# 6541-46 / common places-things • around the house • kitchen sink ~ an alternate reality

all photos (embiggenable)

FOR THE BETTER PART OF 2 DECADES I HAVE been making square format photographs. With either a real camera or the iPhone, my picture making procedure has been the same; set the picture making screen view to square and make the picture, open full frame RAW file in PS and crop to square in exactly the center of the image which yields an image exactly as I saw it on the screen of my picture making device. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.

Somewhere along the way-about 18 months or so ago-the monkey wrench gang sneaked into the room and, as is the wont, threw a wrench into the works; i.e. I began to notice that the full frame image suited my eye and sensibilities as much as the square version. In a perplexing manner, both aspect ratios seemed to “work”-differently but, oddly, the same.

The oddness steams from the fact that, in almost every case, the additional image information-top and bottom or left and right (depending on camera orientation)-”fits” perfectly, to my eye and sensibilities, into the picture. I find that very disconcerting inasmuch as that information was not visible on the viewing screen in situ. A fact that throws the traditional picture making adage-”compose”, aka: what to include/ exclude in the frame, carefully-right out the window. Or, at least, right out of my window.

A part of what I am enjoying(?) about this revelation is that the additional visual information creates an image that comes as a bit of a surprise. A pleasant surprise to be exact. That said, it leads to an interesting question; would I have achieved the same result if I had been viewing the in situ scene with the viewing screen set to a full frame view? …. answer: don’t know and probably never will cuz sure as hell I ain’t gonna changes horses in midstream.

Might be time for a photo book titled alternate realities - square format on one page, full frame on the adjoining page.

# 6534-36 / commpn places-things • folliage ~ some men follow their junk

all photos (embiggenable)

RECENTLY, OVER ON T.O.P. , THE TOPIC OF “the most interesting photographer in history” was raised. To define that phrase M. Johnston went on to write, “Interesting meaning fascinating or thought provoking, in any aspect—personal lives, significance, ideas and attitudes, accomplishments, whatever.” Stated that way, I had very little interest inasmuch as I have no curiosity, re:what someone who makes pictures has for breakfast or if that someone picks his/her nose or who might literally, run around in little circles from dawn to dusk. The only saving grace in that descriptor was the inclusion of “significance” and “ideas.”

Having written all that, I can state that the primary interest I have with any photographer is the pictures he/she make or have made. The only interest I might otherwise have, is bit of background on what drove him/her, if applicable, to pick up photography and, minus any art-speak, what he/she believes he/she is trying to accomplish with their work. However, that would only interest me if I found his/her photographs interesting.

So, in any event, I thought, just for giggles and grins, that I would enlighten my readers with my list of photographers who. iMo / to my eye and sensibilities, make interesting photographs…

  1. THE SIGNIFICANT: In a class by themselves, Shore, Eggleston, Meyerowitz, Adams (Robert), Frank. These guys radically changed the idea of what can be photographed and what constitutes a good photograph like no other photographer before them.

  2. THE QUIRKY: Joel-Peter Witkin, Diane Arbus, Martin Parr, Weegee, Paula Klaw.

  3. THE VENERATED: Evans, Stieglitz, Weston, Margaret Bourke White, Porter, Bresson.

  4. THE ONE AND ONLY: Maier

In my personal photobook library, re: Photographer Monographs, I have at least one-in some cases 2 or more-book of each of the above named “interesting photographers”. That written, I have many other monographs by photographers whose work I admire. However, they tend to fall in one or another of the 1-3 categories listed above and I felt that those listed are more than enough for anyone to figure out the kinds of photographs I find interesting.

Burtynsky is one of my favorites (embiggenable)

FYI, a photobook I would emphatically recommend is Photo-wisdom ~ Master Photographers on Their Art;

Through the extraordinary images and insights of 50 of the world's master photographers, Photo-wisdom explores the richness of contemporary photographic practice. Photo-wisdom features commentaries from original interviews with world-leading photographers alongside exquisite reproductions of key images chosen by the artists themselves.The result is an unprecedented collection of 200 images showcasing each master photographer's work and their unique voice. ~ from publisher’s description

Then there’s this review-written by a woman-a customer on a used book site:

It's big, it's beautiful, it's full of photos... but is it really full of wisdom? And if not, do we care? ….there's a lot to learn and a lot to love even if you never read a word of the accompanying first-person essays (mostly taken from interviews). But I do love reading that some photographers rely on luck, some make elaborate plans, and some let their camera lead them around much as some men follow their dicks.

