make a statement, and evoke wonder simultaneously. In fact, as an example, I would be delighted to hang a Burtynsky Quarries photograph––saw the NYC gallery exhibition––on a wall in my house (if I could afford one) and I am certain that it would function as a decor-like object, make a statement (albeit not a strident one), and most certainly evoke a sense of visual wonder.

In any event, many might wonder why I would choose to put a picture of a quarry on my wall. Most likely, my answer––”I did not hang a picture of a quarry on the wall. Rather, I put a photograph on the wall that expresses what a quarry looks like when photographed.”–– would only further add to their confusion. To take my answer a step further, I would add that, when looking at the photograph, I do not see a quarry; what I see is an image with an amazing amount of visual energy / interest––an organization of lines, shapes, color, tone, form––that pricks my eye and sensibilities.

And, that visual quality in a photograph––a photograph of any thing––is what I most prize in a photograph. That visual quality which, to my eye and sensibilities, is an act of transmutation that is capable of changing an image into a beautiful object, i.e., a beautiful print––in and of itself as an object––which transcends the literally depicted referent.

To be certain, a photograph’s form is intrinsically linked to what is literally depicted. However, that written, my advice #3 is-if you wish to dig deeper into a photograph, do not be distracted / misled by what is literally depicted. A really good photograph is most often about more than that.

# 6967-69 / common places • common things ~ little rectangular worlds

all photos (embiggenable)

“Because of the resolution of working with an 8X10 camera, I found that I did not have to thrust the viewer’s face into something. If I saw something interesting, it could be part of a larger picture that has a number of points of interest. It changes the viewer’s relationship with an image. It is not framing one thing but creating a little rectangular world that the viewer can move their attention around and explore.” ~ STEPHEN SHORE

TO MY EYE AND SENSIBILITIES, THE IDEA THAT, WHEN making pictures, a photographer should “simplify”––that is, in framing a segment of the real world, one should eliminate all “distractions” which might direct attention away from “something interesting”––is simple minded. iMo, that edict, taken directly from the traditional canon of photography, can be accurately interpreted to simply (kinda a pun) mean to, dumb it down. Ya know, cuz simpletons need simple ideas cuz they have simple minds…

… to which I call balderdash!!! In my experience, say, when interacting with viewers of my photographs––which no one would consider to be shining examples of “framing one thing”––that they seem to be eminently capable of walking and chewing gum simultaneously. And, if my memory serves, I can recall only one instance of a viewer having to be revived from an attack of complexity derangement after viewing one of my pictures––fortunately, the gallery had a medic standing by for just such an emergency cuz, apparently, every now and then a simpleton did manage to sneak in the door.

All that written, I am totally down with Stephen Shore’s idea of making little rectangular worlds––albeit, in my case, (primarily) little square worlds. But, that stated, I am also sympathetic to the idea suggested by the Irish poet Peter Kavanagh:

“There is something wrong with a work of art if it can be understood by a policeman*.”

*don’t know what Kavanagh had against policemen.

# 6959-66 / common places • common things ~ what's to gain by letting a picture stare back at you?

pinhole ~ all photos (embiggenable)

FIRST AND FOREMOST, A HEARTY THANKS TO John Babineau who left a comment / suggestion on the just making pictures entry:

“Mark, please read the obit re Peter Elbow in the March 3, 2025 NYT.
Very interesting following this post of yours!”

I very much appreciate this comment as it is remindful of how thing used to be on my blog; readers chipping in with links, references, opinions, and facts, all of which contributed to a rather vibrant vibe. Thanks again John. And now, on with the show….

“I connect to things in a visceral way. There are things that surprisingly move me and often I am shocked at the unpredictable character of these things. The camera is a reflex for me. It rises to my eye and opens up to take in that thing out there––sensation, feeling, cohesive elements that appear in front of me. It is a way of matching and absorbing the response I have to the world. It captures my consciousness and, later, this allows me to read my consciousness back like a text and understand my relationship to things or moments.” ~ Joel Meyerowitz

I HAVE, OVER THE YEARS, AMASSED QUITE A COLLECTION OF quotes––like the Meyerowitz one above––from photographers / creatives that align with my thoughts and practices, re: the medium of photography and its apparatus. Keys points for me in this quote are: connecting in a visceral way / camera as a reflex / taking in that thing out there–sensations, feelings, cohesive elements / and, especially for purposes of this entry, reading my consciousness back to me like a text.

Re: reading my consciousness back to me like a text. A number of years ago I stumbled upon an idea that struck a chord with me; the concept that a photograph is capable of staring back at the viewer––for all intents and purposes, a metaphor for the experience of a good photograph’s capability of holding the attention of a viewer. This fanciful notion captured my interest cuz, like Meyerowitz perceives, my photographs (as wells as photos made by many others)––to use the metaphor––stare back at me and, in doing so, assists me in understanding my relationship to things, moments, and event as encountered in the real world. Call it what you like, the idea that a good photograph––or for that matter, any visual art–– can hold a viewer’s interest ain’t exactly a secret.

