cover ~ a pastiche
sample images ~ (embiggenable)
I AM CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN A “FINAL” EDIT OF my photographs for my Adirondack Survey project / book, now known as in situ ~ an ADIRONDACK GUIDE. The process involves selecting 80 photos for the book, culled from the approximately 300+ project photos. Those 300+ were, in turn, culled from 3-4,000+ (est.) photos made during the past 26 years of my residency in the Adirondack Forest Preserve, AKA: the Adirondack Park.
It is worth pointing put that this project, in fact, was not a project, per se, or, at least, not one with a conscious intent to create a body of work; rather, it was, quite simply, just me going about my life carrying a picture making device and making pictures of those things which pricked my eye and sensibilities. My picture making was very much in the manner of Saul Leiter’s idea of, “I don’t have a philosophy, I have a camera.”
Consequently, it was only until quite recently that I realized the work’s potential as a possibly significant body of work cuz the fact is that nothing has ever been undertaken, photography wise, on this scale. That is to write, nothing, re: having to do with everyday life as lived in the Adirondacks. Sure, sure, a significant host of photographers have spent a lot of time and effort–over the past 100+ years–picturing the scenic / natural “wonders” of the region. Ya know, like, say…. Eliot Porter and his Forever Wild: The Adirondacks published in 1966.
That written, I have never, in all the time I have spent in the Adirondacks–starting in the early 1950s but only since the mid 70s with a serious picture making intent–pursued the making of pictures in the pretty–calendar–art picture making genre.
In any event, what really caused me to start thinking about my work–in the last few months–as a serious body of work was re-reading John Szarkowski’s essay in William Eggleston’s Guide wherein he expressed this idea about Eggleston’s pictures:
“[a pictures is after all just a picture] …. perfect irreducible surrogates for the experiences they pretend to record, visual analogues for the quality of one life, collectively a paradigm of a private view….”
That idea expresses exactly–or close to exact–what I feel about my pictures; visual analogues for the quality of one my life and collectively a paradigm of a my private view. CAVEAT re: quality of my life / paradigm of my private view; most certainly not my entire life nor the entirety of my private view, re: my complete picture making M.O., just that of the last 26 years END CAVEAT
I am not comparing my work to that of Eggleston. My concept of extracting pictures from the everyday fabric of life–which is nothing new nor unique to Eggleston–is indeed akin to Eggleston’s M.O.. However, the manner of how I see, aka: my vision, is not very similar to Eggleston’s manner of seeing. Neverthless, that written, I do believe that both of our bodies of work are similar in the fact that the photographs “work” best when viewed together in a series / book. And, when viewed as a whole, I believe that both bodies of work convey a a very engaging, private view of a sense of place.
Addendum: re: the new cover. I hope it is perceived in the spirit in which it is intended–that of a pastiche (that which imitates the style of another artist as a form of homage). Now if I can sell a print of it for $578,000USD I’ll a happy guy.