Keep in mind that “contemporary photographic practice “ is c. 2010, when the book was published and also note that the 50 photographers presented range from award-winning photojournalists to celebrity shooters; from politicized environmentalists to elusive artists; from timeless veterans to new visionaries; and from great storytellers to the makers of lasting icons. iMo, the diversity of the practitioners is what makes the book especially interesting.

In any event, the book is highly recommended and it can be found on a variety of used book sites (including Amazon) for very reasonable prices. I purchased my copy in 2012 in an upscale, small storefront, used book store on 2nd Ave. in the East Village NYC. Over a couple decades I visited the store 2-3x a year. It had a photobook section of ever-changing titles in near like-new condition at quite reasonable prices. Not that I am counting, but it is possible that half or more of photobook collection came from this store. Unfortunately, it closed a bout 10 years ago.

FYI, it should be evident from my discursive promiscuity approach to picture making that I am a photographer who-according to the woman reviewer quoted above-falls into the picture-making group that lets their camera lead them around much as some men follow their dicks…guilty as charged.

# 6527-32 / common places • common things ~ I don't miss dust, scratches, or chemicals

all photos (embiggenable)

SO, IT APPEARS THAT M. JOHNSTON WILL BE writing about “film photography”, over time with multiple installments. As far as my visits to TOP go, it will just be more stuff that I barely glance at-way too much O(ff)T(opic) as it already is.

But, then again, I never really considered TOP to be a site about photography. That is, about the medium itself and its and apparatus (practices, conventions, aka: the functional processes by means of which a systematized activity is carried out ). And FYI, to be clear, I do not consider entries about gear-cameras, lenses, computers, and other hardware-to be about photography. That’s cuz I’m sorta like Paul Strand, who, when asked about the importance / significance of his work, answered:

My real answer would be, the answer is on the wall.”

In other words, it is all about the photographs, aka: picture(s). It is not about how the picture was made or what gear was used to make it; that’s all just “serious” amateur hobbyist claptrap. And, to sound a bit snarky, photographs are in very short supply on TOP.

But I digress; if M. Johnston is serious about reaching the “youngsters” who are messing around with making images on film, he’s not gonna make it unless he stops writing and starts talking. Ya know, Vlogging, cuz the photo pipsqueaks out there, according to those in the know, do not read anymore.

That written, I also question the idea of how much-aside from nostalgia-is there out there to be written about the making of photographs with the use of film. I ask that question even though I come from over 40 years of making photographs (with the use of film) and making color and BW prints (in the wet darkroom). And, it’s also worth noting that, to this very day, I continue to believe that the pinnacle of color print making is a C print made from an 8x10 color negative; I made plenty of those and I can identify such a print from a mile away.

And while I’m at it, let me pick another nit; I do not believe that there is such a thing as “film photography”. That’s cuz, in my mind and to my way of thinking, there is only photography, aka: the act of making a photograph. Simply put for simple minds, one may make a photograph using any kind of equipment or light sensitive receptor but the end result is still, simply stated, a photograph….like, ya know, I do not make iPhone photographs; I do make photographs using an iPhone but, that written, the result is a photograph.

All of that written, I wish M. Johnston well in his “film photography” blogging endeavor.

BONUS PICTURE FROM LAST EVENING

(enbiggenable)

My iPhone was turned off, sitting on the arm of my Westport Adirondack chair; I picked it up, hit the Camera Control button, which instantly turned on the camera app, and the I hit the button again-click (shutter release noise)…. and there you have it. Maybe 3 seconds from start to finish. Amazing. Apple got that control right.

FYI, no flash, just my porch light.

# 6514-19 / common places • common things ~ free your mind instead

all photos (embiggenable)

“When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it’s a wonder I can think at all. And though my lack of education hasn’t hurt me none, I can read the writing on the wall.” ~ Paul Simon from the song Kodachrome

THIS SONG LYRIC HAS ALWAYS STUCK WITH me when I think about the idea of going to school-college / university level-for the purpose of learning about how to make good pictures. An idea that, iMo. I believe to be the complete antithesis of how to achieve the goal of making good pictures. That’s cuz, hold onto your hats, I am certain, beyond any doubt, that, in fact, making good pictures cannot be taught. FULL STOP.