That written, the NY Times has a running series, every first-Monday-of-the-month, The 10 Minute Challenge. Each month the Times picks a well known work of art that is presented on a neutral background with the “challenge” for a viewer to look at it for 10 minutes––there is a running timer that the viewer can activate when ready to begin. FYI, a viewer can zoom in/out if desired. After whatever time when a viewer is finished viewing, there is a comment section for the viewer to record what he/she derived from the viewing experience.

The current challenge is a Henri Cartier-Bresson photograph––his famous puddle jumper picture (not my HC-B favorite). This link will take you to the challenge page but the NYT is a subscription site so I do not know if you will be able to take the challenge. Nevertheless, there is nothing from preventing you from selecting a photo (mine or anyone’s) and isolating it on your screen and looking at it for 10 minutes. ASIDE 10 minutes ain’t a mandated / magic number, and, iMo, it is best to let your eye wander about the image instead of zooming in or out END ASIDE

IN any event, you just might see / experience something––a sensation / a feeling / a recognition of cohesive elements––that you probably would have missed with a much more abbreviated viewing.

# 6957-58 / common places • common things ~ good advice

ode to Berence Abbott ~ all photos (embiggenable)

“If a medium is representational by nature of the realistic image formed by a lens, I see no reason why we should stand on our heads to distort that function. On the contrary, we should take hold of that very quality, make use of it, and explore it to the fullest.” ~ Berenice Abbott

FYI, I believe my photo, c. 2008, is of the exact same location as seen in Abbott’s 1935 photo (click on her name above to see her Gasoline Station, Tenth Avenue , NYC, 1935).

# 6951-56 / common places • common things ~ just making pictures

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

WARNING: this entry is a test / experiment. I will fill you in on its intent and results in a couple days.

IN 1945 THE MUSEUM OF MODERN ART MOUNTED an exhibition of 350 photographs called The American Snapshot. Most reviewers asserted that the pictures…

“…. constituted the most vital, most dynamic, most interesting and worthwhile photographs ever assembled by MOMA”. Praised as being “without artistic pretension” and coming “nearer to achieving the stature of true art than any of the inbred preciosities in the museum’s permanent collection or of in any of its previous shows,” the photographs were applauded as “honest, realistic, human and articulate.”

This excerpt from the book The Art of the American Snapshot ~ 1888-1970 is presented cuz I wanted to write about–under my recently adopted propensity for advice giving–making photographs that are honest, realistic, human and articulate and without artistic pretension. Therefore…

ADVICE #2 - stop trying to make art and just concentrate on making photographs.

re: inbred preciosities / artistic pretensions; in the recent movie, A Complete Unknown, there is scene where Dylan and Baez are discussing song writing–Baez is both perplexed and amazed by Dylan’s song writing and is wondering how the hell he does it. Dylan mentions something about his songs being “magically written-a different kind of penetrating magic”.* When she asks Dylan about her song writing, he responds with, “you try too hard.”**

The point, iMo, re: that conversation, is that Dylan, when writing, relied on / trusted a “deep” connection to something he did not necessarily understand and let it flow. On the other hand, Baez, when writing, was hard at work trying to make it work. Kinda a classic example of let it go vs. holding on too tight.

Now I realize that this entry could veer dangerously close to a touchy-feely / singing-Kumbia-around-the- campfire / hippy-dippy free-your-mind exercise. But, here’s the thing, I truly believe that, in the making of something that might, after the fact of making, be considered (by someone other than you) as art, ya gotta feel it, not think it. Ya just gotta let go of the inbred “rules”, conventions, crowd thinking, et al and just do what feels right to your eye and sensibilities.

And, by all means, remember that you are making a photograph, not art, cuz a photograph, by its intrinsic nature, is not art. Rather, it is a mute document that depicts a segment snatched from the real world. What allows a photograph to transcend its “pedestrian”, documentary function–dare I write, to become art–is when a viewer thereof is incited–driven by the photographer’s unique vision–to “see” (feel) something that resides beyond the literally depicted referent.

All that written, lets circle back to the “honest, realistic, human and articulate and without artistic pretension” idea. I believe that the only manner in which to make such photographs is to adopt the amateur snapshot approach to making photographs; something pricks your eye and/or sensibilities then you point your picture making device and activate the shutter release. No thoughts whatsoever to the question, is it art? Cuz, ya know, you ain’t making art, you are just making a photograph.

*something he said he eventually lost and never got back.

**after pointing out that her singing reminded him of the paintings on his dentist’s waiting room walls. Ouch.

# 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.