# 6838-43 / in situ • common places • common things ~

all photos ~ (embigenable)

AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY I OCCASIONALLY SUBMIT photos to the PhotoPlace Gallery for a themed call for entry. Occasionally I get a photo accepted for exhibition, occasionally I do not (my batting average is about .500). The latest call is for “images that reflect the beauty, humor, tension, and humanity found in everyday moments. Whether shot in a bustling city, a small-town fair, or a quiet rural intersection, we’re looking for photographs that tell stories of people, places, and the pulse of the street.” Displayed above are my submissions for this call for entry.

While I submit photos only on occasion, I do visit the site frequently to peruse their library of photo selections for various themed exhibitions. I do so cuz, for a number of years, the gallery has requested that photo submit-ers include their website address in case viewers wish to see more of their work. I find that feature to be a valuable addition to the site.

ALERT pay attention cuz here’s where I fulfill my last entry promise to provide you with a source for finding some damn good straight photography END ALERT

For each exhibition the selected juror–they select a solo juror for each exhibition from a wide pool of persons in the photo world–chooses 35 photos for exhibition in the gallery–in Middlebury, VT.–and online plus 40 more photos for an additional online exhibition. That allows a viewer to view 75 curated photos. And I repeat, curated photos; photos that have survived some sort of judgement and been determined to be suitable to be presented for viewer consideration.

The reason I find this to be a valuable source for discovering some interesting photography practitioners and their work is that most of the calls for submissions are calls for very specific, succinctly themed subject matter that tends to encourage submissions that are created in the straight photography vernacular. It’s rare that I do not find a couple “keepers”–I copy and past the site links in a folder so I can check in on them now and again–in each and every exhibit.

Give it a try and let me know what you think. Ya know, actually leave a comment.

# 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.

# 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.

# 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.

# 6897-6900 / common places (not) ~ sneaking my iPhone into the OR

All photos ~ (embiggenable)

THE GENERAL CONSENSUS WHEN I SLIPPED MY iPHONE out from under my sheet and started making pictures in the OR was one of confusion; “what the hell.”, “doesn’t that guy know where he is?” That written, they went about their business and no one asked me if they should smile.

In case you have not figured it out by now, I will make pictures anywhere I can.

@ 6868-77 / travel ~ excelsior, you fathead

birthday cannoli ~ (embiggenable)

Brooklyn ~ (embiggenable)

Cooperstown~ (embiggenable)

my kitchen + Brooklyn sink with window ~ (embiggenable)

EVERY YEAR-FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS-THE WIFE and I go to Cooperstown, NY where the wife has an annual conference. While she attends the conference, I play golf and hang out around the very upscale hotel on the lake. The trip also coincides with her birthday so we always go out for a nice meal. This year we also went to NYC / Brooklyn for a couple days before heading to Cooperstown (the home of the Baseball Hall of Fame). All of which brings me to the point of this entry…

….I’M MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GONNA TAKE THIS ANY MORE…

To be precise, the “this” in question that makes me mad as hell is any utterance such as:

“It's fantastic for the things it's meant for and designed to do, but it's mainly a communication device. It can be exasperating as a camera.…they”-iPhone files-“fall far enough short of the best "real" cameras that ultimately they're just not terribly satisfying…”

iMo, those who make such utterances are; a) those who have not made the effort to understand the in and outs of how to use the iPhone photo making capabilities, b) those who are not using the RAW capture capabilities or c) don’t know how to process RAW files for maximum results, d) those who, like the commentator quoted above, are using older generation iPhones, and, e) those who are gearheads who make photos that are tack-sharp with saturated color and high dynamic range but are, nevertheless, rarely worth a second glance.

Now, to be certain, I am not proposing that an iPhone “camera” is ideal or well suited to every picture making task or that it can “satisfy” every picture maker’s aesthetic. However, that written, I am emphatically emphasising that it is perfectly capable of producing photographs that are as good-that is, expressing the intent of the photographer-any other picture making device.

Any one (me, being a prime example) who has used a wide variety of cameras-8x10 / 4x5 view cameras, medium format cameras, 35mm cameras, Polaroid cameras, and the like-knows that every camera has its own distinct peculiarities, both in their use and their rendering results. However, the only thing that matters to the picture making artist is that any given camera helps in producing his/her picture making intent.

All of the above written, just let me declare that, in a “perfect” picture making universe, I wish that picture makers would just pick whatever camera device is best for them and their intent and vision-if they even have one-and then keep their fucking yap shut and concentrate on making pictures that “satisfy” their eye and sensibilities. I might not like their pictures but that sure as hell it won’t be because of the camera they used.

FYI, during the 6 day trip I covered a lot of ground, picture making wise. l returned with 25 “keepers” which spanned multiple photography genres: landscape, street, people, night, and still life. All of the pictures were made with my iPhone 24 PRO Max camera device set to produce RAW files. And, to my eye and sensibilities, the results were very satisfying and, BTW, the “cmaera” served all of my picture making intents very well, thank you very much.