For me, this is not a recent conclusion; back in the early-ish day of my commercial photography career, a professor-the same one who brought John Pfahl to my studio for a visit- from RIT’s School of American Crafts / College of Art & Design would bring students from RIT’s School of Photographic Arts and Sciences to my studio on day trips. During those visits I considered it my civic duty to inform those students that, within 5 years of graduation, only 7% of grads would be making a living making photographs. And, to understand that, after learning how to operate a camera, their way around a darkroom (no computers in the photo world at that time), and how not to kill themselves setting up high-powered strobe banks, they would be better served, financially and aesthetically, to get out of school, get a job in some facet of the photography industry, buy ton of film, make a zillion pictures, and, consequently, learn how they see the world.

I am certain that those students were very impressed with my work and studio: nationally-known client work on the walls and in my portfolio. I am also certain that they most likely were more than a little perplexed by the fact, which I drove home quite emphatically, that I had not spent a day, not an hour, not a minute learning anything about photography in a school, workshop, or any other learning institution. Don’t know if anyone ever heeded my advice. But, the simple fact was/is that I figured it all out on my own initiative.

FYI, the only thing I learned from someone else was how to spool 35mm film onto a processing reel; that took all of 5 minutes although it did require quite a bit of practice to consistently get it right.

That written, I did read nearly anything I could get my hands on, photography wise. Primarily, that included popular photo magazines which, sooner than later, I moved away from to read mags that featured photographs, not gear. One notable exception to the magazine focus was a subscription to the Time Life Library of Photography. I ended the subscription after receiving 4 books: The Camera, The Print, Light and Film, and Color. The books were hardbound, beautifully printed, and fairly informative, and, mercifully free from any advice from “experts”.

All of that written, Paul Simon sings that his lack of education didn’t hurt him none. I would suggest that a lack of education ain’t hurt a lot of folks none (to include myself). Like, say, as a notable example, Frank Lloyd Wright: with just a little bit of civil engineering education-no degree-under his belt, he went on to be declared by the American Institute of Architects as "the greatest American architect of all time". In 2000, one of his projects, Fallingwater (I’ve visited many times), was named "The Building of the 20th century" in a "Top-Ten" poll taken by members attending the AIA annual convention in Philadelphia.

In any event, I ain’t agin readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmatic, per se, as long as that educatin’ teaches one how to think. Ya know, so’s yinz can read the writtin’ on the wall.

# 6504-08 / common places • common things ~ in the eye of the beholder

all photos (embiggenable)

I HAVE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED A VERMONT based gallery-PhotoPlace [GALLERY] (link)-that conducts, per their website, “monthly, juried photographic exhibitions to photographers worldwide, each with a new topic and internationally recognized juror”. Their current juried exhibition’s theme is The Poetry of the Ordinary; a theme that is right up my alley.

Over the years I have submitted photos for many of their monthly exhibitions and am pleased to report that on 12-15 occasions (I have not kept count) my work has been accepted for the gallery exhibitions. Considering that there are usually 3-4K worldwide submissions per exhibtion, that is a reasonable accomplishment. In any event, I will be submitting work for the current call for entries which states:

As photographers, we have developed skill in seeing beneath the surface of our subjects, and often find in them the beauty, poignancy, and poetry that exist in ordinary moments. For this exhibition, we seek the simple poetic elegance of the ordinary.

As I wrote, that statement seems to be right up my alley. However….depending upon the juror, he/she might have a very different understanding on the word “ordinary”. For instance, in the 3 example photos on call for entries page, is the spreader in the mist/fog ordinary, or, is the runner with the broom in the smoke(?) ordinary? ….

…..to my and sensibilities, I think not. Inasmuch as the runner himself and the spreader itself are rather ordinary, the circumstances in which they are pictured is seems to be very much out of the ordinary. Of course, what I think doesn’t matter but someone-the juror? the gallery director?-thinks otherwise. And that situation- a differing definitions of what constitutes the ordinary-makes me think my pictures of the ordinary might not be what fits the bill.

Then there is, for me, the idea of “seeing beneath the surface”-an adage / concept that has been bandied about the medium seemingly forever. And, it is a concept about which I am very uncertain, re: what the hell does that mean? I am fairly certain it does not mean that one should elevate / pick up one’s subject to see what’s underneath it. Nor do I believe that it implies that one is making pictures with an x-ray device.

Wise comments aside, the phrase when used as a proposition means: aspects of it-one’s nominal photographic subject-which are hidden or not obvious. That is a meaning which I can embrace-with caveats-cuz in my photographs I try to capture and express something about what I picture that is not obvious to the casual observer-the “hidden”, aka: unseen in situ, but can be made “obvious” in a photograph, aka: form.

The primary caveat I have about making a photograph that is about something hidden or not obvious is that, in my case, I am not photographing something, the referent, which I or most anyone would consider to be, in and of itself, beautiful, poignant, or poetic. Rather, my intent to is to make a object, i.e. a photograph, that, in and of itself, may be considered to beautiful, poignant, or poetic.

Consider the referent in the photos in this entry. No one I can think of believes that, as an example, my kitchen trash can, stove, and floor are beautiful, poignant, or poetic in and of themselves. However, I do believe-please forgive my self-aggrandizing opinion of my work-that the photograph thereof and the form it presents is a beautiful photograph, in and of itself. Or, at the very least, visually interesting. Of course, I am also comfortable with the fact that other viewers may not agree.

All of that written, I can only hope that the juror of the exhibition will agree that one of pictures fits the bill.

# 6500-03 / common places-things ~ simulacrum , relativism, and dinkum oil

all photos (embiggenable)

THERE WAS A TIME MANY YEARS AGO, DECADES in fact, that, on my several iterations ago blog, I was a stanch defender of truth-def: that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality-in photos. What was tiring about discussing that idea was the never-ending, dancing on the head of pin contrarian advocates who wanted wanted to take a deep dive into the philosophical meaning of “truth”. And, as an adjunct position, they also threw in the questioning of the idea of “real”. All of which I found rather unproductive inasmuch as I was interested in discussing the characteristics / conventions / apparatus of the medium, not the meaning of life.

Inasmuch as we photographers are going thru the motions of making simulacrum-def: something that replaces reality with its representation-I believe that the idea of so-called “truth” in a photograph might better be described as representational / visual veracity. That is to write that, if a casual viewer-aka: a non-“serious” amateur picture maker, were to view a straight photograph of some thing-people, place, thing, event, et al-made from the real world and see the same thing in situ, he/she would have no problem recognizing it as being related, reasonably accurately, to that thing as it was depicted in the previously viewed photograph.

That written, if one accepts the idea that photography is unique amongst the visual arts in its unique / intrinsic ability to accurately / convincingly / truthfully (there’s that word again) visually depict a segment of the real, why not employ that characteristic of the medium to create art?

Easy answer; iMo, the most difficult challenge in making art, Photography Division, is doing so without relying on art sauce / cheap tricks to garnish the real with a false pretense. Ya know, like making a “fake” photograph. Say, consider a picture of fall foliage so screamingly over-saturated, color wise, as to be a complete distortion of the real.

Some might ask if it is possible for a photograph to be able to convey a moral / cultural / emotional truth. The answer to that question is simply, “Maybe.” or, most probably, “No.” That is, at least not a clearly unambiguous, universal truth. That’s cuz the question legitimately opens the door to the idea of relativism-the doctrine that truth and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute. For instance, there are those who saw horror and tragedy in the photo of people plunging to their death from the two towers while there were others who, viewing the same photo, saw a scene that incited great joy /celebration and a sense of the fulfillment of their dreams.

In any event, in my picture making I try to stick to the facts of life on this planet. Call it what you will but I currently think of it as the real dinkum oil.

# 6452-54 / kitchen life-sink • around the house ~ some facts of life

all photos (embiggenable)

part of death in the ER sequence from Day In The Life of An Urban Hospital book

The photographer’s bias is for straight photography. For a photograph to be called a “photograph” it should first and foremost be a fact. Insofar as it is not, it is something else. ~ K.B.Dixon

Some facts are crueler than others.

# 6424-27 / common places-things • copy cat ~ the dog days of summer have arrived

ON A RECENT WALK ABOUT IN OLD MONTREAL I made a few pictures that have been added to my art reflects gallery on the WORK page. During that walk about I was quite surprised when I came upon an art gallery window display of a painting that replicates my art reflects work.

Now I know that my art reflects photo book is floating around somewhere in Montreal. However, I don’t know where it is cuz I lost rack of it when it was stolen-I think of that as an act of appreciation-from a hotel lobby in Old Montreal. Consequently, I do not know if the maker of the window reflection art work painting has seen my book-probably not, unless of course, the artist is the one who stole it.

But, in any event, I feel flattered. Cuz, ya know, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.