# 6859-63 / common places / things ~ a day in the life

woke up. looked out the front door. made a picture. ~ All photos (embiggenable)

drank coffee, had a donut. went upstairs to get dressed. made a picture.

after a doctor appointment went to grocery store. made a picture.

went back home. went upstairs to warm up the cocktail hour porch. made a picture.

late night just before retiring noted part of an 8 year old arrangement on the fireplace mantel. made a picture.

SO ALL THIS STUFF ABOUT COLOR PHOTOGRAPHY HAS ME thinking, re: forget about defining what may or may not constitute a good color photograph and/or photographer. Instead, how about defining what constitutes a good photograph independent of categorization- i..e., bw / color, street / still life / landscape / et al.

CAVEAT there can never be a universal definition cuz, as Julian’s grandmother said, “For every pot there’s a lid.” Itaque, the definition found herein is decidedly influenced by my bias(es).

It would be easy, and a cop-out, to just quote Ansel Adams and be done with it:

“There are no rules for good photographs. There are only good photographs.”

On one level that makes some sorta sense. Although, yes, he was most likely offering an opinion about rules, as in, you don’t need no stinkin’ rules to make a good photograph. However, the fact of the matter is that, if there are good photographs there must also be not-so-good (bad?) photographs-plenty of which were made by the rules. In any event….

My photographs-and those which give me viewing pleasure made by others-tend to be driven by an openness to every picture making possibility the world offers. An openness-sorta like making photographs “to find out what something will look like photographed” (Garry Winogrand)-which is akin to curiosity. That is, a curiosity which recognizes that any thing in life, if accurately and profoundly penetrated by “seeing…observation full and felt” (Walker Evans) is interesting and always strange.

My photographs-and those made by others which give me viewing pleasure-most often present interweaving repetitive visual elements of line, shape and color. Nevertheless, the recognizable individuality of any motif is superseded by its role in the pictorial whole. It is the resultant pictorial effect, not the technique, that predominates. The whole is indeed is greater than the sum of its parts. And, I might add, the whole is most often greater than that which is literally depicted.

I am not interested in technique beyond having enough to get the job done. And, the last thing I would want to be evident in my photographs is how they were made. To wit, Robert Adams said it best:

“…if the goal of art is to be reached, only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace.”

My photographs-and those made by others which give me viewing pleasure-always dwell in the two dimensional world. That’s cuz there ain’t no 3D in the world of photography. It’s flat as pancake, paper (substrate) thin and best viewed-and pictured-in that perspective. Apologies to stereoscopic practitioners.

All of the above written, I suppose I could have just written that my photography pursuits have the goal of suggesting that the commonplace is a never-ending, ever-changing world of visual patterns / forms which present the opportunity for the making of interesting, strange, and therefore, to eye my and sensibilities, beautiful pictures. I also like pictures made by other like minded picture makers. Although, I am always open to surprises.

# 6854-57 / common things ~ perfect color (no such thing)

all photos ~ (embiggenable)

AS THE IDEA / CONCEPT OF COLOR IS BEING BATTED AROUND on TOP, the topic, as is most often the case, devolves into the malarky and flapdoodle world wherein the need for understanding the interaction of color, both a practical and a theoretical understanding, is consider to be de rigueur for the making of a “perfect” color photograph. Ya know, so you can use color as a colorist, rather than as an incidentalist.

In the entry, examples of good ‘great color photographers are given by many. Amongst the names, Saul Leiter is mentioned repeatedly. iMo, very good example but….I doubt that Leiter ever gave much of a tinker'‘s damn about understanding the interaction of color, both as a practical and a theoretical matter. Consider Leiter’s own words:

“I think that mysterious things happen in familiar places…I like it when one is not certain of what one sees. When we do not know why the photographer has taken a picture, and when we do not know why we are looking at it, all of a sudden, we discover something that we start seeing. I like this confusion…I think that I learned to see what h see and do not see. One of the things photography has allowed me is to take pleasure in looking. I see this world simply. It is a source of endless delight.”

iMo, the nano-second that you starting thinking about color when making a photograph, that is the moment that you screw up the process, i.e., you lose the delight of simply looking and begin making a photograph according to the rules. iMo, ya gotta just look and feel it.

ASIDE While I consider Leiter’s work a forerunner of fine-art color photography-inasmuch as he did use color film in his picture making-nevertheless, my thinking is rather conflicted, re: the idea that he was as color photographer. It seems, based upon the fact that he was an experimental-ist when it came to what color film to use. He regularly “explored” the color distortions of expired films and the unpredictable color renditions found in the emulsions of small-manufacturer’s films.

To my way of thinking, Lieter was not utilizing the actual colors of the actual world in the making of his pictures. Rather, he was sorta playing around with the color renditions of one of the tools of the medium, aka: film. So, does that make him something other than a color photographers? A color distortion-ist photographer, perhaps?

That written, his color work-whatever one wishes to call it-is a delight at which to look.